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

~
ton or power of a judicial nature has been con-
the exercise that authority Will not he in any
respect reviewed, but thai the Judgment by such
right OF appeal or review has been expressly
reserved by the law; and am ADVISED tnat, LOT
ese Of ns power ana enoys for cause is
OF discretionary or judicial nature II
has been 90 rep rel, aud un, .y., I Sy
cause, made In the exercise OF such "a statutory
power, Is not. IN the absence OF an express pro-
ANIMATION or review by the courts or by any
otner tribunal or authority, In respect to
1t may be remembered also, that power OF
appointment by one, conferred by law in general
concurrence Of another, ana for the purpose OIL
enecting an object OIL which appointment Is only
part, usually implies Al unrestricted power OF
TDis new and singular provision OF the law OF
oiicer appointed BY him can take effect only upon
the approval OF the Governor, In writing ex-
pressed, ana alter communication 70 the Governor
by the Mayor OF his reasons for the removal, Is
seen, therefore, to be In der0gation Of the policy
OF the consultation. oil the law and OF the tenor
Of the decisions OF the courts, as they existed at
the time these provisions were enacted; and as
the Legislature must be presumed 70 have
enacted tae innovation In view Of 1t.
am advised tnat the powers by II con-
are to be strictly construed that the Governor
must approve or dtsappr0ve the removal made by
OF review the exercise Of sns
discretion IN that respect; that as basis OF his
action, ne IS entitled to receive from the Mayor
ated the latter to make the removal but that 1t Is
no part OF The Governors duty TO entertain or
refer to any thing else than that statement.
L am ADVISED That The Governor is not hero SIT
ting court OF review; That he IS not mere pass
he must act In every case. whether the 0ficer re.
moved calls upon him TO do so or not; and That It
is no part OF the Governors functions either to
investigate the facts further tnan by perusal OF
them as set forth in the Mayors statement OF lis
reasons or to receive listen to counsel in behalf
OF. or communications made direct by the officer
removed.
tins connection, il Itself ne In statute book,
and that 1t was borrowed Tor us from an old law
OF PENNSYLVANIA, where the word Is said to nave
received Judicial construction IN several well
known Cases, aud that 1t has always been by the
courts held to indicate (Which understand to be
the usual acceptatlOn OF the expresslon), not the
evidence upon which, or the record OF the pro-
ceediDgs IN which "a decision has been reached,
processes OF reasoning by which that decision has
been attained.
i am also informed as part of the history OF
this section OF the city charter that when In 1873,
the provision as It now stands was under discus
sion before the committee Of the Senate 1t was
there objected by q member OF the committee that
the bill dd not require the evidence and the record
OF the proceedings before the Mayor to he sent to
the Governor, aud did not afford the officer re-
moved any appeal TO the Governor as TO the facts
OF the case upon which the Mayor had acted, but
that was then replied that 1t was not the inten-
ton to impose upon the Governor the burden OF
INVESTIGATION OF the iacts in such cases or to give
him the power Orrequiring from the Mayor or Of
statement In writing OF the Mayors own reasons
for The removal. AND 80 the bill became aiaw.
OF the power OF the Governor 10 Intervention, In
these cases, to at least the limits by this prOvis-
ion Of the law assigned TO it. Nor have thought
Ii necessary to suggest how unreasonable 1t
would have been to accord to every subordinate
officer Of the city government two trials FIRST by
the Mayor and again by the Governor) upon the
merits before his removal from Ofilce could be
efected-whlle the Mayor himself is entitled 10
bat trial IN the case OF charges preferred look
ing to his own removal by the Governor.
And have gone into he discussion, even so far
as nave, with the sole object ofexplaintng to you
the advice and opinions which ha, e weighed with
me IN adopting the course have myself taken,
and OF suggesting to your own mind considers
lions which may not have occurred to you in writ
Ing your letter oil the 5tD inst.
nave no desire ior controversy or to tax you
1 have SAID all that Intend to say
IL Is now ior you to determine upon your own
course. subject 10 your own sense OF ofllcal duty
and OF executive responsibility to the people,
whose Governor you are. l do not doubt what
that determination must be, and have no appre-
tensions that you and will ever be found In an
tagOnism.
As am reminded by the reference in your letter
to Information received from me- and not con-
tanned In my Official communications OF the 81
inst, have In conversation conferred freely with
made were partly in Difference to your own views
with regard 10 the occasion for them.
Our relations are such and for long time have
been, that misunderstand ngs are not likely 10
occur between us. But conceive 1t to be my
duty to protect the dignity and the rights OF my
might well be made upOn them BY future Gov
ernors were now by asserting 70 the request Of
as dangerous innovation upon what has become
the esta blished pracuce IN this matter OF the
very important power OF removals by the Mayor
of nus sub0rdnates in the local government.
The cases referred TO IN my communications OF
the 80 INST have now been Tor week awaiting
government In the city OF New YORK su1er detri-
Dlent
II you suppose that have acted in either
OF those cases caprclously, or n you are OF the
opinion that the cause OF removal stated by me Is
frivolous or unreasonable. or that the reasons
taken are inadequate. OF course you WILL In the
exercise OF your own sound judgment, disapprOve
IT. recognizing the fact That nave been elected by
the people VI this city TO be their local chief
Tor an eiicient administration OF their local gov
ernment you appreciate my Official Responsibility
for the accuracy Of my findings Of tacis, and Tor
the S0undnesS OF my conclusions as to the nature
O the causes anu the adequacy OF the reasons for
the removals, shall consider myself entitled t. o
done.
The responsibility for Whatever depends upon
you vii meet it, and ali Just a expectatons in
manner to satisfy all good citizens.
VITA great respect ySHT GG dept MIGKHAm
TIE GOVERNORS REPLY.
STATE OF NEW YORK,
EXECUTIVE CHAMBER, ALBANY, Feb. IL, 1875.
To the Hon. WILLIAM Ii. WICKHAM, Mayor Of the
city OF New York;
SIR-Your messenger delivered to me the papers
In the removal cases a. my house at about six
O'Clock In the evening OF February 4. AS he To-
formed me he Should return by the 2:4O tram OF
the next afternoon | told him II he would call
at the Executive Chamber at twelve NJ. the an
swer would be ready Meantime looked over
the papers and that other Information
might probably be necessary and ut the
time appointed gave him my letter OF
February s. On the lita inst. rece we'd q COM
Iron Inn
therein contained as to my duties. Desiring TO
reply to II ut as early day as my current Oilicial
engagements woald allow, and was consistent
win the necessity OF my sending to New YORK for
some papers involved In the discussion, which
were yesterday received, Will now state my
conciuSl0ns:-
The questions are two FIRST, the nature OF the
removal iOr cause as 1t exists under the cOnsttu-
ton ana laws OF this State. Second, the nature OF
the duty o. the Governor In giving or withholding
his approval OF a removal under section 30 OF
chapter 1856 OF the Laws OF 1873