Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1874-03-03
CITY AFFAIRS.
Mayor IkerchiVas'S Assumption i'm
Regard 20 the Finance Committee
A Protest Against HIS Action.


Regard 10 the Finance Committee
A Protest Against Hts Action.
There was a meeting of the Finance
Committee of the City Council last night.
to consider the matter of the action of the
Mayor in reducing and remodeling the
committee. The following protest DENYING
his authority in the premises, was present.
ed:
To the Finance Committee of the CITY
Council of Nashville: We have been in
formed by local paragraph in one of the
city papers, confirmed by general reports,
that His Honor the Mayor of the city, has
undertaken TO ''reOrgaRize1 the Finance
Committee, reducing the number from II
to s, assuming to reappoint all the MEM
bers ofthe committee except ourselves. In
other words, he has undertaken. for reasons
not made known to us, to remove us from
The committee. We do not propose to dis
cuss the motive which may have prompted
the Mayor in this action, nor to Law much
stress upon the want Of courtesy to the
COMMITTEES and the City Council, which is
involved in the mode in which it has been
taken; but there is question raised By 1t
in which the people Of Nashville have an
important interest. The power to appoint
the standing committees Is derived by the
Mayor from the l+th section of the act of
the Legislature amending the charter Of
the city, passed Feb. Is, 1858, Iellyett's
Digest p. 59). The whole grant OF power
on this subject IS cOuehed in these words:
HE may appoint all standing
committees" No where in the CHAR
ter nor in the ordinances of the city is he
invested with the power to remove
any member of any standing committee.
The standing committees exercise no f1ne-
ton pertaining 70 the executive department
of the municipal government. They are
purely auxiliary branches Of the legislative
department. The Mayor IS not responsible
for their action, and they are not accounta-
bic to him for their conduct, but only TO
their constituents and the Boards OF the
Council to which they report. They are
constituted not for the purpose of carrying
into effect the executive power and viii of
! the Mayor, but purely for the purpose of
the more efiectual operation of the munich
pal legislature. The power TO designate
who should compose these committees
would regularly and properly belong to the
two ROGrdis or their presiding officers; but
the charter has so far departed from the
regular system as TO provide that this power
! Of designation shall be vested in the MavOr.
| The pGWer conferred. however, extends no
| further than the power to appoint. The
power to remove would, therefore, if It ex-
| lists at all, not being expressly conferred
upon the Mayor, remain with the Boards.
| The power TO appoint is a simple mower,
which, when once exercised, Is entirely ex-
hausted Tire Mayor cannot recall his &C
ton. The power to appoint by no means
| implies the power 10 remove. The
President and Senate OF the United
States has the power to appoint the
Justices Of the Supreme Court of the
the United States, but no one has as vet
ever contended for the absurdity that they
can at pleasure remove one Of their ap-
| pOintees. They, like al other officers or
| fllnctionaries, except those who are mere
agents OF the operating power, are entitled
TO hold their positions for the time for
which they We're appointed unless removed
| ia the manner prescribed by law. And
that the power to remove cannot be exer-
cised under the pretense of recalling the ap-
pOintment has been expressly decided BY
the highest court in the land. When John
Adams was President OF the United States
lie was authorized by law TO appoint the
Justices OF the Peace Tor the District of
| Columbia, and under this power did ap-
1 u
! justices. but before their commissions We're
delivered to them by the Secretary o. State
the President s,tCmp.e;i 10 recall their ap-
/ pOIntnent. This the Supreme Court of the
| United States decided he had no power to
DO. The decision was rendered int case
| of Marbury vs.. Madison. l Branch 49,.
Chief Justice Marshall in delivering the
| opinion says. sSOmes point OF time must
b. taken when tho power of the executive
over an officer, not removable at his will.
must cease. That point of time must be
when the constitutional power of appoint
ment has been exercised THE discretion
of the executive is 10 be exercised until the
| appointment has been made. But, having
once made the appointment, his power
| over the the office Is terminated in all
! cases, where By lac the officer is not re
| movable by him. The right TO the Office is
thea in this person appointed, and he has
the absolute, unconditional power of &C
| cepting or rejecting it, And if the execu-
tive cannot recall the appointment, before
the appointee has accepted it, still less can
he do so after its acceptance, ana alter the
| psISOn appointed has entered upon the eX-
| ercise Of his functions. II the officer is a
| mere agent Of the executive, to exercise
| the powers Of the latter in his stead. so
/ that the latter is responsible for his action
! then an entirely different case il presented.
| In such 2 case the executive ought TO have
! the power 10 choose his own agents and to
! continue them only as long as they &C; in
| accordance with his wishes. But in the
! present instance the committees are not
| chosen TO discharge for the Mayor any
| duties imposed by law on him; on the cor
| tTary their services are rendered at The in
stance and fGT the conyenince Of the two
| Boards. The tenure of their positions
ought TO be, and in our opinion is, beyond
the Mayors control.
| The mayor viii doubtless seek to Justify
ms action under the reservation attempted
to Da made in his message, announcing the
| committees. That communication contain
ed the following language: II herewith
! transmit list Of the various standing COM
mltteeS for the pEoS1ns year, but the power
! and p,iSneee is retained to change. alter,
| On modify the same, or any of them, al any
| time This seems to be a concession ON
| his part, that the cOmnlet6 and final exer-
| else of the appointing power would exhaust
! his control over the constitution Of the
| committees. In other words, he comedies
| that the law, founded upon a wise public
| policy, las made the committees independ-
/ ent % him, and accountable only TO the law
and their constituents. But by this reserva-
| ton he attempts 10 give to himself power
| the law does not give him. He attempts to de
grade the committees into mere creatures Of
| his will, subject to be dissolved, to be made
or unmade at his pleasure. Such power
| enables him to blot Gus OF existence any
committee which refuses to do his bidding,
and its exercise can tend to 10 other end
| than to make them his plant tools
| for the accomplishment of his pur-
poses. Such a power can not be legally
acquired by simply taking it. We think
the pretended reservation of the rights 10
change the commit les K simply a nudity.
| The power - apPOint Ike any other execu-
/ tive power must be exercised, if at all, I'M
conditiOnally and without reservation. As
well might the Mayor undertake, in approx
/ ing an ordinance. to reserve the right to
veto il should liz afterwards determine that
the ordinance was not a good one. As
well might the two boards, in electing the
| Tax Assessors, undertake TO reserve the
right, if he did not conform to their wishes
| in his official conduct, to reconsider their
vote and elect some other man. As well
might tho Governor of the State in exercis-
| ina the hardening mower assume to reserve