The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1875-02-18
Governor Tilden and the Legisla.
ture - Threatened Democratic

Schism.
In order to get clear understanding OF the
conflict developing at Albany between the
Governor and his party in the Legislature it
| is necessary to bear in mind that Mr.. Tilden
is not only Governor of New York, but q can
didate for the Presidency in the election Of
1876. HIS aspirations impel him in one direc-
ton and his duties as Chief Magistrate of this
State should carry him in another. 1t is be-
coming evident that his State duties and his
national aspirations are incompatible, and
that his personal ambition is likely to OBJ
struct his usefulness as Governor and to Gre
ate a breach in the democratic party OF the
State. The legislative measure known in COM
mon parlance as the Costigan bill is the occa-
sion of this threatened split. The democratic
members of Assembly have supported the
bill, voting to order it to third reading
and put it on its passage. The Governor has
become apprehensive that republicans enough
will support it to carry it through the Senate,
when he would have to take the responsibility
of signing or vetoing it. He recoils from
this responsibility, and is understood to be
exerting all his secret influence to get the bill
killed in the Assembly.
The reasons why he is neither willing to
sligo nor to veto it, and therefore wishes it
strangled in the place Of its birth, are quite
obvious in view of his double relation to State
and national politics. A veto would bring
him into open collision with his party in the
Legislature, and, by alternating the strongest
branch of his supporters in the last election,
prevent unanimous New York delegation in
the Democratic National Convention. If
there should be strong body of anti-Tilden
delegates from this State he could have no
reasonable hope of securing the nomination.
On the other hand, if he should sign the
bill, he fears he would be signing
his death warrant as q Presidential
candidate. His political stock in trade con-
sists in his reform record and the conspicu-
ring He knows how quick and keen his
adversaries would be in taking advantage Of
any act which could be made to wear the ap-
pearance of Inconsistency with his reform
record. The first practical consequence of his
signing the Costigan bill would be the re-
moval of his creature, Comptroller Green. 1t
was he that put Green in Office, and he fears
that if he consents to a measure which would
result in Green's removal he would be &C.
cused of deserving the banner Of reform and
be damaged in his Presidential aspirations.
If he had can eve single to his duties as
Governor there is no reason why he should
find his present situation embarrassing In
IS :,<o t<,, he rs
this bill, as means Of escaping the response
biity of signing or vetoing it, Governor Til
den would allow it to take its course and &C.
cept the consequences Of his proper official
action.
The Costigan bill, which is the occasion of
this budding quarrel between the Governor
and Legislature, has two main features, and if
We could separate the Presidential candidate
from the State Executive there is no discover
able reason why democratic Governor should
object to it's passage. One of these features
curtails and the other somewhat extends the
authority OF the Mayor. So far as tho bill
abridges the power Of the Mayor we have seen
no objection to it in any quarter. The present
city charter, as enacted in 1873 declared that
ssthe Mayor shall nominate, and by and with
the consent Of the Board of Aldermen, appoint
the heads Of departments and all commission
ers." This was changed by special act
passed last spring empowering the Mayor
to make appointments without the consent of
the Aldermen. When Governor Dix signed
this bill he was assailed and denounced by
leading democratic organs and a brief expert
ence proved that Governor Dix made mis-
take. When Mayor Havemeyer raised gen.
eral outcry against the appointments he made
in pursuance of this unrestricted power, and
Governor Dix was compelled to invesri-
gate charges of malfeasance brought
against the Mayor for his scandalous
appointments the Governor did not think
fit to remove the late Mayor for his abuse of
the appointing power, but he acknowledged
in published communication, that the law
which clothed the Mayor with the sole power
of appointment was blunder. With this
recent experience of the bad effects Of that
law nobody can seriously maintain that the
feature of the Costigan bill which seeks to
restore to the Board of Aldermen it's former
check on appointments is not WISE Assum-
ing this to be beyond controversy we proceed
/ to consider the other main feature of the bill
/ The Mayors power Of removal, as the char
ter now stands, requires the concurrence Of
the Governor in every case to make it etfec-
tive. This provision was first introduced into
our municipal government in the charter Of
1872, for partisan reasons which We will not
here recount or discuss. 1t is strong pre-
sumption against its wisdom that it has no
parallel either in any previous charter
of this city or in the charters of
other American cities. That 1t is
unsound in principle might be proved by the
former arguments of some Of our city con-
temporaries who are now strenuously oppos-
inn The Cnsfinan bill The E,kninr Post IL,