New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1860-06-19
MUNICIPAL OFFICES.

The decision Of the Supreme Court upon the
question of the Chamberlaincy hardly corresponds
with the ideas hitherto prevalent as to the tenure
of Offices under the City Charter. 1t was gen.
orally supposed that the Legislature, in giving to
the Mayor and Aldermen power to remove the
heads Of departments for cause" did not intend
that power of removal to be exercised except for
some valid and substantial cause. The construc-
ton put upon these words by the Supreme Court
is that they merely require some cause to be as
signed for the removal. OF the validity Of that
cause the Mayor and Aldermen are, SO the Court
says, the exclusive judges. There exists no power
with authority to review their proceeding in this
behalf the sole restraint upon them in the exercise
of this power Of removal being their responsibility
to the people at the next ensuing election.
With such Mayor and such Aldermen as we
now have or are likely to have that responsibility,
we apprehen6, is not likely to have any great
weight The additional control over elections and
their managers to be obtained by placing all the
city departments in the hands of those who will
distribute the municipal patronage with view to
that object, Will be apt to be esteemed as more
foirS W nhy MISREPRESENTATION w thC
part of the public which such removals may occa-
sion. Mayor Wood has always been strenuous
advocate Of the " one-man power" in the admin.
istraton of municipal affairs. He always de-
nounced the Legislature Of 1857 as tying up the
hands Of the Mayor. Now that by the aid of the
Supreme Court he has been able to cut the cord,
or at least to slip his hands out of it, we may
pect that the operation performed upon Chamber
lain Stout will speedily be extended to others.
If il be desirable to give to the heads of the city
departments good behavior tenure of their Offices
during the periods for which they are appointed,
some different plan must be resorted to than that
which the Supreme Court have by their decision in
the Chamberlain's case substantially nullifed.
Tie mere fact that the appointment of new
officer rests with the same persons who possess
the power to remove the old one, will in itself
operate as a perpetual stimulus to removal for
causes merely nominal or frivolous There are also
very serious objections to vesting in the courts OF
law the authority which by its late decision the
Supreme Court has declared to assume Of sitting in
judgment upon the validity of causes upon which
warrant, may be made. 1t might produce great
Inconvenience, confusion, and interruption of bust
ness while the question of the validity of the war
rant was pending before the courts. Moreo yer, the
courtshaye quite much ashley anpossibly attend
to in the decision Of the regular cases that come
before them, without being called upon to exercise
a supervision over the doiDgs Of the Mayor and
Aldermen. Perhaps the best thing that could be
done might be to give this power of removal to tie
Governor, only to be exercised, however, upon the
representation Of the Mayor and Aldermen, and
for cause, set orh by them, but of the suficiency
of which the Governor should be judge.