The New York herald., 1874-09-15
Severe Criticism Of the Action Of
Our Ancient Mayor.
cENsURED, BUT NOT REMOVED
The Refusal to Investigate the Alleged
Misconduct Of Gardner and
Charlick Indefensible.
Action Of the Executive Of the State Ignored
on the Opinion of a Subordinate.
STATE OF NEW YORK, EXECUTIVE CHAMBER,

ALBANY. Sept. IA. 1874.
In the matter OF the charges against William F.
Hayemeyer. Mayor OF the city OF New York.
II mas been customary, in cases OF accusation
AGAINST nubc officers with a view TO their removal
under the authority conided by the constitution
and laws to the chieI magistrate OF the state, to
direct an inquiry into the truth OF the charges
against them by the examination OF witnesses
before county Judge or some other person oesig-
mated for the purpose. In THIS case iueemeoi IL
due to the Office OF chief magistrate of the nrst
city in the State to await his answer before pro-
ceedng any further. The answer, when received.
seemed to me to render such al inquiry needless,
and 1t was not, in fact, desired. either by the
accusers or the accused. The principal facts,
which nstitute the gravamen OF the accusation,
are not In dispute. They are admitted in tue an
rwer as fully as they set forth in the charges,
and 1t only remains for the Executive to determine
whether they constitute proper case for the ex-
ercise OF the power OF removal
The charges presented to me are embodied in five
papers or petitions, VIZ -
l. A petition signed by, ana verified by the am
davit OF, Charles various.
2 A petition signed by John P. Crosby, Joseph
C. Jackson wm. NJ. Pritchard, c. A. Hand, Benz. b.
Sherman, VIM. C. Barrett and A. A. Reddeld.
8. A petition signed By Elwood E. Thorne, 81. A.
Burr and G. L. Shearer.
4. A series Of resolutions adopted by the Board
OF Aldermen and
S. Charges and specifications presented by Os
wald Ottendorfer, John Kelly and William Il Wick
ham, and verified by the affdavit of the former.
The first two OF these papers are Identical
They are both, together with the last, sustained
by documentary evidence and all OF them concur
IN asking that the Mayor may be removed from
his ONCE. The charges against him in the last OF
the five enumerated papers, though supported by
voiuminous specifications may be briefly summed
up as follows, VIZ
/. Gross neglect OF duty in refusing to investi-
gate the Official conduct OF Oliver Charllck and
Hugh Gardner as Police Commissioners of the city
Of New York; ana
O. Gross misconduct in office and abuse OF the
appointing power, by reappointlng Oliver Char
lick and Hugh Gardner 10 the oflice OF Police
Commissioner after their conviction Of an OF.
fence involving violation OF their oaths Of ONCE
and in each case assigning one 10 the vacancy
created by the other for the purpose OF evading
the provisions OF the law; thus bringing the ad-
N instration OF justice into contempt, and de-
grading the public morality by protect ting the VIC
tins OF the criminal courts.
third charge OF improper conduct in oficen
has single specification consisting OF deductions
from the allegations contained II the two others.
The two petitions first mentioned set forth the
facts on which the second OF the above three
charges are lounded the conviction or Messrs.
