New-York tribune., 1879-09-16

drnhtcfy true hat " Wheeler r. iaho 10 ] the pen-
ritics inno-ed hv siuruc rItu drlrarcr Officers "hi
h, conLi b.. in~ft nnd COW cI, ~ iaopcr - ex-
stod; rui this f,c Doe not n ko hrn iac preu-
lar nis hod oi prucfcrie nipi'1pe ohy q" ~ f-'h
who-r ttfu of oai.. has uut ,xp.r,d aud ich pro-
cf..re j. for ffe pd pose ~ creating vacancy Nh'ic
.i0e- not exist. am clearly of the "li'h 'lci'
fIe. tlat The Legislature uryrT intended 90 g'r le
tiafnr fhc power g. rrIn,ve iolaoy,r ~ fr: "a
h'usc. - he removal q. an cie,r W i> Hu "iS'i 10
Their was ason for tar coaierring iLe power
s'c .rdN. oecausr d I,i. over '"l,rt a..
ofac, can DE h.l~d wlich. # pursu'd. wogl'
lot OF - -i hase 'p', 'irn ~ r'ilpN =. o. cr @ %
B over tl'G 4hfbN trciuse u, lF-ls"lul" "-s 90"
posed o. uaift r.u officer we'd which 'nnloJ
Inc r,atir.s proIosiion - - io"NS; u ihe mayor
DE. %. power lo rcI,Nr Mr. c,r, iL ARK "l
prohibition Dee 10 prevent hn irom attempting s"ch re-
DOvLiI
ARBITRARY RENIOyAL NOT AUTHORIZED.
judge Van Braut into elaborate discussion Of
the question. citing authorities 10 support MS
opinion He then continnes:
Ian, W the opinion. therefore that upon principle.
there hen no authority rho contrary. every CASE
whore um officer orzcd by law to act iudcial m
he deI'rnlnaii'n o, any question n ne
removing heads departments 'r causet n" pro
viso, n thc Charter eying The Mayor power remove
g. 90 follows: The heads of III d-rarim'nfs
may be removed by the MAYOR Tor canse ana amer "p
clearly Indicates that The cause not int nd'd 10 ho
merely political. bccause te history of politics ~ 'ia
county shows .hai when The Nccntye has the ds'I'
ou power Ofremoyi ci euce IN political opinion
has long been regarded >ut lent eanse tor ren"f
There NUT DE- SOME sh'i ilal' tes9na.S a' l,.,,
cause. sIch cause must not only be alleged, ~ must
after opportunity To 6e heard what docs IA, Up
porIuu.iy To Ice heard Ee'1,"5IN inpy ,a ,,.
because ne must hno" wuat he Is 10 Dc h'ail al apou,
aud secondy-Thai ne shall have the right 10 PROV 10y
that, Mayor has power to remove 4 the G.'on
Of the Court Of App.als IN he ease oi HTn1ay r
Woodruff !u the of Cookc agains the Pole Do
partmcut. 80 y. Y. JO6. And tins, necessarily leads
] Frim ~ II. d
proc: offered by tlc party sought to Oe r'no' e
and upon the whole oi the cNd, nee tAus oncicd the
matter iacr. that he cause nrc exists; aud whht
scon this of the MAYOR, bat judicial aconi HiS ac'
Of removal undoubtedly ministerial; nut his de'et-
tbin hyt ndicial Bnr n is n-ae, the power Of re-
moval gven Ia toe Mayor intended to be summary
IN Is nature, and procedure such "a has bcrn nui-
Gated involve, all the prrcrastiuaon ot tlal This
may be trae II tne statute means any hing u mean
all ths Tho giving a party righi 10 hr hfafu couu
never have been Intended have confined his hearing
the personal denial OF the charces preferred because
this would Dc mere mOckcry. The Legislature mover
dr. ~franchsemtnt without allowing party To prove his
innocence OF any dcrellction Of dnty
TIE MAYOR AND IHE GOVERNOR NOT THE SOLE
JUDGES.
A party who is entitled to hearing Is cntIted 70
speak upon that hearing In the only way when could
IN many eases be at all effective viz, by Tie mouths
Of ereditaole witnesses tesfyng to tne faty OF the
charges against him. II seems 10 me conclusively c.
abhshod 10y Court OF Appeals IN the cases already
dge or the su cheney or the cause. and TINT power
10 their action exists. IL i conceded th9 nlri
thr c!arfr the alleged cause ot removal must be some
drltcti0u az duty the part "f ihe 'ic"i a'l~i
10 bc removed, and that such cause mist e II IN Act
n the removing powers are nlonc 10 he ihe l.2s OF
mo sunlrtucy OF tue and itS existence,
/ and tn~fe 4, no appeal from tlelr drfeIm,uat0n,
then tGe ptarutc pretending to throw any safeguard
around Of Office J. hollow device ana ahhi,
Iep9nse removal could nciuay be made az thc viii NJ
fre removing power. Notwithstanding the rt,trrti u,
OF frn s-afufc. 10 l. tnA. n the case 10 the 81
Cr-iifar above referred 10. Hr sing under ST. lhiF
very Similar the "re unGer cousiurrali"n mo ,"Hit
Ael that the Mayor ia making remoyf, "{ "n' "a
executive capacity but tAe course OF a.'''.'
fis State has the contrary, as j. mon rac0
hr Ode case- td, and to he III 20 that the uc-nn o
executive otrtr-, When nit'h ul"h ~. Y. XIV. y,
existence o. fact, is judicial ana is the subject o.
Jt follows. therefore that as the Mayor has power
10 remove Mr.. Wheeler. tlat a.. W pa->iug u he 'A-
ri,ri'v and hat A. win OF prohibition Will Ic in
Inc casr of officer acting jndicaly Who eNrero- IT.
jus-o,on tie VIII L. 1io case at D1I mast DC Al"ul
Mr.. wurSTY's oPINoN.
CORPORATION Counsel Whitney was seen by TRIBrSE
reporter few minutes before the former eft bis oDc
las, evening He saliI have not as yet seen idge
Van Brun.'s opinion IN Police Commissioner Nheoiers
cae Iuudorstand that ts effect s. 90 make the original
/ Injunction uerTotual." on being asked A. 20 ". .at
would be the next steps taken by MIN on behalf o lhe
Mayor ne said hc hAd not az yet -Vcu HuF cons-ucI
t.oa shat question, as u was not A, custom To- act n
eases before tA'Y Mt re- omSlA5 .i =, ~, "a
peal 10 tAe next . toDor General Term Sp,ts 70 "l
ine iei pha - oi Inc decision, continued; have
the highest respect possible for Judge Van Bunts o.
ion but tniuk that tn- has Law IS AL wrons.'
COMMIssiOSER WHEELER SATISFIED.
Police Comnassioner Wheeler said last evening that he
was well sat-ed with the shape hls affairs had taken
His lawyers had told him that Mayor Cooper could DO
nothing worse tnan carry the ease NJ 10 the General
Term next month. and ii JIdge Van BrunFs decision
was reversed then IL Commissioner WheeleD would
tl Tie matter % the Court OF Appeals. The fact is
lie said Mayor Cooner was bound % have me out hy
hook u crook II hc could. before the inspectors oI eloc-
1
en.rt hi- puri O-c. For ths reason. whether or not
bad the law side, certainly lad great ueal oi
syIuDdtAy On my side.'
TIE NICHOLS CASE