New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1860-05-31
SIrEn srATEs coMMIssIoNERs oFFICE-M.y 30
SUPREME COURT-CHANBHRs-MAY 60.
Before Justice MULLIy.

the action papers the motion setting forth Mr.
stouts removal and Mr. Pstts appointment .m,.,.,
Mr. Haw which set forth that Mr. Stout had already hed his
bond n his Office and he advised and believed Mr. Stout
had not been legally the Office of Chamberlain
that prior 20 the alleged removal by the Board OF Aldermen the
Board had IN decided the Chairman pro
The affidavit then read 1t set forth that there
ordinance compelling the Chamberlain of the City
New ok to interest the money IN his hands and suc
any official charges of misconduct in that respect being made
against him, end had no opportunity OF answering them VII ne
heard the alleged appointment OF Mr. Ptt While wa not
incumben, upon him interest he was at all times ready TO
obey any law ordinance that might be passed on matters ap
pertaining to his office No demand had ever been made To nun
Nj Field said that proceedings Of the Board
PoRsIs % Which he npnosed could not be taken into consider
On on this notion Re ccntended that the had
jurisdiction in the natter all he had to do was to approve the
Of his appointment certified by the CLERK the Common
ell The Controller had no tight to declare whether M Fiat
10 approve bond The night Of office could not be tested
wit Of must come up On VIII o. quo tbe
the question would be raised upon the WIZ Of madaaq
been approved II the officer who approved the oond bad me
power % decide then any appointment might be defeated MI
the question title If hs learned friend did not 90 into it. he
mt Evarts admitted that the Mayor and Aldermen by the
2st section Of the Charter had to remove for caue
no. AVN sTI b & n Of Hp 1850 II was not necessary
that should be assigned removal It was only in case
Of suspension that must be assigned If cause were ne
eeasary Mayor and Aldermen judge of the suh
Cheney Of the cause and Their judgment was conclusive Mr.
Mr. conended that Mr. Haws the head Of the de-
pGrmen in which the Chamberlain chief Of bureau MI
Haw could not be called upon bond til the app
presented that bond Office He could not act in
chief Of department under him The giving of the bonds and
Their approval hsd nothing 70 40 with tne o, 1e
ing in Court If Mr. Plat were not in Office the nonapproyal
approval did not him in Office The approval would be in the
h Of an Implied sdms0n on the part Of the head Of de-
department Mr. Plat must be In condition to show this
that the title Of Office could not be tried this motion, then
this could not be; and it followed necessarily
to take step which Could be taken only in favor Of
person in Office Mr. Plat was not in the office, he must
least have right to the Office, msndaus
granted TO any invoking its favor unless he had clear legal
title the office 1t apparent that unless Stout
moved Plat stranger clothed with auy office Mr..
Haw OF fact that he had City Chamberlain in his
been no proper showing
appointment and he was thereto entitled 70 reject such ey
the mandanus could be- Mr. Patt must have title to
that Rs he Ss IN e but that the other them the
dmus could not be sustained Mr. Eyas eontended that the
sId es m9om S lo ,nat 'r a SIM nar o. sp gge
end could be except according The Mayor
under the charter had the power with the Aldermen to remove
tn Chamberlain for c0uSe-fer and not pleasure ii
mOy a. rig had been attempted by the Mayor the removal
The Court here took for few minutes After recess
Mr. Eys his Te%s The ad q PySs i0S
Of REMOVAL y esTe and removal for pleasure When he
law said did not caprice The law only had said
hat ia say for known to the law There dsuc
ton between removal for caprice and removal for cause The
had been removed for not allowing interest the moneys in his
hands The question then this sufficient cause He
not paying for money which he dared not touch The Cham
dosT the City Treasury except
pay the city What then became Of the absurdy Of the
interest on the large balances in ii. hands when
he did not have one dollar in f' hand,l Let
the City Government II they wanted, tsy that the city
funds should be placed in the bank giving the largest interest and
Chamberlain could say That the rule had to obey it,
There cause because MIR Stout did make contract
interest On that subject there Was no law no ordnance nor
custom The general principles Of justice required that when
he should know the evidence II there no legal
fell to the ground Il was no repoaeh to Nh Stout no asper
sion 70 any SssIs OF t Goyernpent to De removed az the
removed fault and when they removed they had night
to know what the fault r Evar cited authos rites in
support Of this vew If the Mayor had removed MI stou for
could the Mayor for wlul violation duty True
upon had lie raised the question If the Mayor hadsad
Stout on motion, would be reinstated IT, tiin the
Mayor assigned causes s Which had no legal .appoI
text they fe to the ground any would cause
the Mayor could what he pleased in his removal q officers
He might Soy, As 1t Is fine morning remove Mr. A. "
Stout that because the Japanese have arrived Mr. Stout
coming If such the Law then that which his Honor
and they endeavored uphold would become oec of
in the Office cheer then tho Mayor might remove Mr. Stout
because be would speculate in the public moneys He might
remove him because ne honest and then have that
might put another rogue in an honest mans place The
Mayor might remove because @ Stout would not contribute
bis pohcal election All these hypothses were not more a
grant unreasonable than the assigned by the Mayor
legal cause must be assigned Mr. Eysrts cited English
hoiy IN support Of this View There must be fault not in
The removing power but in the removed:
The Cont observed that the only question at st time before
bin as to his right to go into the cause Of removal
s and this constituted the distinction between removal
u
md there did not exist concurrence Of that Board The
pce t ser the adjournment Of the Board No legal meeting
'the Board could take place till the next appointed meeting Of
he Board And therefore the removal of Mr. Stout invalid
he approval Of the bonds not necessary step place Mr.
NJ F GSe e be r Sss f ts to The once had
m %th The % t. 0 me %ho1 sPRyng his Remarks to the
Gsa 70 M ctiI lad NO ,s AT, ne nsa already done
poD the Controller, who bad control him II the ap
moved not every officer hold Office till ks was
Dy qualified and how could they Gust Nj Stout unless M Plat
duly qualified The oath and bond had to be- taken filed
hin Is days or the Office word be vacsted pr Plat by
notice the lSh but he had been delayed by the nego
MS FysTt.DDo YOU bls ne the Controller for that
M Eed- do not ssy The. DO M Field sontended thst
M Plat showed coolaDs u' 1 Wa go"sn ~ ay 'ne
gh be brought this question but "a II had he would pro
discuss Il removal might be made without cause
divided the Aldermen eoncur pension being in the mind
the Mayor alone must be for II he was wrong in that
|
moving power That removing was the Mayor and Al
ren who could pass upon the adequacy snhciency
the He conteDded that notice need be given and
support Of st view the history OF the removal OF Re
Hors shO removed In 1871 because he made an
proper demand in the Gentwoh frauds lie removed
notice Of which Recorder Morris complained In his
70 the P9 st that o ge Jessn ne, s s
that The funds which might bear &20oc0 interest did
1 bring in cent.
The Aldermen night be bod the gentleman claimed
cd Others said they II they bad the Court
Id not interfere only Tor thu people 10 interfere. Let
elect honest and tho the better With respect
the adjournment OF the Board, not regular adjourn
emit and all the OF the Board present during the
enng present Ut s subsequent proceedings which