New-York tribune., 1879-04-08

often as necessary all ashes dirt rubbish and garbage
You have been Negligent in the discharge of tho public
duties which you we're bound to fulfil.
You have allowed personal diSsenslons 70 precnue
the proper exercise OF the official trust winch you as
Your conduct has been unbccoming your office.
These causes warrant your removal from Once.
will give you opportunity TO be heard tnecon ~
IL O'clock noon, on "Wednesday March l9 1879 at the
Mayors office. EDWARD COOPER Mayor
Under the charter of the city, the government and
discipline Of the Police Department Is such the four
Commissioners may prescribe; and the Commissioners
are also charged with the duty Of keeping the streets
thoroughly cleaned. Under these provisions, in my
notification stated the a!Ure of the Commissioners to
disch0rge the important duties and exercise the ampo
powers committed TO them causes for their removal
upon the principle that pubhc offices are created Tor the
beueft Of the public and not granted Tor me Oenet o
the ucumbents aud that there is suhcent GROUND or
the removal Of officer Ike any other agent when he
fails to fulfil the trust reposed In hIn unless ne can
relieve himself from blame ior such faliuTe -
missiopcrs acied upon different view, Their theory
appeared be that member of Board once IN Office
is entitled hold his place at the expense Of the public
welfare despite the failure OF the Board 10 perform the
duties imposed upon Il until by detailed examination
and statement OF MS and conduct the cause OF
failure be distinctly traced TO mm as to convict MN OF
i cannot accept this theory. / know no principle
Of justice which demands the sachce of pub GOod 10
public ocals IL cannot be that lhe municipality must
suffer the evils resulting from the neglect Of duty and
the incficeucy Of board until II can be actuay de
termined 20 what COMMISSIONS or faults OF lndlVdnu
commissioners they 10 be ascrhed O. The last three
causes assigned. had received sufficient Information
from trustworthy sources to make proper III my Judg
ment to include them.
ACTION OF THE COMMISSIONERS.
The course each Of the Commissioners on the hear
ing was such that the two causes last named In my
notification were not imputed into hearing and
has not further considered by nasmueh Us sur
cient appears TO demand my action the other
stated At the time and place appointed Commissioners
Frhardt, Nichols and Smith appeared in person and
accompanied by counsel. transcript OF the stenogra
piers minutes of the meeting 1 submit herewith 1t
appeared, therefrom that each of the Commissioners
frst-That he was entitled to be heard through
Secoad-That the statement Of causes Of removal
not sufficiently specific 10 admit Of answer
The assistance OF counsel was not denied 10 any OF the
COMMISSIONERS each was In constant consultation WIN
his legal adviser and me proceedings were frequently
delay ed for the purpose OF such consultation OF ~ otder
that the counsel might prepare written reply TO be
The Mayor in The interest Of the public has right TO
and should, NV judgment, insist upon ull and frank
answer by an Official chaIGeu WIN hee.ett OF uuI5, 20
any question pertinent TO the mater. Sncl answers
should De made by The officer IN person, and not by
third party whose know ledge AT best must needs be at
second-hand This night could not surrender.
II is sufficient reason for an officer to refuse to
upon hearing before the Mayor, that answers
TO pertinent questions concerning the admlnistra-
tion Of deparin cnj, the failure 10 discharge the
form official duh 7, would elict facts initiating against
him. II the officer refuses TO answer such question the
presumption is that his answer would disclose facts
damaging 20 hlIn aud justying MS removal The OBJ
lection 10 the orm aud sgnceney 81 my statements OF
mOval assigned stated substantially IN the
language chosen by the Legislature to pre-
truth or untruth was peculiarly within the
personal knowledge OF the Commissioners None should
know better than they what If any, excuse could be
offered. No could know better than they whether
the Police Force was demoralzed or the streets Kept
clean aud the asIes and garbage removed Each
Commissioner best able, OF all men, to say
whether the facts which could not bs contra
dicted. by cOntradictng The evidence OF my own
senses aud TIE official records Of the Board OF Police,
were CAPABLE OF explanation on MS part 4heSe lacts
not heing dOunj the burden was upOD each Commits
soncr to state sucent reasons TO Vlndca'e ana Justly
his own actions. Lich COMMISSIONER hdu iai OpPoi,
tuuty 10 be heard, and 10 have a frank and
opeu discussion with Inc of the facts, IN general
and in detail, and t. MAKE any explanations
he might offer therefor. With what result an
TeTeafed questions received either AT all
answers not pertinent ar evasIve. They practically
hearnc and am led TO the conclusion that they
unwilling to a. Having thus considered the
TO a Consideration OF the case separately.