Charlick and Gardner and their subsequent reap
pointment after notice from the Governor thai
they were convicted OF a misdemeanor involving
a violation of their oaths OF ONCE and creating va
cancies which the Mayor was required by law tt
I'LL The petitions also set forth that each was as
signed To the vacancy created by the other. lhe
petition signed by Elwood f. Thorne and Others
contains the further charge OF failing to lnvestl-
gate certain offcial dennquencies in the Board OF
Charities and Correction; an investigation which
Is shown by documentary evidence TO have been
already made; and also the charge OF attempting
to control the Tree action and usurp tue luncdons
or the Police COnmlssloners-an accusation not so
supported by specifications as TO require IL 10 De
met except by general denial. under the charge
GROSS NEGLECT OF DUTY
In refusing TO investigate the oIfic1al conduct OF
Oliver Cbarhck and hugh Gardner as fonce com. com,
misslOners, the specifications set lorth twolOid
delinquency:-Flrst, In refusing to inquire lnto
the alleged msmanagement OF the street Cleanln9 9
Bureau OF the Police Board and. second, In re-
lusin0 to investigate the alleged misconduct or
the Police Commissioners in respect TO the general
election Of November, 1873 In regard TO the nrst
branch OF this charge OF neglect OF duty, It ap-
pears that an investigation was made OF the man
February and March last under the order OF the
Assembly, oy the committee on the AEairs OF
Cities OF which Mr. Eastman was chairman; and
that the committee, after most searching inquiry
into the whole subject, reported as the result OF
their investigation -
l. lDdJ The large expenditure VI Sl,Vso,VVu Au
street cleaning had not been wisely or economl'
cally expended.
2. That the Board OF Police had shown culpabie
want oil efficiency and lack OF skill, system and
economy and that the entire system oI street
cleaning, as conducted by tnem mad been an I'M
position upon the people.
g. THAT the heads OF the Street Cleaning Bureau
and many OF their subordinate5 were Negligent
and ignorant OF their duties; that sources OF reve
pue were neglected, and that more or less OF the
proceeds were applied to private proht, &c.
4. That the street Cleaning Bureau had been
tV,yta I'M tfC "
incompetent laDorers, ana
S. That the Police Board and police force had
failed TO execute ordinances relating TO garbage
the enforcement OF which was necessary TO I'M
prove the sanitary conditlon Oh the city.
The committee came unanimously to the con
cuslon that the Police Board did not occupy the
position oil men VINO recognized tnelr nrst duty
to be to the great mass OF the people, and tha'
any permanent Improvement could only be eX
pected from a reconstruction OF the Board. IL
appears also that the Board OF Aldermen seconded
the suggestion OF the committee OF the Assembly
IN favor OF reconstruction OF the Board oil Police
by q resolution adopted on the 20th OF April last
calling on the Mayor to suspend ana remove tht
the Board of Aldermen the Mayor replied on tht
4th OF May, and while protesting Ignorance 0
the proceedings OF the committee oil tne Assem-
by, though he'd In the cty OF New York, ant
investigating under his eyes department OF th'
municipal government Tor the eihcient ant
proper management OF which, under the charte
OF the city, ne Is held Responsible, he.dld no
scruple TO intimate that 1t bad been apparent.
appointed ''for partisan purposes" and that th
proceedings ''partook too much OF pouticai char
acter TO command either the confidence or respec
OF the community" 49,.
The committee, whose proceedings were thu
ignored, anu whose character Tor impart1alIty Wa
THUS GRATUfTOUsLY IMPEACHED,
was one Of the permanent committees OF tne as
semDly, appointed at the organization OF tn
Legislature Dy The Speaker with carelu regdr'
TO the important interests intrusted TO II, ant
having upon IT some OF the most nOnoraoie am
conspicuous members OF the legislative pody an'
ol the nine gentlemen who composed the com
mlttee SIX were OF the political party Dy Whoe'
votes manly the Mayor was elected 10 once
AS further justification Tor declining q
take any action Ia regard TO the Police Commls
soners, the Mayor alleged tnat there were nc
specific charges against them, and onered 10 entel
on an investigation OF their conduct ii the Boart
OF Aldermen would make charges which they were
.'prepared TO suDstantate.N Upon this intlinatiOr
the Board OF Aldermen appointed SPECIAL com
mittee. to whom the Mayors communication was
referred. An elaborate report was made recapltu
ing the proceedings ana recommendation OF the
committee OF tue Assembly, setting fOrtn the al
legged misconduct OF the Ponce Commissioners
in regard TO the general election OF 1873, and
again calling on the Mayor TO reconstruct the
fI..A .AsI