The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1879-04-10

ntt or omission to at hV tho Commissioning
Unless II Is clearly demonstrated by legal proof
that the dis 'ipine and government Of the po-
lee force have become lax and incapable
through tho net or omission tO net OF the Com
missioner. then this cause for removal has not
been established. The. existence OF the cluse
has not been proved We hnve no proof before
US OF the existence " the alleged cause.
Sccond-The Mayor asserts: The police
force has detcrioretcd in efficiency. aud has hc-
come demuralizcd' The Commissioner asserts:
II is not tru that the police force has dctcr-
GRATED in efficiency and has become deinoral-
What proof IL there in the record that this
alleged cause eNsisp In the absence Of proof
that 1t exists its existence will not be assumed;
thcre being no such proof for the purposes oi
this proceeding. II does not exist. It's existence
has not been established, and will not be as:
sumed. The mere Iteration or r.heratlon OF
this allegation by the Mayor. or the assertion
that he Of his own knowledge knows 1t to be. is
not legal proof OF It's existence.
The sources ofhis knowedRe may be. erro-
neous. his dcducion from knowledge OF sup
posed inltS NAV bo incorrect Until the iars
are legally proven the cause does not legally
"Third-The Mayor asserts: The police
force has deterioratrd in efficiency or that
has become drmoralized' Tho Commissioner
asserts: II is not true tina, the police force has
desrioriq,tei IN efficiency or that 1t has become
What proof beyond tho nero assertion OF
tho Mayor and the general piniOn Of one OF the
vorsatOn had with the Mayor IL there that this
| cause has existence in fact2 There II no legal
| proof TO sustain the assertion before your EX-
| ccllency. The statements Of the Mayor. or tho
statemenis Of the Commissioner. nre not legal
| proof Tor two very excellent reasons. VIZ: 1t IL
not delivered under the sanrtity Of an oath IT
! has not been subjected 10 cross examination.
Much less Is there rvrn the prrience oi any
| proof that the alleged demoTall2 ton is the re-
| suit oi any art or acis OF omission or commits
zion 10y this Commissioner that would. " true.
| be the causc' contemplated hy the statute.
| Public officers holding office for a term OF
| years. subject 10 removal for cause, cannot be
deprived OF their oilige until the existence Of the
| cause IL legally established.
| Tho tenure Of public ofllrc would become
ftI lt.lt.
10y precedent Tho cause must bs good mud
sufficient one apd there must be- legal proof Of
us eN,stence. lts existence will not be as
sumed. it must be- proven.
hsmev,l' or eau.c are di.tnsaishele nom removal,
the powers and wtich have generally io'lowcd thc
S9sntes o rem & vi1s nowcr %. OF lsH a,,nI,ncy Ine
moya IN such cases must be Tor substantial reasonable
I" So says the letter Of Gov Tildrn ~ tho Hon.
| william II. Mickhnm. dated tcb. II. 1915.
| . fourth-The Mayor asserts: The Board OF
caused the streets to he thoroughly cleaned aud
| has not removed from the city daily. and rs
often as negrr,ssary hl ashes. DIRT rubbish and
not true. so far ~ ! am concerned. that the
Board Of Police. OF which am member. has
| omitted TO perform any duty, or properly To eN-
| ercise any authority imposed or conferred upon
i by law: lp rrsgect TO cleaning the streets OF
Now what is tho law in relation TO street
cleaning in the city OF New York rs II exists ON
ties OF the Board Of Police shall be in respect to
street cleaning:
The hoard Of Police by this created sha posse.
