New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1874-08-07

self authorized to suspend aud remove Pnohc ovla,s
from office without specific charges" and tedious
Investigation I" But although thus directly called upon
to make charges of some description against thG
had discharged their duties relative 10 te ceai.k
streets which was the sole ground HPO1 70 sRe
They could not make any; ana tDey ,or r,cin
inability nv maknga total departure from ther Original
charge and turning 10 another wholly distinct ground
of complaint against the Commissioners hane9' 'neh
Bnt enoushEinasmuch as myself discovered nothing
in the evidence before the Assembly committee nor ~
investigation Of tho of either Of the Police
capable of statement ncupating their conduct in any
particulars when the Assembly which ordered tne III,
nothing in SS hss BsaT I'd II
invited point out any particular in which the de-
@a rnS scrnny confessed by silence their in
ability; when the Board OF Health oh.ery wfEse
upon the manner in which this branch OF the due d
the Police Board performed had uttoFeu nU time
OF public complaint but. on the contrary nae llp a
10 time INDUCED in expressions OF warm %ha of
| prevail; when my aceusers pe ;he Commission.
ers Who if their colleagues guilty OF any IeSy
guilty with them ana wneh ed no npon me- to remove
the Commissioners. investigate theI cou ~ yhen
eHce ifv their causes of complaint confessed
by their silence the groundlessness oI une vhetber
bve been entity OF any neglect the premises merit
ing removal from office, or any other FORM Vi
~ Won should find as think you must that the posi-
tive assertions OF accusers IN respect 70 nior ~
Iar yonr ccndepce in any other representa-
tons made by them for the purpose OF suppornE m
present appeal your authority Will certainly hot Oo
Increased.
THE RHAPPOINTMENTs NOT ILLEGAL.
Tho other charge made against me, and TO which am
now to direct my answer is: "GrOss MISCONDUCT Ill
Office and abuse Of the appointing power Ihs charge
is based upon my action in reappontinG Olver Charck
and Hugh Gardner as Police Commissioners after their
conviction for a misdemeanor and while other charges
were pending against them. suppose Two questions
may be considered as mere raiseu oe a ~; iIaton
one to whether such reappolntneht was III NIodVn
of some law well settled ana clear that shouiu nc
charged with knowledge OF II and the other notal
question: as to whether such reappolhtment was, ui
the circumstances such an uunt exercise OF Tue dppou
ing power as TO amount 10 gross abuse OF IL. -
Touching the legal question, IL seems 10 DC necessary
10 say but little. ] have not had the advantage OF
legal education. and certainly but little value can DC at
tached to any opinion Of mine upon any disputed point
in the law but surely all must agree that .hessls'
Charlck and Gardner were not ineligible 10 Ieappont-
ment alter their conviction and resignation unless tDey
made by the provisions OF some statute liners
is no such have been and am sun ADVISED
Waving for the moment the question whether the
convictions did involve the violation OF the Oahs Oh
office and admitting for the purpose OF the argument,
but for other purpose because nave never loI
instant believed it, tnat such was ITS elect am YET
be instructed in what way. or by force OF wha law
MeSSTs Charlck and Gardner We're neileloie 10 re-
appointment willingly agree that had the Ohense OF
which they were convicted really involved VOCATION
of their oahs Office and was properly charged with
knowledge OF that fact would nave Deen very ques
Onabe exercise of the discretion reposed III me 10 nave
reappOined them; but such CONSIDERATIONS are MOI per
unent to the charge mat have committed all lIeSai
| act -, ,-.,.. l..
our system OF civil administration assuming what is
quite true in my case that public officers called upon to
discharge responsible duties may be lmper1ecty ac-
quantcd with legal principles ana rules, usually pro
vdes with professional counselors, to whom they
may and ought 10 resort when III doubt concerning any
legal question: Upon TINS occasion thouHhI u pruueht
TO avail self OF this provision for my better nsruc-
tiOn. and before taking any action IN the premises APP
pied to my legal adviser the COnnsel 10 lhe oOrpora
ton, for his opinion on ali the legal questions involved
In the absence OF that officer IRON the cry ms very
competent assistant, George r. Andrews, furnished me
with hls opinion, which was undoubtedly - the erect
that there no legal impeachment TO Tie reappont
ment OF the aoOve named persons as Commissioners.
