Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1870-08-01
Csrporatseu Appoiutments-T Fire
DeUartmeut.

anu positions IN the FIRE Department, now JUDI
| cially. depending, excites interest not only
among members of that department, but in city
officers generally, because Of the questions
raised which involve the power of executive
! appointment. 1t might be presumed that the
| same power and the same laws which authorized
Mr.. Bowen two years ago to dismiss an expe-
rienced and contessedly most efficient Fire De-
supersede men of less experience aud less eff
| cheney, to say nothing of the acknowledged dis
orderly, and even criminal, conduct OF a
few OF their number. 1t may be said,
however, that the citizens unceremoniously re-
moved by Mr.,Bewen, did not appeal to the
courts, whilst his own appointees. having a
greater hankeriDg after ''spoils," are determ-
ined TO secure to themselves every cent they can
| extort from the public treasury. But it is not
necessary to dilate on this branch OF the subject
One of the questions involved in the case at
issue is, what is an Office" Websters Diction-
airy, an acknowledged authority. defines the
term, in its political sense, as follows:
"oPFICE: A particular duty, charge. or trust
conferred by public authority. AMI for public
purpose; an employment undertaken by COM
who administer it,"
According to this cefnition, the correctness
of which will not be questioned the mem ers OF
the Fire Department are officers of the Jrpor-
alton. They are charged with an in portant
public duty by the municipal government, for
which they receive an annual salary. and which
invests them TO some extent with police powers
and other special privileges. And their reStora-
ton is asked on the ground that they are OIL
GERS.
II these persons be ''osicers, !" then the City
Councils erred in enactin., an ordinance which
subjected them to appointment and removal by
other officers known a. "Pire Commissioners"
But the error in this case was Oft G same kind
as had reNiOusly occurred in r, ference to the
Off GERS of the almshouse, the school trustees
and the police magistrates, whom the two 'oards
of councils assumed the power some years ago
to elect in joint meeting. When the matter YVES
brought under review in the late circuit court.
(lS5, y the case Immediately involved being that
NJ hn lion INTO h..
after argument that the selection OF these ma
gistrates by the two boards was nudity, the
power OF appointment being vested in the
Mayor; but the court held nevertheless that the
judgments rendere by the magistrates were not
void by reason of the error of the councils and
the acquiescense of the Mayor and allowed tue
magistrates to continue to act until the mistake
could be rect.'ied by regular nominations.
Therefore, according 10 the principle of that
decision OF the Circuit Court, if the members of
the Fire Department he officers the error of the
Councils in having improperly framed their or
dinanCe cannot affect the acts of the appoint e.
Neither can 1t in any way benefit the perss -
removed, because if they be office they are
removable at the "lcW and pleasure" OF the
Mayor, who, 1t may be presumed, would not
hesitate promptly to exercise this authority of
removal in AL cases where he may deem II cs-
seEtial to the public interest
This is n power of witch the Mayor cannot he
Invested under existing law. In the language
OF the charter, tsee the third section OF the act
OF Congress approved 18th May, 1921 "He
shall nominate, and, with the consent OF the
Board OF Aldermen, appoint 70 ALL Offices Qn'ler
ne CO. pordtion. except commissioners OF e'"c-
ton,) and may remorc any such officer from Office
at has ICiN and Tie0sure."
What, then, is to be gained by the discarded
members If 1t shall be determined that they
have been improperly removed? II they be
. officers" the Mayor has the power summarily
toremoye them, and If merely employees they
are subject to removal in the same manner "a
employees of the Commissioners of the Aim
house. the Board Of School Trustees, or of the
commissioners OF the several Wards, all of
" n inv ST. "A .
ants or workmen in carrying out the objects of
their appointment. There is no law which for
bids the displacement of an emplOye at any time
when the authority which employed him NAV
deem his services unnecessary or NAV elect to
put another person in his place. There i no |
difference in this respect between the right of a
corporation and individual citizens. Either
may discharge employees II pleasure. |
IL Is said, however, that the terms OF An ordi-
nance OF the Corporation requires members OF
the Fire Department to be retained during
Z" good behavior" Waving any remark as to
the behavior of some of the members Of the late
ERE Department, II may be said that this phrase
is OF no more force in an or lnance OF the Corpo-
ration than in an act of Congress, which has |
usually been found intellectual to protect an |
incumbent in the possession of his Office when
ever the appointing power deemed his removal |
proper or expedient. AS respects judges of !
courts, officers who presumed to rank Ia CHEST
III intelligence, pTobty. and purity, 1t has some |
nMes happened that the court has been reOr-
ganized under new name in order to effec. a |
removal, and n other cases the name of an Off |
Ger mas been changed for a like purpose; |
ard there are vet other cases in which the |
phrase - good behavior has not been permit- /
ted to have the force with which it now seems |
to he invested by the counsel for the plain ifs
III this case. The power of removal has gen |
orally been considered as incident to the power /
oil appointment. The City Councils have no /
authority TO confer lie tenure, or tenure du. |
ring good behavior, upon any officer or en-
pi0ye of the Corporation. The charter NAV be |
searched in vain for such power, ana is ersr- |
If re Mayor.
II is also argued, in support Of the case OF the
removed tremeD, that one of the Fire Commits |
soners Mr.. Dubantl had been rejected by the l
Board OF Aldermen. This argument is not emil
tied TO any weight. His nomination, with Others |
made TO I'LL vacancies which had occurred in the |
recess OF the Board of Aldermen, was submit |
ted 10 that Board on the fourth Monday OF June |
last, being the first day OF the present session,
and, 10y an express provision of the charter, his
present session, which will be the last meeting in
August, unless in the mean time the Mayor
shall make another nomination to take effect i'm
mediately. The provision Of the charter in this |
respect, which il modelled after the Constitution
OF the nlted States, prescribes that the Mayor
shall appoint persons to fill all vacancies which
may occur during the recess of the Board of |
Aldermen, TO hold such appointments to tie end Of
TIE then tHSu-aJ session. Precedent NAV be
found, in accordance with this provision,
where a President has, on the rejection OF one
nomination, sent to the Senate a new nominee
TO MI the Office from and after the close"
OF the session, "when the commission OF the
titItCltuJ incumbent VIII eNpre.' IL
ls thus made clear that the rejection of a n0mi-
nation does not, as matter OF course, imnedi-
ately remove the rejected person.
The charter also provides Fourth section act
OF Congress OF May 1911, 1870 that
Each Board shall meet at the Council
chamber on the second Monday in June, for the
dispatch of business, at ten o'clock in the morn
ing, ana at Saeh other ,mes as The t,oO Boards may
by fdG Direct
In pursuance Of the authority above con-
ferTed, the two Boards have provided by ordi-
nance for four sessions, independently Of he
charter session above provided, viz: One session
TO commence on the fourth Monday in June:
one session TO commence OH the first Monday in
September; one to commence on the first Mon
day in December; and one to commence OH the
first Monday In March. This provision, made in
accordance with the charter, Is obligatory and
appointments made in the recess Of either session
hold to the end OF such session unless revoked
by the Mayor. This question has been Jude ally
decided by the highest authorizes, both pa re-
spects Presidential! and our own municipal APP
pontments
IL may be further remarked, i'm regard to the
pretended rejection of Mr.. Dubant, that it was
not legal act of the Board of Aldermen. The
law regulating the meetings Of the two Boards,
made in pursuance of the charter, requires that
at this season of the the meetings shall take