The New York herald., 1874-08-07
THB MAYORS DEFENCE
1ooNr1NUED FROM EIGHTH PAaRl

ere innocent; but 1t does tend to show that their
Accusors had no confidence in their accusations,
sioners OF onences OF which they believed them TO
be guilty, but TO drive them IRON once whether
guilty or not. When the question Is what notice
the Mayor ought 10 have taken OF complaint ts
against public officers. the objects and motives OF
those making the complaints are most lit TO be
considered.
pARTIAL1TY OF THE AcCUsERs.
One thing further touching this first charge
sgainst me, that did not institute an an nyestiga-
zion to street cleaning and the motives OF my &C
eusers Will receive additional Illustration Mo-
been placed before you Is any matter to be
1S sSund tending IN any wsy rsspeet 70 lnepass iss
operations ions in the the business oi street cleaning
which does not equally incupafe az the members
Ci the Board the Assembly pnsea
B00yd, ,ott1sout distinction The Aldermen followed
their example. But what am accused OF is not Of
fanr or refusing investigate the conduct OF the
Police Commissioners generally but OF Two Of
1heIn-nameiy Oliver Charnck and Hugh Gardner.
declare 80 plainly convict the Commissioners Of
gross misconduct, and which, II they convict one
ansy convict all they aGop AN and etar saac9n % o as
their numDer. Hon. Jonn Kelly, which speak.
ing OF two OF the Commissioners, declares
republican and Abraham Duryee an equally upright
and conscientious democrat Tne cnaracters OF
these latter gentlemen stand IN hes1 o no Of NeW
YORK. where tney nave lived universally honored
and respected throughout their lives" It would
be to no purpose for my accusers 10 attempt 10
escape from the self-condemnation they thus In
1lct upon themselves for insincertty ana partisan
Commssioners Russel and Duryee were in mi
n0rtry ana not responsible Tor tne acti0n OF tne
Board In relation to street cleaning: neltner Is
effect anywhere in the papers before you. But
even were they in such minority and , nad M they y,
been overruled in their desires and wishes, YET 4!
what Ia alleged against the Police Board
in relation to street cleaning be- true,
they must us have s of % ea aaa
to declare 1t to me such other public authority
as might afford a remedy. Had they known OF the
low Commissioners and failed to reveal their
knowledge but remained like dummies in their
Ofi1co, receiving Its emOluments and utterIng no
note OF public remonstrance, they would have de-
served not simply removal but worse punish
But enough-inasmuch as myself discovered
nothing in the evidence before the Assembly COM
mittee nor In the report OF that committee calling
OF either Of the Police commissioners and that
committee could find nothing capable OF statement
tnculpating their conduct IN any particular; when
thesAssembly which ordered the inquiry saw moth
ing IN the results Of 1t calling for any action on its
part; when the Board OF Aldermen were invited to
point out any particular In which the conduct OF
the Commissioners, In relation to street cleaning,
demanded scrutiny, confessed by sllence their IN.
province 1t was to exercise close observation
upon the manner in which this branch OF the
duties OF the Police Board were performed, had
uttered no word OF public complaint, but, on the
contrary, had, from time to time INDUCED in ex-
presstons OF warm approval; when my accusers
bestow the most falsome euogy upon two OF the
Commissioners, who, II their colleagues were
guilty OF any neglect, were guilty with them; ana
even caad upon me- ot " the
or Investigate their conduct in these respects,
except the Board OF Aldermen, and they, when
challenged to specify their causes Ol complaint,
confessed by their silence the groundlessness OF
their accusations, leave It to your Judgment 70
neglect In the premises, meritlng removal rom
ONCE, or any other form OF condemnation or
Hyou ahould find, as think you must. that the
pOsive assertions oil my accusers IN respect to the
matters thus far considered are destitute even OF
any color oi toundatl0n, your confidence IN any
other representations made by them Tor the pur-
pose OF supporting their present appeal TO your
authority Will certainly not be increased.
''GROsS MISCONDUCT IN OFFICE.n
The other charge made against me. and to which
am now TO direct my answer, is, "Gross miscon-
duct In office and abuse OF the appointing power.'
This charge Is based upon my action In reappOnt-
ing Onver Charlick and Hugh Gardner as Police
meanor and while other charges were pending
against them. l suppose two questions may be
considered as here raised; one purely legal one,
as 10 whether such reappOintment was IN VIOLA
ton OF some law so well settled and clear that
should be charged with knowledge Of 1t; and the
polntment was, under the circumstances, such an
0nnt exercise Of the appointing power as to
question, it seems to be necessary to say but itte
/ have not had the advantage or legal education,
and certainly but little value can be attached to
any opinion OF NINE upon any disputed point in
the law; but surely all must agree that Messrs.
Charick aud Gardner were not ineligible to reap
unless they were made so by the provisions OfsOme
statute. There is no such statute, as have been
oy 'Hs
others, and which are endorsed like ordinary law
papers, with the name OF Henry 1; Clinton. Esq,
were drawn by that gentleman, 1t IS set forth
that after the conviction OF Messrs. Charlick ana
Gardner for misdemeanor received a note from
Your Excelency that their offices had become va
cant by reason Of their conviction Of crime In
volving violation OF their 0atns OF of1ice, aud
that the duty thereupon devOlved upon me to tap
sotd Charltck ana Gardsse'9 Police Commissioners
outrageous violation OF his (my) duty as such
Mayor, and IN defiance OF law and public de-
cency,n reappointed Messrs Charlics and Card
ner. II Is not anywhere suggested by these
petitioners that the persons so appointed by
me were, in any way, unworthy OF the trust
thus bestowed upon them, unless 1t SO appeared
from the facts OF the conviction above mentioned
and the receipt OF the subsequent notice from Your
Excellency; ana the respectable gentlemen sign
ing these petitions, and more. especially the pro-
fessi0nal counsellor VINO seems to have guided
them, might well have borne in mind that, II there
be any chasm between these lacts and the con.
clusion sought to be drawn 1rOm them the use Of
violent eplthets sucn as gross and outrageous, -
and Gin defiance OF law and public decency,O will
hardly serve to bridge it over. Waivlngfo the
moment the question whether the con vctons did
Involve the VIOLATION oil the oatns Ol 0lce, ana ad
hitting for the purpose OF the argument, but Tor
no other purpose because have never ior an IN
slant believed it), that sucn was its effect, am yet
to be instructed In what way or by force OF
what law Messrs. Charllck ana Gardner were
ineligible to reappointment. willingly agree that
had the offence OF which they were convicted
really SnUolued vioatiOn OF their oatns Of office,
and was properly charged with knowledge Of
that fact, 1t would have been very questionable
exercise of the discretion reposed in me to have
reappOnted them; but such considerations are
not pertinent to the charge that have committed
an Illegal act. Our system or civil administration,
assuming, what is quite true IN my case, that pub
lie Ofilcers called upon to discharge responsible
duties may be imperfectly acquainted with legal
principles and rules, usually provides them
may and ought to resort when in. doubt
concerning any legal question. Upon this
occasion thought M It prudent to avail myself
before taking any action in the premises applied
to my legal adviser. the Counsel TO the Corpora
tiCn, for mis- opinion all the legal questions in
v0ived. In the absence of that offcer from the
city, his very competent assistant George P. An
Eou urni had mo Wf hto Mi vvhtc