Police by chapter tile laws OF s72 aud any act OF
sSeepi IS herein othefwise PROVIDED and sha esSb.6
n their department buread which shall be called the
shall be police onicer sud slAl be called inspector Of
Of the Board oPocc have charge Of The cleaning me
sie'.s au IuunS w la.,s o. .ns W hv slal
Of any ehisng contract tor such cleaning Tor the
amer made BY the Board OF Heah6. Of nisei
and dead SSasis; and shsi PeTorm such aGGionsi on
cleaning As ~ the opinion OF the Board Of Health is necc
clean lie shan poses az The Powers and rght; npescd
% IN any sssss. nov e sst % 20 % far MI 4. @ he
Comptroller monthly statement under oath showing
" ,s ns'sr ,, 1 I n & @ s a, Ss nam nav or ,,
VII ' oit ''' IT, ,'s iga..c ann fS.e s,ta 'o'
Are the Board oi Police in this subsequent
statute charged VITA any such dutest NOW. sir.
let us see u the Legislature's iutenuon was not
| manifested IN ne change oi the reading ot those
two statutes. Tho law will not impos" ~ a duty
To be pertorme' anything taat is unreasonable
or physically ifIl oss BILE of that Is likely To- boz
| con - physicalr impossible. The streets u
| New York can only be kept clean hv tie cNurn-
diture - such sums as are paid Ia the credit II
| the Police Department ycnr by year. aud the
duty Of the department in relation to street
cleaning is tnHt those sums shall he expended
honestly aud wisely Tor the accomplishment Of
| that purpose.
Ifthr sums are insufficient TO accomplish the
garbage have not boon supplied. II the divided
authorities OF the different dtpartmcnis-Hs for
instance the Board OF Health. In pres ribug
certain duties. the payments for which must
como from these funds-intcrfcre with the
proper exrrcsr OF their authority By tne Police
| Board; II the Department ol Puhiic Works. in
| relation 10 the spriuklng OF the streets, refuse
20 act in accordance with the Police Board IN
this matter. decline TO facilitate the necessary
| sprinkllng % the dust before II can he swept UP
and remoyed-all Vat the Police Board is
| charged with all that il is reasonable to sum
| nose II charged " IN. Ii tnut the moneys placed
at It's disposal shall be honestly and nicllig"ntly
expended for the purposes Tor which they We're
that more responsibility attached 10 them as 10
say that the Commissioners OF the new Capitol
| were charged with the entire completion Of that
building because AN appropriation was made
for its complction-if as matter Of fact that
piete that building Is thero a scintilla OF proof
that the Police Commissioners have not hon
placed at their disposal Is not the proof al
the other way Isn't It a mater Of
public record that, never before for SO
small an amount OF money was SO large
an amount OF work accom- shed in the clean
ing Of tho. streets OF New York, Suppose the
Board Of Estimate and Apnortionment when
asked for an appropriation for street cleaning
purposes appropriated sum coniessrdly
wholly Inadequate for those purposes. would
then the duty imposed by the statute of 1872
| but not imposed by the statute of 1873. be i'm
posed upon the Board. to do work that the np-
prouriation could not possibly pay ior doing
| 1apprehend not | apprehcnd that all they are
legally charged with in regard To street cleaning
for that purpose-which they have done
that they should wisely and hon
csty eNpend the moneys which have been
nut at their disposal for street cleaning; and ID
there u scintlllR OF proof that thoy have fuiled
70 do either Of these two things; VIII tho eX-
lstcnce OF an ash neap here or gutter there at
! one particular time, when from time immemO-
! rial the streets Of New York must. from the ma
| turc Of things have moro dirt in them than al
any other time. ho deemed sufficient evidence
that the duties of street cleaning. ns Imposed
! by law have becn negectedY May it not be- thai
others than the Street Cleaning Bureau arc {,
! | blame for whatever ground for complaint eX-
! lists Is il not matter OF knowledge that chest
Commissioners have neyer sought this duty
that they have sought Legislative relic
| from this duty from time to timer That they
: have asked TO have the duty taken away from
| them by contract from time to time That they
have made efforts to cOntrnct out from time I,
| tmeY Nav it net well be that the fault is not il
, | the expenditure Of the money. but In the com
| plicatad state Of the law in relation to stree
r cleaning And then the rule is that il they
have performed to the best Of their ability, ant
as far MS the appropriation would permit. al
the duties imposed upon them 10y law, they hay,
r | fulfilled everything tho statutes required il
q | respect 10 street cleaning. There ie not scin
tilla of proof that they nave done anything else
S Not only must there be Just cause 10 warran
: a removal but there must be hearing No
only must there he n cHuse alleged, but II it's cX
| ln. La. lIt .ttl.