The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1877-12-21

IMPORTANT CONTRADICTION
When Mr.. Root had concluded his reading OF the
above document, Mayor Ely expressed himself desir
OF contradicing statement as to certain language
which II alleged had been used by him, at the
cluson OF the street cleaning conference This LAM
guage the Mayor repeated ~ follows:-"lt seems TO
me. IRON the present discussion, that the duty OF
cleaning the streets belongs TO the Police Board ana
they say with their best efforts they not pre-
pared clean them better For any reiel TO be had
from this thing we sort legislation.
Until that IL done they appear to be doing their best
s na 81, SSa M. U o remarked at period Of the ssS
son:-"I wish TO say that have read the stenogra.
phers taken on that OCCASION and after reflection
am positive that the stenographer misunderstood
my language, and wish to say explicitly that did
not that occasion say anything that was intended
TO convey the IDEA that thought the street Cleaning
Department had performed It's work properly,
well a. they could have done it.
Mr.. FiELD's ARGUMENT.
Mr.. David Dudley Field then arose. He contendea
that trial tho right oil the accused Commissioners
The Mayor had refused to mako the charges specific
and had denied adjournment. That was before the
answer was in. he was, therefore, az liberty 10 move
now joined-issues OF Tact to be proved by evidence
No should be removed by rumor. The testimony
their derelction must DO under oath and subject TO
CROSSE aminaton For that reason they sought for
time They were not wholly unprepared, out they
had not made sucn preparation rs they would wish
had they more extended opportunity. He would
respectfully submit that in this Tree land
could be cited TO show cause twenty iour hours
ofhce. He therefore asked an adjournment Tor such
reasonable time a. the Mayor in his judgment may
The Mayor said that, though the charges were only
served within few days, they had been made repeat
eddy through the press aud in other ways
MIR. Field inquired with some SURPRISE whether the
Mayor intended 10 remove ne Police Commissioners
charges made IN the newspapers, or whether no m
lepued, now that the charges we're Denied TO intro
ducc any further testimony.
The Mayor said he did propose to introduce any
Mr.. Field requested to know II tho Mayor decided
that no proof OF the charges was needed.
ADJuDcED GUILTY OF DERkLIcrIoS.
The Mayor said not, unlcAs thew IRE re5utled by
proof the side He deemed 1t his duty under
the statute TO assert taai he considered them guilty
Upon your suggestion 20 Mr.. Field inquired.
The Mayor-Partiay upon my own knowledge and
partially IRON the sources oil ordinary information
open 10 the general public
MI FieId-I you make the charges upon your
own knowledge We should most respectfully make a
motion to cross-examine you
The Mayor decline to be used as witness
Mr. Flcld-rhen there is no evidence at ali offered
except your statement contained In The charges.
The Mayor-That Is al propose to offer.
Mr.. Field inquired whether the Mayor would accept
argument piopriety of the position assumed
and the Mayor he would receive any argument or
statement in their behalf
DOCTRINE OF REMOVAL
Mr.. Field then discussed the doctrine or removal.
The Mayor, ne said holds judicial Office ana should
power Is administered. He then aluasd to case held
before Governor Fenton, who, IN rendering his aec
sion, said removals should only take place Oh the
clearest proof OF delinquency. He also cited the
OF Corporation Counsel Il. Deadeld Smith, against
whom charges were nude by Mayor Wicknam. In
this Governor Tden held that the official whom
II sought 10 remove must be served with copy OF
the charges against him ana afforded opportunity
OF being heard his defence. After enumerating
the hundred officials throughout the State liable to
removal in this way the Governor SAID that these
practices haa been followed over hall u century Re-
movals must be for substantial, reasonable and
Just cause. All the important facts relied upon
proof should be IN writing aud on record Justice
ana public policy required this course. In continuance
OF his argument Mr.. Field he'd tbat II would be I'm
improper OF the power OF removal exercise II IN
any way than Is here set iorth. dc claimed that
the Mayors decision thai no proof necessary
was reversal oil the decision OF Governor Tilden.
