The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1875-02-11
that WIEN the dslenaant reauea.ea bin

that whom the defendant requested hin
to reduce ms opinion TO writing IL was to be I'm.
derce Also" While rhe Court indicate way ia
winch evidence may be presented TO the appellate
court the decision distinctly negatives the prop.
osition tnat the word 'reasons" In the act me ant
"evdence." says Judge rllghman, IL see no pre-.
WORD like &c IN the law. That judge should
write his own opinion is proper. but tlat ne should
be Obliged 10 make transcript or all the evidence
referred 10 IN MS charge Is unreasonable The
Court accordingly he'd that "a Judge who files
cannot DC compelled to return the evidence on
which That opinion was lounded.n fhiS ruling was
Iu.iy sustained IN tue case OF Mundsroach against
Lnn "a ,. X L.. l25) and seems never 10 have
1t therefore appears from the natural usual
and ordinary sense OF the expression, aud
from the only discovered judicial con.
struction OF the phrase IN this connection.
"evldepce." To all these rules or strictly legal
construction may be added several political
Importance which will here be only indicated.
construction OF the law whicn makes the Gov
ernor the uoge OF the facts as well as OF the "rca.
sons" or cause, would render the Mayor himself
less secure IN his tenure OF ONCE than is not
merely the mead OF department subordinate to
nm, Bat ,ro even each OF the hundred and one
by the Mayor only by approval OF the Governor.
II the Mayor is charged with an offence the Ia.
quiry into the charge Is haI before the Governor.
who. in that case. passes. without review, upoi
botn tne charge and tue evidence II the Cover.
passes upon the facts In the matter OF charges
preferred by the Mayor against a head OF depart.
ment or against petty oncer OF the city govern.
before the Mayor, the second before the Gov.
ernor-whlle tae Mayor himself IN case Of pro-
ceedings against MIN under the statute Tor his
own removal from office, has but one trial or
hearing
IL is the general object ollaws relating 10 courts
oil appeal to restrain them as nearly as possioe to
an examination OF the questions OF law, and to
whom came the living Witnesses. the exclusive
right to pass upon questions oil fact The rule y
wise one, and there IS no reason why IT should
not Apply IN the present instance The Mayor
comes IN contact with the living Witnesses and
listens to the ars9menls OF counsel. while neither
the lndlngs OF TACT by the Mayor be hed con.
elusive
Under every rule OF true democracy the con.
structlpn here insisted upon nnds support.
the Mayor IS In the midst OF municipal affairs.
conscious OF the detects oil the city government
and responsible for Its success.
Inc Governor Is terrltorally and politically at
second hand, and with only secondary respoasi.
billty Tor tue use o the veto power.
1t Is not democratic that the Governor should
nave sucl power as would be vested IN MN by
any other view OF the law than that ABOVE con-
tended ior; II is not democratic that. tnherinny
1t from a republican predecessor, he should seek
to use II.
Loyalty to his expressed convictions would lead
the Governor to cast the responsibility OF the
municipal government upon tne Que whom the
city has selected to govern IL; the one whom
one whose interests are Identified with those OF
the city, ana whose attention IS not distracted py
the claims OF the State or OF tae nation.
From all these CONSIDERATIONS it appears that
the reasons which IL rs the duty OF tne Mayor TO
communicate 10 tue Governor consist only OF
statement OF tne cause Tor winch an oticer
has been removed, with specialization Of
the FACTS STANG the cause OF removal,
not the evidence VI those facts; that the removal
Ii MADE by the Mayor VINO IL the dual judge AS to
iacts anu that the Governor has veto power
which ne can exercise only with reference to ths
act OF removal or tue reasons given by the Mayor
for the removal.
The only right or duty the Governor has In the
premises Is either to approve or to disapprove the
act Q! removal or the suticlency OF tie reasons
the Mayor may assign to him Tor having per.
lr.
should not be expected 10 inquire Into tho tesli.
m0ny or other evidence upon which the Mayor
has arrived at ms own conclusions as to the iactA
!t Is MS privilege TO accep. the correctness OF tne
Mayors CONCLUSIONS as to the Iacts. COUNSEL