COMMISSIONER ERnARDI's CASE.
Commissioner Erhardt, prelmlnarly objected in
writing to proceeding with the hearing as TO bin. that
bis term Of Office has expired. This objection deemed
insufficient Section % Of the Charter provides that
"eyery head Of department = stall hold Office
for the term Of six years, and in each
until a person is duly appointed in hls place"
Commissioner Erhardt therefore as much in
Office ever. and as answerable as ever for
all the responsibilities thereto attached When asked
10 answer specifically truth Of the facts alleged
by me- Commissioner Erhardt answered that the first
Decentralization OF the force was true as stated by me-
To tEe allegation with reference TO the street
appointed committee of its members to take charge OF
that subject aud that until within the past hye weeks
he rad not been the committee and that as member
OF said Board Police, and n the exercise OF all the
pos conferred upon him by the SAID Board IN rea
lion 10 an. cleaning the streets this respondent has
faithfully and fully performed his duties. -
As his answer this head TOOK no position with ref
erenco to fact alleged by me, endeay )Ted TO get
positive upon tnat subject out could not sue
ceed IN CONG So In order make IL clear to the Com
nissouers what ny position was stated that II he de
MED the truth % the statement, would so into the
Mayor mas MS own knowlrdSc winch Le Will state to Mr..
ErlsId II he wishes hlin TO DO So after MIR Erhardt
has stated whether Le denies or adnts 10 answer 10
such questions as ask him. am prepared to give MN
Blt tae offer vas of no avail. Commissioner Erhardt
for replv relied upon his written answer as he did In
phrase to inquiries concerning his own con-
duct Even when asked bim. " what have you done to
correct tue which you admit 20 have existed In
Trhardt r.ioincd: :" make the same answer. and
think that VII close the case, Mr.. cooper Coninis-
sloner Erhar mus distinctly admitted the hFSt TACT OF
The second he dd Rot deny. although he endeavorcd
TO avoid MS responsibility by throwing II On hls
associate.
TRYING TO SHIFT THE RESPONSIBILITY
It's certainly novel notion that Commissioners can
diyes themselves OF accountability by distributing TO
one or more members duties charged by law upon ALL
Commissioner Erhardt is to be condemned however,
ont of his own mouth and his theory The chief
responsibility for the laKity and incaracity OF the
government and discipline OF the Police Depart
p5ent, and for the deterioration and Decentralization
of the Police Force-al admitted NY Mr. Erhardt-must
on his theory and prlua face, bct0ng 10 the - COm-
inttee on hules anu D,op'i&nv ma JoS h W .,atad az ~
me ~ h. interviews at the City H9, be considered
bis special department and under BIS particular charge
The care OF this he regarded such an ensroesing
employment that when he prOicssed 70 have found good
reason him 10 believe that thorough reorganization
of the method of cleaning the streets was mperauvey
necessary; that men not aDe-5OCled we're employed;
that a good many OF them were idiing away
their time; that the bureau was badly, not
dishonesty managed; ms occupation as Chairman
OF the Committee Rules and Dlsep ire prevented hn
from DONG anything effective tOgard Detterment OF
the clean ng Of the streets In view OF the foregoing
fstf he flQ
his deniais Of neglect.
1HR CASE OF COMMISSIONER SMITH.
In the case Of Commissioner Smith the denial OF the
.,rh - the first two allegations Uas evidently made