New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-02-19


In tho first case have O newspaper COPY OF the
charges communicated by Honor to Mr. Smith and
have received from Dir. smith printed paper wncn
suppose 10 be his answer understood from you tnst
S sS% bl papsT nsm IN fepy to certain 0
Tn nerformng sIe duty imposed on me by statute
(Chaptcr 335 OF the Laws OF l83 Section 25 1t Is proper
Always prudent, aud may often be necessary tnat l
Should inspect all the allegations OF tne shrns
light on the case. therefore request that az your
earliest convenience you will transmit TO nae tne papers
alluded TO- aud any Others which may have been before
In the other case, have nothing before except
the papers the receipt which herein acknowledged
request q copy OF the charges communicated 10 tne
Commissioners. of their answer II II was IN wrnng,
answer which they have made, and any other pa
pers which relate to the case .. -. ,,o-,, ,r,,v
With much respect, have the honor 10 De very truly
yours SAMUEL j, TILDEn
MAYOR wICKHAM TO GOV TILDEN
EXECUTIVE DEPARTaEST. CITY HALL
NEw-YORK, Feb TO- 1875
To His Frcsltency SAMUEL ]. TILDEN Governor Of ne
State Of Neic- York.
SIZE: Your letter. dated 5th inst reached mo on tho
9th. In 1t you acknowledge receipt of:
Fret: My certificate dated 81 nst of removal OF E.
Deafeld Smith, esq, from office Counsel to the Cor
poration and head OF the Law Department OF the City
of New-York. with the accompanying communication
you. in writing. of my reasons for such removal;
Second: NV certificate, also dated 81 inst OF removal
o. vSn osP rom ae 40 he
heretofore constituting tho Board OF Fire
of the CITY of NewYork with the accompanying com
municati0u TO YOU in writing, OF my reasons Tor suoh
Your letter informs me that as to the CASE first
toned have newspaper copy or the charges COM
municaIel by 70 Mr.. Smith, aud that you have re-
ceyed from him printed paper which you suppose 70
nothing Geiore YOU except the Papers received from
me- You DO hot iOr e OF Tue @ ~ me
communicated by me to Mr. Smith, or the printed paper
which you suppose DO his answers aud OF the pro-
prlety of submission by him to you OF answer adj
dressed to me- and whilst still held his case under con-
sidoration, need make no observation here -
Your letter proceeds with request TO ne to transmit
to you all the papers which have been before me
IN either OF the cases. particularly specifying copy OF
the charges communicated BY me to tho Pre- Commits
siouers answer if it was In writing, and. IL not
statement of that fact and Of any verbal answer
which they may have made. And you mention that
that request is so made because or tho apprehension
that in performing the duty In the premises imposed
upon you by cit IS proper always prudent
all tho allegations of tho parties-he proofs il any
taken-and documents which may throw light on tue
case"
should feel moro hesitation In assuming to oontro
that suggestion. were not quite sure that the ap-
not the result OF mature consideration OF the provisions
Of the statute prescribing the duty OF the Governor in
those stated in communelti lions To
OF the Sd inst with regard TO those cases. had reached
denitc conclusion before receipt OF your letter. and
my In reference to the Officers removed by
was strict conformity to the practice now established
by precedens in cases where removals were made by
approved or disapproyed by the then GOV
ernor. informed that tho practice
sell and that it assened to by Gov. DIX after
consideration. Since the receipt OF your letter. and
have reviewed the grounds OF my own opinion, and
have awaited myself or the advice Of several members
of tho Bar, in whose sound judgment acquaintance with
alirs, and thorough knowledge OF the law you and
have heretofore placed reliance satisfied that in
what have DONE aud by transmission ~ you of the POI
pers in your hands, have fulfilled nay duty CON
iormy TO both the ottcr and the spirit OF the law And
me for anything more than what have already fur-
nshed YOU but that Governor OF the State, you have
ity TO consider any thing else that your privilege
to exempted from tho labor and responsibility Of
vestgating deciding the questions OF fact In such
cases. and that other obligation resting
upon you than upon the papers forwarded to you by
ton to approve In your sound discretion, TO disap
prove the removals made By me upon my own official
responsibility for the causes and reasons stated.
This is said with all proper difference to your own
conclusions the requirements OF the law and
stated tbs advice OF eminent COUNSEL 10 me given
a guido for my own conduct whlcn IS here set forth
merely explanation OF my own action, and not
grounds upon which have assumed the position occu.
pied by But, in this matter. the Mayor 10 certainly
something more than COMMISSIONER 70 take testimony
for the consideration OF the Governor he invested
with powers and charged with responsibilities which do
mot attach referee % ascertain and report the
facts with his opinion. The Mayor is the yexecutive
head the local government OF the city and 10 account
able for tho administration He has the power appoint
ment OF heads OF departments and Of many other
officers which In some cases Is exercised with. and
men 1t made his duty keep OF the
dongs Of the several departments OF the local govern
of the city and laws OF the State to executed
and enforced for that purpose may call for
consultation aud cooperation all heads OF departments
and after hearing" allowed 20 head OF depart
ment other person holding office under the City Gov
eminent by appointment, the Mayor may remove him
for OF the existence and sutciency of which the
Mayor Is himself, In tho first instance, the judge.
known as the City Charter and The section coperrns
that power OF removal is In these words:
The all departments pelnng retained above sud
a, other whose appOia.men in section provided for may
be removed b. tho Mayor for ana asr opportunity to be
Of the Governor expressed In Whiting The Mayer shall all cases
Communicate to the GOvono wIg bis reasons Tor suh
tho oer removed make writing pac statement Of
therefor (see. 25 Chap 335, Laws Of 1879
Those provisions are, told all In the legisa-
ton OF this State, and some Of them anomalous
TO be observed that the removal Is made by
the Governor but by the Mayor aud partcipa
ton OF the former not even by in or veto
OF proceeding which Is their Joint act but Is merely
by approval dsapproval OF what has already been
need be parties before the Mayor the statute does
require that charges DO preferred against person
removable by tho Mayor. as Is by law exacted
In the case OF removal by the Governor OF an
sary. The or removal may grow out or q matter
actually known only 10 the Mayor himself ana the
OF the Mayors for the removal when made
Aud until the Mayors statement to the Governor OF
those for what has been DONE is required
that any part OF the proceedings should be reduced to
writing. Verbal notice may 10 gwen OF what ls re-
garded by the Mayor personally objection the
officer 20 his conduct and what the officer there
vised, may DO merely explanation or justn-
cation orally stated The Mayor has no power 20
any statement IN writing upon the subject II Is not
required the Mayor shall ME- preserve or make any
record memorandum OF the matter, Or OF any pro-
ceedlngs no have taken In H. other than by after
tho removal With regard TO the several cases now
awaiting your action my course was not In all respects