The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1875-02-19

cases must be Tor substantial, reasonable and
nom s 70 o. ais sas sa SSs
Ts'es y0c SSrgSed oass you TIN snat the iadgmen.
WITH ''s se s sns HGssS TO ye' tss
cause alleged. is not subject to review
BY ,as courts for s purpose Of reversing that
power, tnoreiore exists. TO give legal effect to
% ,Os wihoSt oosypg which e 6nd
Il. But disregard OF that rule would be none
VIOLATION OF RIGHT AND DUTY
cause the law had not disabled the oflcer having
a violation, II committed In evident bad raitn or
by gross abuse implying bad aith. would DOUBT
less render him liable to removal by impea chment
In the case OF the Mayor 1t would expose him
to removal In the manner provided BY the
movas might be wrong without involving proofs
leading TO such consequences, = che tx on the re.
requiring the concurrence OF some other inde-
pendent body or functonary. In many cases the
required; In others the concurrent action of the
Senate and Assembly. l have been thus explicit
trate the grounds OF my dissent from a constrnc.
ton OF my powers aud yours, which would prac.
arbitrary viii. These conclusions, the reasons for
which are now explained, have been stated to
you on several recent occasions.
APPROVAL BY THE GOVERNOR.
The charter OF the city OF New York provides
maj the rem3va, Of ine heads OF departments
tunity to be heard, and subject. however, before
such removal shall take effect, to the approval OF
the Governor, expressed In writing. The Mayor
shall in all cases communicate to the Governor, In
writing, his reasons for such removal. 1t also
prescroes that after the removal has been erected
the Mayor SHALL on the demand Of the
oiicial. removed make in writing a public state
ers and duties OF the Governor are concerned. nu-
man language cannot well be more simple OF
Judged Of BY the Governor; That act is to be Gap
proved" or mot approved" The approval is 70
n
Judgment by the Governor may be con.
Writing" But there Is not One word limiting IN
any manner the Governors means or method OF
arriving at conclusion whether or not he ought
form himself ana to judge as when he writes
approved" on bill sent him by the Senate and
waere he he writes approved" il may Be the the
theory, which is supported by the long and elabo.
rate augmentation OF your letter. Is that IN FORM
information as the Mayor may choose to give him;
That he Is shut out from all other knowledge that
by tho Mayor as established u and nd ndisputaSe
TRUTH That mis- own junction is conHned to the
act scdg yns seass s ts scs
to be true. is 3 sufilcient cause Of removal
Alright is check upon the ogca Of
the Mayor, aud upon nothing else. It would re.
suit, then, that II the mayor alleged fact which
untrue-as. for instance, that an officer committed
an act known to be done in che city of New York
at time when that ofilcer was before the Cover.
nor IN the Executive Cham Der at Albany-it would
be the duty of the Governor. II the act alleged
would have been Sufficient cause OF removal, to
certify his approval OF the removal, which he did
not IN fact approve and when he knew the &C
that accusatOry allegations are so Compounded OF
fact and inference that no analysts can separate
the elements without extraneous aid.
THE PRECEDENTs.
But It Is SAID that this novel theory, which has
no support IN law, reason and common sense, and
n a rha nj 10 q fQf n nth
Is construction. 10 established by q preceding
set by Mayors Hayemeyer and Vance and BY Gov.
you insist on Is practice now established ~
precsdent; that the practice was adopted W
assented 10 by Governor DIX after mature consid.
Grafton. My recollection OF the case to which you
Stern as commissioners Of Charities~dtd not
Ceved from New York papers; Ii those
precedent, Governor Dix initiated the charges In
. letter to Mayor havemsyer dated November ~,
tanned the facts IN regard to the treatment OF
Tweed, which were alleged as tho cause Of re;
were disgracelul to the State. criminal violation
Of duty on on the part OF those who have
utter contempt OF the law and the de-
termination OF jures and courts. and can:
by whose Official inierpostlon this abuse may be
permitted. On the 18TH OF November Mayor Have.
dent the Commission, containing the substance
OF Governor Oix's communication; but it does not
the I'd OF December Mayor Vance sent note to
the commissioners with q copy OF Governor Dx's
letter Mayor vance's note contained no indepen-
an opportunity to be heard on the charges con
tanned IN the letter OF Governor DIX and expressed
the opinion that the matter stated therein II
in TACT. was sufficient Tor their removal from
office. The deIences OF Messrs Bowen and Stern
Such IS the precedent which you cite as authority
Tor the theory that The Governor can lawfully OBJ
except such as are Communicated 10y the
Mayor Every, one OF the lacts contained in
Governor Dix and were asoertaned by him to
exist. Equally bad Is the precedent In respect to
which request Those answers were sent to
Governor DIX as matter or course, and were
before him wnen ne acted, his approval may.
form. He had lound the facts on his
own Information, acquired in, in his own
they were sufficient cause for removal before the
Mayor had toucned the subject. therefore, 1t APP
peaIs that the case wach yon cite Is in direct con-
tradictiOn and condemnation OF your theory and
my duties.
PROCEDURE.
You are quite correct in saying that the Mayor
is something more tnan o Commissioner to take
testimony for the consideration OF the Governor.
He IL, doubtless. an independent power whose
Concurrence ID necessary to effect removal. He Ia
Of the Senate in certain Instances and the
reco nmcndation OF the Governor the Senate re-
moves 1t makes no difference. r In the one case
the other OF tine senate. In both cases the act Is
Intellectual until 1t has received tine concurrence OF
each authority. in removals by the Mayor IL Is
expressly provided by the law that the
act shall not take effect until approved
by the Governor; till then 1t is inch0ate
ana imperative. In removals by the SEN
ale and Assembly either House may originate
them. There may be two Investigations and
under the existing practice the Investigations
amount almost to two trials. In removals by the
Governor and Senate the initiative Is by the Gov
ernor, and there may be two investIga lions. SO
lar as have observed the practice Is Tor the unC-
tionary whO Initiates proceeding for q removal
TO communicate to The BODY which must concur
In the act all the information he possesses. That Is
wnat my predecessors have ldvne. That s what
l should do, as matter Of course. 1t Is my Opin-
Ion that the functi0nary who initiates a removal
In such case should take care that all important
acts and proofs are In writing and OF record. 1
do not now discuss the question whether the rea-
sons which the law requii es to be communicated
includes the material facts ana the proofs OF their
q IQl I'm onIIn alal 0T IN al.nu nar