The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1874-07-05

Iuc uinSc Ou WHICH Tue WuOlt case oi bdIu-
ner and Charlck turns is the question whether
they violated their oaths of Office. Governor
Dix assumes that they did, and if his opinion
is correct not only was their pretended resig
nation null but their reappointment by Mayor
Havemeyer is monstrous violation of law.
A candid examination OF the subject will show
| that the Governors action rests upon solid
! legal grounds. The sophistry of Mayor Have
meyers apologists lies in their attempt to con-
fuse the public mind as to the nature OF off,
cial oaths. Oaths are divided by jurists into
two casses-''a ssertory" oaths and 'promis-
sorry oaths-w which are so dissmilar III their
character that the penalties visited upon the
violation of one class have no application to
the other. The chicanery employed in defence
of the convicted Police Commissioners con-
sists in confounding this clear legal distlnc-
ton The oaths administered TO witnesses IN
court of justice are included in the first
class oaths of Office belong to the other
the question of their respective violation is
determined by different rules.
| A person who violates his oath by false
testimony in a court commits the crime OF
perjury Tor which he can be tried and pun
shed but a person who violates an oath of
Office is never indicted for perjury. This diff
ference in penal consequences is sufficient of
itself to demonstrate wide distinction be-
tween the two classes of Oaths. In trials for
perjury the law excuses honest error, never
Furnishing imperfections or lapses Of memory
or statements which are not deceptive In IN
tention as we'll as false in fact. But it Is
absurd to transfer this principle to the viola
ton of official oaths, which stand on
entirely different footing. There is no other
penalty for violating the promissory oaths
required to be taken by public officers than
the forfeiture of their offices. They may be
punished for other crimes or misdemeanors
committed in their official capacity but for
the perjury or quasi-perjury involved in
disregard of their official oaths they cannot
be punished as separate offence except by
degradation from Office. The legal sanction
of the oath is not the ordinary penalty for
perjury, but removability from the trust which
has been abused.
Such being the state of the penalty, there is
q corresponding difference in the rule for de-
termining crime. Perjury is established
by proving that the things sworn to were
false and that the witness knew them to be
false at the time of testifying Only one-half
| of this proceeding is necessary for supporting
the charge of violating an oath Of Office It
sutfices to prove that the official action was
contrary to law, without any offer Of proof to
show that the violated law was known to the
offending officers. The reason why this is I'M
necessary is that On officer who swears that he
will faithfully administer law thereby binds
himself to study and understand its pro-
visions. To gain proper acquaintance with
his duties is an essential part of the obligation
he undertakes by his oath. The well known
principle of criminal jurisprudence, that
Ignorance of the law is no excuse" applies
with peculiar force and propriety to public
officers. It would be hard, indeed, when
ordinary members of the community, who
have no access TO the statutes, are not dis
charged from penalties by their ignorance
| if the officers who are furnished al
the public expense with copies of the
luWS tAty dC C1iiCu w oOAAAdiooCi
could plead ignorance in bar Of
punishment, especially in case like the
present, where the law is so perfectly plain
that a man needs only to be awake to under.
stand it correctly on the first reading. "a
mistake" says Blackstone, sin point of law
may, but is bound and presumed to know, i:
in criminal cases no sort of defence"
Having thus proved that Ignorance of thu
law is no excuse, it clearly follows that tn
only proof required for convicting the Polio
Commissioners of violating their oaths is proc
that they have violated the law which the,
had sworn to administer. Of course, proof il
the loose, popular sense is not sufficient;
must be legal proof; it must be given in du
form and pronounced valid by some compe
tent legal authority having jurisdiction of tn
case Messrs. Gardner and Charlick hav
been regularly tried by court of crimina
jurisdiction, convicted by jury and sen
fenced by a Judge for violating plain pro
vision OF law. This is conclusive legal proc
of all that needs to be proved in showing tina
public officers have violated their oaths
What is the purpose of an official oath? 1t
security required by the authority tina
imposes it that the officer will fulfil hi
duties according to law. When be breaks tn
law he thereby violates his oath and forfeit
his Office, and no plea of ignorance or homes
intentions can exempt him from the const
auences His oath bound him to know th
law to use proper care and diligence i
learning the duties of his Office was one of tn
most important things he swore to do. 1t
absurd to say that criminal breach of th
law, proved and punished as such by coul
of Justice, is consistent with faithful obser'
ance OF the oath of Office. II it be not crimins
why does the law punish it? But in what ca
its criminality consist if the convicted Con