The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1875-02-11

communicate to the Governor DIS reasons for such
removal" and 1.-THE Mayor shall make IN writing
public statement OF the reasons therefore, In the
twenty-sxth section:-"In case OF removal q. e.
ior, shall be filed IN the department. These are
uses o. The word IN almost immediate coocation,
aud II IS not TO be supposed thar, In these several
uses. the word has q varying sense. II II means
'evidence'' In one instance. IL had that meaning
In all and IL seems palpaoiy clear that the Legis
lature did not make this frequent and continuous
use OF the word without definite purpose.
utes" records reenq a: once ss tne ornnsr
and usual terms by which to describe the record
carded IN this statute. and the duty imposed aoon
the olncer making the removal Is required to be
sa.e Ems 80 ne Of 6s ns
nicipaty, and ~ certain instances to his sucres-
sors In once, by entering the same upon the
records OF the department from which the re-
mova mas been mace.
II Is absurd to suppose that the Mayor is by
that provision OF the law called upon TO make o
written transcript OF all the evidence for the
OF the pnonc; he stands or falls before It, by the
suncency OF his "reasons." In the strlciest sense
OF the word The man raised by the public TO the
highest municipal position IL certainly trusted oy
II TO the extent That 1t does not require TO REIN
vestiaate all the questions OF on which he has
passed 10 the public, therefore, he states his
conclusions as facts, and by them be justlfes the
IL Is equally absurd to suppose that in depart.
discouraged except the dies be encum6ered with
the evidence taken upon the rial OF every minor
regard to such matters, TO ccnnde in the dls:re.
ton OF these superior oricers, and created them
competen; ana an. nnal Judges as TO the aots pre-.
10 the Governor, to the public or to succeeding
ADMINISTRATIONS for the character OF causes as
last resort, ~ must excite great eau:
decisions and his reasons are placed on
record" Even so the Governor aud the
vote, and the other to rdale with rs criticism an
lnsumcient reason oy when removal Is at
the meaning Of these direlenr uses OF the WORD
"reason," and In none OF them does 1t fairy seem
talon for sucn case is this LIN the construction
OF remedial statute regard must be had to the
defect III the former law.
Legislative mind. Within sixteen years the city OF
that OF 1857 the second that OF 1870 the third that
under una discussion passed IN 1873 The defect IN
section Of the law OF 1873 was intended to supply,
was this:-
In the preceding charter (that of 1s.o) the Mayor
had no power to remove, but could only impeach
heads Of departments, who we're thereupon to be
| was found, however, to be TOO cumbersome Tor
practice, and to fetter the course OF Mayor,
who was responsible Tor the government OF the
city, by fastening upon him supalterns whom he
could not control.
To remedy that evil the Legislature OF 1879 re.
turned substantially to the provIsion OF the twen-
ty-drst section OF the charter OF 1857. 1hcre the
Mayor, by and with the consent OF the Board OF
! Aldermen, could remove the officers whom he had
appointed with their consent tie incuipated
officer, however, was given no opportunity OF de-
FENCE which Is specifically PROVIDED Ia the char
| ter Of 1873. The Mayor was TO communicate to
the Common Council the removal and the cause"
! thereof while IL IS here provided that he shall,
instead, communicate TO the Governor in writing
! his ''reasOns."
| this section Of the charter OF 1867 was supposed
by the Legislature or 1878 10 be concession to the
dsapproval Of az act already perormeG IN pac c
OF Inc right Of concurrent action formerly given
eas al ihe Ia mo- sspec can IT
than were those OF the Board OF Aldermen, and 1t
seems that the reasons to be communicated to the
Governor are simply the ''cause" formerly COM
munlcated to the Board OF Aldermen. Even ii 1T
be term OF larger meaning the judicial construc-
ton OF the word cause" In that charter, gwen
before the meeting OF the Legislature OF 1873, III.
dicates that the remedy, II any. was sought by
the change OF the word 'cause" to the word
In the case Of The People VS.. Stout I'll Abb. II,
s. c. 10 How. I'LL the General Term Of our Su.
prems Court distinctly held tnat the only OBJ
liIatlon upon the authority making the removal
power OF revision in The Court land, therefore.
none woatever) to pass upon the sufllciency or
nature Of the cause; because" as tue Court
says, 1.-The statute does not designate any cause
and there ID no standard or rule OF definition by
or according 70 winch we can determine the
assigned cause to be good or sufficient" We may
therefore, conclude that the section in the char
Ter OF 1873 was adopted to remedy two defects IN
move his own appontees, IN which respect the
charter OF 1870 was at fault, aud to IN
|
| go0d, sufficient and reasonable cause Tor his
action, which. as we have seen, was not required
law, therefore, was to enlarge the powers and
responsibility OF the MAJOR. 1t cannot be that
nas S 20 Gves hm OF all Tn to pass
tion OF a mere referee TO take testimony, and 10
report the same, with his opinion, TO the Cover
only by declaring the Mayor to be the final judge
A lnlrd rule or method OF construction in sucn
case Is this :-Compare the words and expressions
OF law with those OF otner laws upon the same
or cogoate subjects; the differences OF expression
will Indicate tue difference III intention.
| Careful examination has disclosed no consttu-
state, or o. the United States which gives TO an
Executive Qnstead OF TO the courts) the rignt TO
| whom trial Is mad solitary apparent eXcep-
tlol is found IN the military code of the United
States army. BY the articles OF war relating to
certain class oil cOurtS-nartlai, II Is provided
! (brIghtley's Digest, page So, section 27g-..rhe
| proceedings and sentence OF the said Court snail
be sent directly TO the Secretary OF War, to be by
HIM Laid beior. the President Tor his confirmation
or approval or oruers in the case.n There 1t Is
distinctly provided mat all the proceedings shall
60 up 10 the President, and sucn would have been
the language ol the Legislature. IN the section OF
course been deemed necessary. Tue OMISSION of
the word proceedings" would have sent up to
the President only the sentence OF the Court, with
statement OF the cnarge anu specification which
had Dcen found true This Is believed To be lust
what Is required o. the Mayor that he commuul-
cate TO the Governor the charge against olicer
who has been removed with u specification vi the
facts mot tue evidence OF those acts) whicn show
hln TO DC guilty or the charge his in the case
Vi the Police commissioners before referred TO-
the communication would nave been:--"Re-
mOved-keasOn or cause-VIoiatiOn Oh the law
governing elections in the city oI New YORK.
Specifcalon-Tney turned out OF ONCE an inspec-
tor OF election, without Brst serving upon the
written n0t1c required by the law to be servedu
Such discretion In an Executive being iorean
TO the sDirt ana ordinary course OF American leg
lsiatlon; being found only In our city charter OF
1875, ami 10 articles or war; there should De care
ful scrutiny OF this anomalous provision, ana 1t
mn ~ IN nh tlAt
Legislature be strictly confined TO lis expression.
fourth rule OF the construction III sucn case Is
THIS Words are to be taken In their ordinary and
usual meaning. Bat the Ordinary and usual mean
ing VI the word treason" Is not tne that or
Lne words "evdence" or proceedings" nor Is
such Its legal acceptation The reasons TO oe given
10y the Mayor are such as might be given
by court OF last resort in rem
dering an opinion. There the facts,
not me evidence, are given. says BOWER Qnsii-
tutes, section 3,354 Courts OF error, In re oder
ing their Judgments, usually give the reasons
motives Whcn induce them on one SIDE OF the