Furthermore, IL unreasonable to Call the Com
missioners to make answer within such short time.
What would be said he asked, II Governor were
nave only twenty .lour hours to make answer" How
would IT be charges were made against the President
House kepresen tatves day and the Scuate
should compel him 70 make answer 10 these charges
the next day The presumption OF tho law is That
every innocent until ne - proven guilty. II
the Commission have Ueen guilty some knows
testify to it. He submitted, therefore, that
he asked nothing unreasonable when he requested the
Nave TO reconsider his that no proof
Is necessary the face Of the denial Of the
Tue Mayor said he considered 1t his simple duty
when convinced that public officer had been dereict
TO make charges against him. He had become con-
this tho charges ought to be made.
and he would givo the officers an opportunity to
MIR. FULLERToS's STATEMENT.
Mr. Fullerton saiu he understood that tho Mayor
himself was OF those having knowledge OF the
charges Part vi this knowledge counsel understood
was derived from tue general sources =.
always true and reliable. Was 1t possible he asked,
that people holding responsible Offices ana enjoying
a large measure or public esteem could be put on
trial and condemned what HIS Honor has heard IN
streets gathered from the newspapers Again,
he referred TO the prevailing rule that men should
be presumed innocent until proven guilty.
BY she time Mr.. Fullerton had concluded speaking
Mr. Field received copy OF the nineteenth volume Of
Abbotts reports containing record Of the cnargcs
against Mayor Gunther, Comptroller Brennan and
ihers aud Governor Eenton,s comments III, reop.
The Governor held III that instance that he bound
by Of Justice not to exercise the right Of re-
movai except on clear POSITIVE and undouoted proof
ua ookc ~
should not prevail In this Instance. After defining
what he understood by clear positive and undoubted
proof Mr. Field moved that proof be offered or the
charges dismissed
The Mayor said he made the charges himself and
did need to introduce proof.
Mr.. Field said that the Mayor thus accuser and
Judge. He asked that his duties In the Office
should not interfere with his judgment IN the other
he then removed his motion, winch being denied, he
SAID they would offer evidence themselves docu-
mentary and otherwise.
OTHER AFFIDAvITs
Mr.. George Bliss Read v0luninous afidavits-
one from Police Commissioner Nichols Individually
anu ns other r from ns nsse ,nsaa
davits are already familiar TO tho public The
to the charges 10 street cleaning principally
ference in the Mayors office by Mr.. seth G. Hawey,
Chief Clerk OF the Police Board. Inc allegations
to spasmodic exercise OF duty also met IN the
affidavit with records from the Police Department,
gong show that all laws were carried out promptly
efficiently and without unnecessary nasty action
THE STREET CLEANING DkPARTMkNT.
When Mr. Bliss concluded reading tho adidavits
Captain Heddeu called and sworn:-
The Captain, IN answer to Mr. Fields questions said
1t was his belief that the stree.s are better cleaned
now than since the contract system expired; his
opinion was that with the means ~ their command
tho Police Commissioners could not do better than
they doing; IN tho disposal oil the street ret
use he said they are hemmed IN and hampered on all
sides; they have no place convenient TO use
dumping ground.
To the question whether s possible in the present
state of the law keep the streets clean he answered.
.,Non
The only question tho Mayor asked the witness
whether the Captain was aware that the Commits
sioners draw 500 700 per month for street cleaning
purposesY
The Captain answered that he understood such was
the
Inspector Thorno called and rectcd his
experiences superintendent OF the Street Cleaning
Bureau from 1872 iUr yoar or SO. During that year
the expenses oil the street Cleaning Department looted
up little short Of 81, SOC, 00U ana sim the Inspector
believed the streets about clean they
then He was in iavor OF letting tho Job by
every ward but he did not think the law pro-
vided Tor contracts Of this sort
THE WITNESS.
Tie last witness Of the day was Mr.. Stearin, who
used TO have street cleaning contracts IN 1856 ho
thought the present condition OF the streets was
good possible under tho circumstances