Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1859-08-23

Ii met at the usual hour, the President, w.
= oove. Esq, in the Chair
..,,,,,rmicatio was received from John Car
Iii Brent. the Secretary OF the National Monu-
r'll association, returning the thanks Of the
heH - to the Board for the promptitude and
s,li,v with which they responded to the APP
Aog ,,n hsb,lf Of the Washington National Monu-
~, and expressing the hope that this handsome
mem s,;or On the part Of the corporate bodies of
,ity win be soon imitated by others through
ont the Republic H.,
,snf: Thomas Bayne and others, In relation to
Of NM of Greet; Patrick Fitzpatrick, for re-
80, Of a fine were REFERRED
W,ir nd resolutions reported and passed A
ne H" ,,solut on authorzing the republication of
IN ri.r Charter. The resolution authorizes the
tIe and binding of fifty copies of the City
k,-tsT for the Of the Corporation A bill for
,sl;ef q MarcelluS Marceron; bill to CON-
- street west from Maryland 10 Virginia
.ng.s- a bin tn Indemnify Andrew Rothwell
e. damage done pavement in front Of his property
~ rarridgeS in consequence of the carriage way
- rom Rhode Island avenue to Bound ,ry 81
sbill making an appropriation TO grade Sixth II
80, from Pennsylvania To Maryland avenues; a
bll making an appropriation to pay for the cree
.son Of the late election barricades
NJ. Dunnngton, from the police committee, to
,r;.ou Was referred the nominations of Buckner
E.ylfs and. VIM Orme, for Commissioners of
t5cCentre Market, submitted the following report
tb. conmsni cation Of the Mayor reuominating
RTrkner Bavliss and William 0rme for Commits,
.;oasr Of the Centre Market, ask leave, respect
fIliv to make the following report:
Ola the 18th dly Of July last, Messrs Bayliss
nd Orme were rejected by this Board On the
X; day Of the present month the same individuals
werr again nominated, and again rejected. On
the s;h instant they were renominated, and for
tbethird time rejected No reasons were given
bytbe NavOr for this extraordinary action towards
the BOard Of Aldermen.
on the 18th Instant however. the Mayor for the
fourth time renOminated Messrs Bayliss and Orme,
s,d accompanied the nominations by written
r,.Sslge in which he claims 10 he governed by
the decision of the Circuit Court i'm the case of
Miller rs. The Corporation of Washington the
o-fn1uce Of this Iorporation regulating the meet
ms and sessions Of the City Councils the absence
Ct formal charges involving their integrity or
Qualifications, &c, &c.
Your committee are Of opinion that the case be-
FIRE the bo1rd is stronger one than that of Miller
In the eyerCise Of the legal right conferred upon
The Board of Aldermen by the charter of ls,D they
have three times rejected the nomnati ops now he
foe the board The following 10 the provision of
The charter referred TO- VIZ: "He the Mayor shall
nguinate, and. Uifh hs eonseH, of the Board of
sH.rHlsn. appoint 20 all Offices under the CORPORA
ucn except commissioners of election , and ma v
emoye any such officer from office at his will ana
plsls1re. He shall appoint persons to I'LL up all
vsrancies which may occur during the recess of
ris Board of Aldermen, TO hold such appoint
ments until the end Of the ensuing session .
The Mayor contends that, as there has been no
recess he can nominate over and over again the
rejected persons.
