The New York herald., 1879-03-21

lowss-- .,o ,s,- 90
1875. ............ q is7s................ 60
1876. 76................ 70.
The yearly report dated March II, 1879, as sub
mitted by George b. Got, bookkeepcr in the treas
urers office, gives the following hgures:-
Steamboat employees. S5.642 81
Tugs. repairs and supplies. es.............. 1908 10
scows. @ repairs ana supplies ......... s,I14 o2
Unloading scows... 36,6l6 o.
Towing iextra) 1902 rs
Towing, furnishing and unloading scows.. 3,a35 90
Paid for hired scows and tugs since state
mcnt was made. observation-disclosures. 3OO w
Total S93. .OB 76
The total number Of loads of ashes. street dirt.
garbage. ice and snow removed for the year 1878 Ii
' 80 WHAT MAYOR coorEn SAYS.
The Mayor was asked whether he had read the
editorial in yesterdays HERALD as to the rights Of
tho Police Commissioners to b. represented by
II read the article and with all due respect to the
HERALD do not think they have the right to answer
through counsel The constitutional provision
about accused persons being represented by counsel
In criminal trials does not. III my judgment apply
to the proceeding in question. which is not trial
shown by the opinion of tho Corporation Counsel
published to-day The law simply provides that cer-
tain officers may be removed for cause after an
opportunity to be heard and that the Mayor II they
request. shall state in writing the reasons for his
action"
The disdainful silence on the part of the Commits
sioners and their counsel gave rise to all sorts OF
runOrS. Some stories to the effect that MeSsrS
vanderpoel Bartlett Root and others would contest
the legality OF the Mayors action in the courts and
apply tor writ OF prohibition to prevent him ro-
moving the Commissioners. Some way even started
the ridiculous report that Mr. Bartlett felt himself
deeply aggrieved by the Mayors attempt to have
him forcibiy and ignominiously elected from
his Office that he would take stops to
have His Honor impeached. The legal gentle
men. men Ives %eEs m G @ ~ & "a
expressed 1t, it would be '.inexpedient-cither in
warfare or htigation-to advise the adversary Of
who is counsel for General Smith, said that he be-
heved 1t was undoubtedly the duty OF the Mayor to
hear counsel. AS to any further answer all which
could possibly be made to charges so vague and in
definite had already been given
Mr.. ELIHU ROOTS VIEWS
Mr.. Root. counsel for Mr. Erhardt, said that while
he did not desire to cricsc the action OF the Mayor
he thought that His Honor had acted unfairly to the
Commissioners. 1t was undoubtedly the meaning OF
the law which said that the Commissioners should
be heard that they should be heard personally rs
well as by counsel although It was not expressed IN
had already been decided by the Court of Appeals in
the cases Of militia court martial trials, in which
officers had refused to allow the militianen counsel
ON tho ground that these not regular judicial
trials. The Court of Appeals held in those cases
fence fc BY by the the refusal to hear their counsel It
was possible that the law did not mean to allow
counsel IN such cases. although he tAlr. Root was
inclined to the opinion that it did; but whether it
did or not the Mayor should have given the accused
Commissioners the fullest opportunity for their de-
fence. Everybody knew that no man could defend
himsalf as well his counsel could. and the
Of Office like the Police Comnssonership should
not be dependent the fact whether the incumbent
was good talker or not.
VIEWS OF MR.. NICHOLS COUNSEL.
Mr.. vanderpoel, Commissioner Nichols counsel,
ciatc, Mr.. Dookstaver. said that further
had been made to the Mayor, because practically
charges Of definite acts Of commission or omission
but no such charges had boen preferred. Mr.. Book
staver thought that the Mayors action in refusing to
hear the Commissioners through their counsel would
afford quite sufficient basis for writ of prohibition
prevent the Mayor from carrying ont his threat OF
removal. No such step. however. would probably be
taken. tho Governor would undoubtedly grant the
Commissioners full opportunity to be heard through
their counsel and would not sanction removal
such vague and indefinite charges
MI. ERHAnDT BH REMOVED?
Among lawyers and others who profess to be
familiar with the subject there IL . diversity Of
opinion respecting tho power of Mayor Cooper to
remove either Mr.. Erhardt Mr.. Wheeler, both
holding over under the terms Of the charter until
their successors shall be appointed. By per-
sons It is commended that Mayor Cooper has the
that he IL filling unexpred term, but also that it
is not necessary that his successor should be con-
hrmed by the Board Of Aldermen. Those who set up
this claim base it section of the Laws of 1874
chapter 30O, which amendatory OF chapter 335 Of
the Laws OF 1879. Tho section referred to ueAS as
follows:-
point without confirmation Of the hoard Of Aldermen
now exist o. may hereafter from death ressn.iion
or cause other than the aspiration o the u term In any
tor of ls7a he empowered appoint by
and with the consent of the Board ut Aldermen.
THAT section" said Mr.. Rufus i. Andrews, to
whose attention 1t called by the HERALD rcpor
ter, "wss drawn by George Bliss when he coun-
sol to the Police Board to meet just such peculiar
1t is my opinion that ii Mayor Cooper
Mr.. Erhsrdt the latter will 20 before the Governor
and nullify tho Mayors action. The Mayors proper
course is to appoint OF Mcssrs Wheeler
and Erhsrdt and not remove the latter"
Corporation Counsel Whitney was absent when
the reporter called. but ono Of his assistants gave
his individual opinion lawyer tho sub
ject. while not Wishing to have II 9uosed
he. 'can be removed, in my opinion, the
same a. any other Commissioner appointed under
the charter. His successor must be nominated to
ter provides that all heads of departments must be
appointed to and confirmed by the Board Alder
appoin tment is to I'LL such vacancy. The section
you quote cannot be made 10 apply to Mr. Erhardt's
case. This provision In intended to
where there is unexpired term to MI. Mr.. En-
hardt is simply holding over. his term having cx-
prcd. until his successor shall be appointed. Who
ever that successor may be viii be appointed for six
years from the date ot his confirmation by the Board
of Aldermen. "
DAVID DUDLEY FIELDS OPINION.
Precisely similar issue developed in the trial
of Mcssrs. Wheeler. Erhardt and Nichols before
Mayor Ely in December, 1877. David Dudley Field
who appeared for Mr.. Erhardt at that time. address
''Therc arc three Commissioners who are charged
with dcrcliction OF duty aud whom IL is sought to
remove. Mr.. Erharlt, as you know, il not
now holding term of ofhcc. He is merely holding
over. Ills term of Office has expired. You have
with II the % consent % Sf the Board of Aldermen. Now
IL cannot DO possible that by any con-
trivance you deprive the Aldermen OF tho
power Of saying who shall be his successor. You
have but to send In name and get their approval,
and Mr.. Erhardts power ceases on the instant. In
point OF fact he is not Commissioner of Police In
the proper Of the word ut this time; he is
person who has toen commissioner, and who holds
over, as II is commonly expressed. In other words.
no oxerciscs ad Interim. the functions Of tho Office
pending your movements to put in sue
ccssor, with the appreciation of that depart
mont OF the city government TO which is given
the right TO agree or disagree with you
In the selection of successor. Now, sir. that we
may not be misunderstood, we beg to say that
deny In toto your right to interfere with Mr..
Erhardt IN any way whatever. except by doing what
you might have done long ago-nominate u successor
to the Board OF Aldermen whose prerogativo II is to
say whether the Office shall be thus filed. And IL
you could by any means escape that check upon
your power by this removal. as il is called for cause
you wonld be enabled 70 defeat an important pross-
ion OF the city charter"
aIxIuAI su,ru ~ !, ,.-.t