The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1874-07-03

|
Department of Charities and Correction on
Blackwells Island, was first made aware thai
the people had become satisfied of the fact
that the Tammany ''Ring' had plundered the
city Of some millions of dollars, he made use
OF a remark which has passed into proverb-
''Wel, what are you going to do about it p
The action of Mayor Havemeyer, in his at
tempt to restore to the position OF Police Com
missioners the two men who stand convicted
of misdemeanor, 'involving violation OF
their oath of Office" on one indictment of q
Grand Jury, and against whom other indict-
ments are now pending, recalls to mind the
bold and defiant words of the old Tammany
chief. The impudent letter of the Mayor in
which he signifies at once his indifference to
York and his contemptuous disregard of
the Governors communication notifying
him of the existence of the vacan-
cies in the Offices heretofore held by
the convicted Police Commissioners, there is
reason to believe was concocted yesterday
although made to bear date June 80. 1t clearly
indicates the disposition of the present chief
magistrate Of the city to initiate the example
of the deposed Tammany chief and to supple
ment his indecent and Illegal reappointment of
Messrs. Gardner and Cbarlick with the ques-
ton, 'What are you going to do about it?"
A popular poet has told US that "the best
laid schemes of mice and men gang aft aglee,"
and the fate of the intrigue to which Mr..
Havemeyer has lent himself in order to save
his Police Commission friends will no doubt
bear evidence to the truthfulness of the asser-
ton. For days past Mr.. Havemeyer has been
closeted with republicans and democrats with
lawyers and politicians, striving to invent
some means by which the law inficting for
fixture of Office by Messrs. Gardner and Char
lick could be evaded. But the result of these
deliberations does not seem calculated to
promote the success of the object they had in
view. Mr.. Havemeyer has addressed letters
to the two convicted officials, dated back
to June 49, in which he officially
acknowledges the receipt Of their letters
resgning the offices they did not then
hold, and informing them that he has placed
the same on file. He publishes letter made
to bear the same date from the acting Cor
poration Counsel, Mr.. George P. Andrews,
furnishing sort Of ready-made opinion as to
the eligibility of those persons to the offices
from which they have resigned" These
letters and this opinion, it will be observed,
are dated on June 20, and they cannot, there
fore, cover the ground subsequently occupied
by the letter of Governor Dix, dated July /,
in which, in conformity with the requ Ire
ments of the Revised Statutes, he declares the
Offices held by Messrs. Gardner and Charlick
to have been vacated by the verdict of the jury
which pronounced them guilty of a misde-
meanor involving violation of their oath Of
office. All we have to say of this opinion of
Mr. Andrews is, that we are glad that the Cor
poration Counsel does not stand responsible
! for it. Our assistant legal luminary states
that the indictment against the Commits
sioners was found under that section of
the Revised Statutes which says that
when the performance of any act
is prohibited by statute, and no
penalty for the violation of such statute is
imposed either in the same section containing
such prohibition or in any other section or
statute, the doing of such act shall be deemed
o misdemeanor. Under these circumstances,
argues the Assistant Counsel to the Corpora
tion the misdemeanor committed by the
Board of Police is not such misdemeanor
as will work forfeiture of Office. He, there
fore, advises Mr.. Havemeyer that there is no
provision of law which renders Mr.. Gardner
or Mr.. Charlick ineligible to reappointment
as Police Commissioners, and that the Mayor
has, in his discretion, the power and lawful
right to make such reappointment. We would
like Mr.. Andrews to inform us how the con-
victed Commissioners could have been guilty
of violating the Election law OF 1872, which
they were sworn to faithfully carry out, with
out having violated their oath Of Office, and
how city official convicted of INSIDE
meanor for having unlawfully done an
| act prohibited by law he was
sworn to obey, can be held to be inno-
cent of any offence against the charter? We
would also like Mr. Andrews to explain the
meaning of the penalty imposed by the law
when it declares that public Office shall be-
come vacant on the conviction of an incum-
bent of any offence involving a violation of
his oath of Office. Can the Interpretation be
that the offending official shall undergo NOM
inal removal from Office only and be eligible
to reappointment in the next moment? Is it
not reasonable to suppose that the statute is
designed to Danish altogether an unfaithful
public servant and to protect the community
against repetition of his illegal practices?
Leaving the opinion of the Assistant Corpor-
alton Counsel to be forgotten among the
many similar DOCUMENTS drawn to the order
of controlling power by men who are ready
to interpret the law in accordance with the in
structions Of their superiors, we find that the
pretended "reappointments' of the con-
victed Commissioners by the Mayor bear
date July 2, the day after Mr.. Havemeyer