New-York daily tribune., 1858-04-17

The official opinion Of the Counsel to the COrpo-
ration upon the question Of the power of the Mayor
| and Aldermen to remove the Stree. Commissioner
[ ia a most extraordinary document The learned
Counsel begins by affecting to understand the ques
| tCn submitted 70 him in an absurd and selfcOntra
dictory sense. The Aldermen ask him in plain and
simple terms Has the Mayor, with our concur
renee the power, under the City Charter, to re-
| move the Street Commissioner understand yon
| to meaD, replies the Corporation Counsel IAN ab
".olute removal, with cause in the exercise OF an
arbitrary power;" and go understanding your
question, soy No to it.
| Ia putting this absurd and selfc0ntradctory io-
terpretation on the Adermens question, was it the
intention of the Counsel to the Corporation to
hold that body up to ridicule and contempt Its
easy to understand what is meant By removal with
csuse II is also easy to understand what is meant
by removal in tie exercise of arbitrary power,
but removal with cause in the exercise of an
arbitrary power" is contradiction IN terms 10
remove IN the exercise Of an arbitrary power IS to
remove without cause. To settle the question thus
raised not BY the Aldermen but by the Counsel him
self il was not necessary to refer to the Charter.
Common sense is sufficient to decide that no power
Of arbitrary removal with cause can be vested in
tie Msyor aud AldsrmeD, or in anybody else
The learned Counsel next addresses himself to
prove that the Mayor and Aldermen do not possess
an arbitrary power of removal without cause. Upon
the questiOn-the only one which has any bearing
upon the existing state Of affairsdo they possess
the power of removing with cause ;? the learned
gentleman is exceedingly chary of giving any ln-
formation He does however, Incidentally state
Il % his opinion that the Mayor has power to sus-
mend the Street Commissioner for cause and that
ain the event of the suspension being approved oy
"the Board of Aldermen, such suspension may De-
come operative as a removal from othce. IL
would seem then that, after ALL ANXIOUS as the
Counsel to the Corporation seems to be 70 keep
Deylin in Office, he cannot venture to dispute
| tbat. ..for cause" the Mayor and Aldermen have
| power TO remove him. The learned gentleman
would SEEM however, to imply that in his opinion,
| this cannot be done until Deylin shsl first have
been put upon trial and convicted "To be consid-
cred innocent of crime until convicted upon com
"petent proofs, is" he informs the Aldermen ." an
"absoute right; the most f0rorn and friendess prls-
"oner in criminal dock is charged, indicted and
..tried before the sentence Of condemnation which
"remoyes him from society is pronounced. Justice
land d,cency concur in maintaining this rule OF
proceeding inhexlble. All laws must be con-
"strpedwith reference to the protection of the gov
| erIed."
What precisely the learned counsel is driving at
in sll this and where eventually he might come up,
il is not easy to see. Throughout the whole of this
| document he seems to have proceeded on the idea
that the great use of language is not to express bu.
! TO concesl ones opinions. Does the learned gentle
man intend 10 imply that in his view no cause for
removal would be sufficient short of an Indictment,
| trial snd conviction in a criminal Court for OBJ
tsiniug money from the city treasury under false
pret,nses, or, does be intend to express the opn-
ion that before acting on the question Of Deyn's
removal the Aldermen are bound to give him
| hesr,np. and not 70 remove bin except case be
made out sufficient to support a criminal prose
cution
Either Of these views Of the case confounds two
things essentially difierent-the rights of man as
a citizen snd al individual and his rights as pub
lie officer. The doctrine that man has property
|
holding il for his own private benefit, does not obtain
smong US. The theory is that Deyln has been ap-
pointed Street Commissioner not for his own good
but for the good of his fellow Citizens Removal
from Office BY the Mayor and Aldermen is not in
tended by the City Charter to be punishment for
taen.es committed aud proved. The Mayor and
Aldermen are invested with that power merely BY
wsy of protection TO the citizens. And We sppre-
bend. with all due Difference to the learned Cor
por.tion Counsel. that the Law with respect to
such removals is to be construed not in reference
70 the protection of Mr.. Deylin or any other officer
in the possession of his Office, but rather in refer
ence 10 the protection of the citizens against any
probable evils to which they might be exposed by
iis remaining in t. A public officer, especially oae
IN 4 postion such rs that ci the Street Comm,s-
40, e. oucht. Ike Caesar. wife, to be shove su..
p.cou. n, p,udr,,y of such gray- chare-' Is
srcI,v. iars.oe over D"'tu's hrad. totally H.
qls. lies la from ho.d-ns Ia: chce /. he hai