inoose with this communication printed copy Oh the
| opinion OF MIR. Andrews, which / commend TO your
attention. II there be anything more which ought to
have done could have DONE am at "a loss To per
ceve what it IT, after forming the best opinion as
the law which my abilities and education permitted,
and alter resortng TO those means OF enlightenment
been led INTO error, ana must suffer condemnation
therefor. my would seem to be somewhat ex-
cepuona and the office hold carries with II hazards
which any man capable OF ~orIhily hIlDs IL "ouId
carefully shuu.
THE MORAL QUESTION
Ipass TO what L have termed the moral question,
namely, whether l have rendered myself obnoxious to
the charge of having abused the power of appointment
By bestowing office upon persons palpably and ia
GRAVITY unworthy. And here let me ans wer that part
of TINS charge, which raises legal and technical ques
ton, which | have thus far reserved. This is that
Messrs Charhck and Gardner had been convicted OF
oIepse involving violation of their oaths OF Office ard
that immediate reappointment OF persons thus con
the trusts they had betrayed was, on its
very abuse OF the power bestowed upon But
the oense OF which they were convicted involve
violation of their official Oatns This a question
which did not pass without deliberate consideration
especially for the reason that received notice
from your Excelency, after the convictions apprsng
me that. view, they did carry with Their this
consequence.
What the oath OF Office taken by Messrs ,,borlick
and Gardner 1t was the oath similar TO int which
Constitution Of the United States the Constitution OF
the State OF New-YOrk, and discharge the duties of
Police Commissioner according TO the hest az their
ability" Were the persons just named convicted OF not
having performed their Official ruties accnrdin o the
nest OIL 1er noiS in not neither directly or
indirectly Ihey might nave Deeh guilty Of the oense
for which they were convicted ana yet have exibted
an efficiency and uprghtness throughout tbeir o0cai
amples TO all public officers. Neither their INTEGRITY
tner hdey tntr fiGlehGy, OF the motives. either In
any other part of their Official Conduct were IN any
drawn in question by the trial or passed upon
by the jury. WnaC then the precise ot,ense Of
winch they were convicted To determine ms We
but first allow to briefly notice the Circumstances
Of which the trial arose. Here follows long refer
10 the appointment and removal Inspectors Of
| Electon.l
Assuming, as suppose ought, and have no opin.
ion 10 the contrary, That the rulings of the learned
judge in all things 1t follows that the
vicOn of the defendants proves and only proves that
from ought that appears permitted be proved
richly deserved removal and whom they could not have
retained IN office an hour without "a violation OF their
duty; that III doing this they omitted give the
written notice prescribed by law although they in good
faith supposed and were advised that their mode OF
! action was in conformity with the law.
The present Chief Magistrate OF the United States,
near beginning of his first term Of office, appointed
tingulshed merchant of NewYOrk TO the place OF
Secretary of the Treasury This in distinct viola
tion express statute; but sensible allowed
estimate OF the character Of Gen Grant be dmin
ished consequence OF that oversight. thought him
| deserving OF impeachment | cannot think that II
would be just to that he thereby violated ms oath Of
Office ana yet the oath taken by him coprespOnded all
material respects with that taken under the laws
| State by Messrs. Charck and Gardner.
| DO not understand me as endeavoring 10 eXtenuate
or apologize for any neglect violation of law how
ever slight. All that am insisting upon is that there
are differences the magnitude OF oenses, and that
those which involve wickedness and
corruption OF heart from those into which men fall from
of ZEAL oversight or pressure OF business man
once ENJOYING in this city personal and official power
and Influence unexampled before since indicted
and convicted official negects In the auditing Of
iusily slntencnd long of muE