, 1873-02-27
hickey AND EuMD.

. lhere las b6en mncn SAID ABOUT the removal
Z; Capts. Hickey and Gund. They were re-
moved for disobedience, and the question OF
their reinstatement has been argued pro and con.
Ths Mayor failed to report his removal Of these
oficers to the Council, and therefore doubted
his right to reinstato them or have others sp
pointed in their places. He accordingly appealed
10 the Law Department for enlightenment. The
following opinion from Mr.. Tuley explains it.
self:
TO the Hon. Joseph Htdi1 Mayor:
B1n In reply to your communication aAkng M
opinion npon certain questions, ! answer The as1
ofeer nlay bo removed BY the Mayor, whenever In hia
opuion the interests Of the city may require such
s1e h u s i ga .ao
It, =: nsa q e. % s.st ssis dsy # aas 5anns3y
z7ing that they were removed from Office Through
ipaave1tance you failed to notify the Common Council
held the Sd day Of the present month nor has any
Communication upon the subject cFar been made to
n Ss ap
tbs present status Of Nessrs Hickey and duud TO
Office In the police force Of the city, tho questions
opinion. have considered The subject, and, IN the
kbsencs Of al direct authority or decons found it
difficult to arrive at ~, m entirely sattsfsctoEy
s ind no oher law giving tes po%eT d
which couples With the power Of the requirement that
ne meeting lis reasons for aa exercise Of the power,
and the questions submitted must be decided without
& s 50 ey
the course to be pursued by the Executive in making
my remova1 must bo strictly construed In my opin-
suaciency Of the reasons therefor reported to the
ou: By the sw for the Executive In making the removal
must be strictly pursued hs must do ali that the law
requires him to do IN regard to the removal. There
fh1rpg ! hat a FIR fra
should be Of the opinion that the interests Of the city
require the removal. He mrst notify the officer of
fhs re,oyal to the Council This iaat has not been
done and until 1t has bean done the Executive has not
oTa 9aua The resident Of be United States has power
to noinate and with the sdyice and consent Of tho
sen.te appoint oaeert and an oct ot Congress- re-
nurea that he shall agn the commission before 1t is
issued out Of the office Of the Secretary Of State.
In tho famous Of Marbury Madison, Cranch,
Taited States Repora the doctrine Is sid down that
The appointment by the President is not complete until
the list act required Of the Executive has been e1ar
cseed that, until this last act has been done, the ap
ointtneut ia an 1nctoate and incomplete act. It has
been held, aso that afec the President had nominated
person to Office, aud after the Senate had confirm
appointment and no1ninate another person, he not
having performed the last net that the law required Of
Son confirmed b5 tne sss.s -, he had 9ot zigDed
commission. Also in the case where be had the power
to remove pleasure, II has been held that he could
reconaidhr reEoke his appointment, even after he
had signed the commission, If the cou1nsBion had
not actually been delivered. Some point Of time must
30 taken when the power Of the Executive over ofl
hss been e1ercised aud this power has been exer
then the last act required from th3 person po:ses
ma IL Fotcer has been exercised This Is the 1a5a-
e1,sca in the cited, which WAS caso where the
t ~ 1a rot removable at the Presidents Will. In
re isnupaee Of th1 Court ga Cal, ) used In regard
to tie appointing power, until ne LIST act
has been pe1fo1ndsa, fhe Nnole matter
nerson h. whom the power Is to be exercised. In the
present csee the report to the Council ts necessary
xtep iu the exercise Of the power Of removal IT s the
Iaet set required to be done By the Mayor ano 1fo
snaloRy to the principles laid down IN the u
regard to the appointing power, IT appears 70 me as
This law must te construed giving the Mayor me
power to recall or revoke removal at any time prior
the exercise Of this last act required OF hl 70 F1t
the report to the Council more serious qaeson 1s
to the effect the removal by reason ot the iaa[e
tc report 1T the next meeting of the Council ine u"
the Mayor may remove but he shall report to 11e
Council at its s.ert regular meeting his reasons.
there limitation Of time within which he is to report
70 the Council and failing to report at the next legu
ttr meeting, he report st any subsequent eetnH
81 the councl7 il the requirement that he shall re-
port ii the eIt regular meeting merely directory as 70
n taa nature af 1oondition subsequent ths failure to
pfElos which. 4! the time specified renders nugaofy
s prior ACTS in regard to the reuruI7 The policy of
he iaT requires that some record OF removal having
btsn maae shsl exist. This law does not require the
Nay aE % nle M . copy or certificate Of the |
record htnseH OF tho renewal. The only notfce Or
evidence Of tAe removal Of the officer thnt can |
appear in the record6 ot the City Government under
the Inv, is from the report Of the Mayor made 70 the
and among ita aea- il this broad and UNUSUAL stat
ute to be 80 Hbersy construed that the Mayor may IL
be desires, secretly officer and knep The
Office Tscant to the injury OF tho pubc service se long