Ia the words Of Judge Dunlop: alt is plain, il
THIS is the true construction of the city charter
there is no check in the Board of Aldermen on the
MAYORS power Of appointment To office They
Navo5's will =
Your committee admit that IL a nomination
should fail by the enactiOn of the Board of Alder
men, or vacancy occur by death, resig nation, or
The 49,
point temporarily in the recess subject to the az
uOl Of the next session Of the Board
Your committee contend, however that when a
noainaticn ts rejected IN The manner prorideG by
ar. the rejected nominations should not he again
ssItO toe Board, except upon additional testino-
" and al the request OF some member who voted
against tae confirmation. This position is sus-
ulaed BY Judge story, in his Commentaries. In
tracing Of the powers In the Federal CONSTITUTE on
O. appoint to Office aud to fill vacancies he saws.
And IN case Of rejection, the most that can he
sd IS that lie (the Presidency had not his first
fhgiGe. He VIII have wide range of select on
sad hS responsibility TO present another candidate
eahrey qualified for the ONCE will be complete
aad ungQestiOnedn '.By vacancies they under
soOd to be meant, vacancies occurring from
death, resignation, promotion or REMOVAL The
word happen had rel1tion to some casualty not
provided for by law"
The following remarks of Judge Dunlop. in the
case Of Miller VS.. the Corporation Of Washington
!oei committee are OF opinion, applies to the case
ae'r i no casualty the rejection is an event con-
empated BY law and provided for by law The
'hi-f power Of the Mayor I'm the city charter over
PfOlhunrnis To ONCE, is to nominate, and, with
zee consent OF the Aldermen, TO appoint. But II
u Doctrine Of the Mayors counsel is true the
eseck VI the Aldermen is a delusion, and their
aa'40'ty In approving or rejecting appoi ntments
:, nHDtG2a,ed The Mayor, under the lesser power
- make temporary appointments, In the recess of
tle e0Vrulnate branch of the city government
u,aSS 10 himself the whole control over the city
m. =, aud keeps in ONCE permanently, or at
l-as9 during his own entire term of Office public
oheer over and over again rejected bv the Alder
ma a1d In defiance Of their rejection Again
NJ StS " IL must be presumed the Aldermen
ECU In good filth, and believed the officer unfit
l'- 'he stiton, at all events they have SO deter
I-hed II they haze abused their power. they are
slsNtranle 10 the people who elected them The
s-a'sf gave them authority to act on the nomina-
ana 70 reject II. The charter required the
..aaNu' 70 consult them in the appoi ntnlent and
ttHr1 have given their advice The assent of both
.TTfufed 70 Invest the appOintee with the Office
-. HS Aideriien have refused their assent and
NJ LIN, "a the aPPoihtee By the charter although
Auefinen cannot say who shall I'LL the YACHT
4ye '1ey have right To say who shall not fII n.
nj, " Tue case of ID. Miller they have said he shall
tucker, Of Virginia, one of the creates,
I'M Is.,1 ai lawyers that ever graced the bench
tEr tere upon the Constitution delivered AT
To,,., 'sfsity OF Virginia, In speaking of the
toIa,sI nomination and continuation used the
,,,,on Z language, which is direct in its appli-
- NC present case, To wit:
8; .OhOhllGte the same man. after his rejection
.snt - pe'aate an appointment without the con-
irtso.. -ne Senate Certainly this cannot be- the
49,. oj OF the Constitution for il would defeat
$50 uinaie power Of appointment which il has
Lays zen zen one and two hundred nominations
ali I'M, - ~ % the present board by the Mayor
mai - NO Oi which have been confirmed For
riff,s.- res having been made by respectable
MI. "SIih>t The Com ssioners of the Centre
M. a'l referred to the committee on malice
H. Iii'Ne, upon investigate on found most of
r. - sustained by the evidence
tohiHlitee. however desiriuy In deal n.
- .yF as posi- bic with the ConmisSionerS g,ve
a. a. ne benefit Of the belief that the vifsncs
-. a' show that the violations were with tIsi,
on So - tHouSh the committee were of the
. 49,, :, ~ was the duty of the CouImis soners
II Vtelr TePeFt they unaninou.Iy Ella A., A..
ctr. NE. .ne late appraisement Of stalls in the
Is NO, ,,ps 'Ael manlfestly onerosA and uniust -
No, r., ''i' suincient cause of friction! We do
p.sr "A Z; PP'eSsVe, UNJUST or overbearing officers
r.r,S- pusinon To- control the bust ness of any
jo-r,,.,,;- we community. The officers of the
obi t Ion soouId be- men Of such fair and hon
Corlo, 'aeterS as would do equal Justice 10 the
49,. on and the citizens Their dutv il IN
-, We Interests Of the Coronation no, IN an
IEulViduSlS classes In the ,ommnnIci
o.. o. ,eAetfed 70 your committee the Navor savs.
.-,t Is a'seiice II any formal charges iayolyInO
o., integrity or qualifications think il du, 70
- az ere SIS OF city IL testify i'm this firm