The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1879-03-18
CLERK GUMBLET0N MUST GO.
COZ ROBINSON REMOTING HIM FOR
NEGLECT AND MdLFEISdNCE
The Charges of the Bnr Association's Com
u,ittee Fully Verified - HeRister Loew is
Retained-The Executives Explanation.

Hetntned-The Executives Explanation.
ALBANY, March 17.-Gov. Robinson has
rendered decision in the cases OF Register
Loew and County Clerk Gumbloton. In the
case OF the latter he explains that charges OF
neglect OF duty. malfeasance and maversation
in office. and extorton. thirteen in number
were duly verified on oath by Artemas II.
Holmes Henry c. Knox George De Forest
Lord Charles F. Mclean andJ. Adriance Bush
The first five charges and the thirteenth relate
to the neglect OF the Clerk to keep such
books as he is required by the statutes
showing the amount OF all fees. perouisitcs, and
emoluments actually received for any service
done by himself or his assistants in his or their
official capacity by virtue OF any law OF this
State; and Of all fees. pcrduisites, and emolu-
ments which he was entitled TO demand and re-
| ceive from any person for any service rendered
| bv him In his official capacity pursuant to law
| and also to the neglect and refusal OF the said
| Clerk to keep such books open for inspection at
nll times during business hours. by all persons
desiring to examine the same.
The sixth. seventh. and eighth charges relate
to his neglect TO transmit to the Comptroller OF
the city OF New York such a transcript Of the ac-
| counts OF the fees perauisitcs and emoluments
collected md received by him. as the law re-
quires.
charges relate to the demanding aud receiving
| OF fees in excess OF those allowed by law.
The Governor quotes the statutes that the
| charges allege have been violated by the Clerk.
and says that II is very clear that the object OF
| the statutes was to prevent any abuse Of the
powers conferred upon the Clerk; to prevent
any exactions by him OF fees not authorized by
| law: to provide stringent measures to secure
the payment into the city treasury Of all the
| income OF the office; to enable the public to
know specifically what the income Of the
| office and the compensation OF the
Clerk WERE and TO require the utmost publicity
| as the best means OF reaching these ends. The
| requirement that he sh ould specify the amounts
| he WIS entitled to receive and the names ot the
persons paying for given service was evident
| ly designed TO guard against any cousion be-
tween the Clerk and outside parties 70 eVade the
| law. The inquiry now is has the Clerk fully
and fairly obeyed these statutes or has he either
| violated or evaded theml
The fee books OF the Clerk. the Governor says.
| instead OF giving the nature OF the service in
any action; simply give the title Of the cause
| With no reference whatever to the nature OF the
| service They give no account whatever ot the
| fees and emoluments received by the Clerk.
| and which he retains for his own compensa-
| ton. They do not give the amount received
| and the amount chargeable. For numerous
| services and payments Of the same they
| show no account whatever. They do not
| show any receipts for searches. The act
Of 1853 provided that the Clerk should receive all
| addition to the salary To which he was entitled
BY law. but there is nothing in that statute; nor
| in any other which have been able TO find. re-
leving him from the duty OF keeping the ac-
| count rs required by the act OF lSi7. IL is not
possible TO ascertain from these pretended ne
counts what amount should be- paid to the city.
| or even approx imatey the amount OF compen-
sation the Clerk receives for his services.
| The books have not been kept open for public
| inspection. and the Clerks excuses for not
showing them are insufficient The CLERK, does
| not own the books. nor the office which he
| holds The OfIige and lta contents belong the
| people OF the whole county, without distinction
| Of party. Every citizsn Of the county has tho
| right under the law TO examine those books.
| The Clerk is but tho agent and servant Of the
people. chosen TO administer the duties ~ al
TO Accommodate the whole public. II the books
are correct and the conduct OF the Clerk has
| been right. the more they are examined the bet
ter for him. His refusal 10 exhibit them is
| therefore. not only violation Of the law but
also suspicious circumstance IN Itself.
| The Governor also finds that the Clerk habit
| ually disregards the requirement thHt month
y transcript 81 accounts must De sent to the
| clumsy evasions OF the law.
Does the Clerk habitualy charge and receive
greater fees than are allowed by law for filing.
| indexing. and recording notices OF the pendency
| OF actions2
Ii appears from the papers before me that
such notices usually contain from three to five
| iolios The law authorized the Clerk 70 charge
10 cents per folio for recording them. His uni
form charge Tor notices ot the number OF iolloS
| 80. 40. or 80 cents. which is the legal rate
| The Governor then answers the explanation
OF the Clerk in justiiying his charge for record
| ing notices OF the pendency Of actions. He add: :
The charge Of 10 cents per iolio i9r recording
| notices. Is fixed by the statute OF 1864. OF re-
| quirinR the record. and no other Zee is author
| iz'd. The statute gives ton cents per folio in
addition TO any fees now allowed by law, for
| fling. indrxing. and certifying the same. But
there was no such fee allowed 10y law" N ap-
| pears from the section Of the code above quoted
| and even II the charge for filing and indeXing
were allowed as claimed, the fees charged by
the Clerk would. in most cases, be nearly double
the amount allowed oy law.
The fees which n Clerk may charge In any
| action are those specifically named. and he Is
forbidden to receive any other fees whatever in
such action. This Is plain. simple and direct
been said about tho uncertainty and
e9nipso9 9.o the aMd law .riP IL regard to
The whole dim Guilty comes from the vain and
useless effort u find some law to excuse H. legal
| conilne themselves to the fees fixed and allowed
by the statute. they Will get into no con usi ion.
The only exception TO this remnrk rentes 10 the
| fees for searches In regard 10 which there has
been and If some division ofopiniQn.
Much stress was laid upon the allegation that
the Clerk does not charge more, and in some
cases not so much as his predecessors and
other officers have charged. Whether this
be true or not is not material in the dspo-
sition OF this case. The question is not what
| others have done. but what has the Clerk done
and does the law justify him; Nothing can be
| worse than to excuse official abuses. on the
ground that they have been long practlscd
Such practices never correct themselves. They
| grow WOTbt hh lltb DIOkTfSbs h'lfNtu from
| the restraints OF law, each new conner IL tempted
| TO improve upon the illegal eXRctions Of his
| predecessor. He transfers his allegiance from
| the law to his pocket, and drifts further and
| further IRON the restraints Of his official oath
| II public officers sworn 10 obey the law and to
| discharge their sacred trusts in accordance
with its provisions, wilfuy and steadily dis
| obey IL for selfish ends. how can obedience 10 1t
be expected from citizens who are not in office
1t is not claimed that any officer. any more
| than any citizen. should be made to suffer for
| any trifing, casual. or unintentiOnal infracton
| OF law. But where a public officer stands out
| as n bold aud hahtual vOator Of the statutes Of
the State and denanty lustihes his guilt 10y
| thar OF his predecessors. n liberation OF his
course will naturally and surely Lead TO a dis
regard OF all law in the community and to a
| state OF anarchy.
The function OF the Executive in dealing with
! such a case MS this is not that Of Il criminal
court. He is not bound TO remove except in his
discretion. which is to be exercised with nm eye
TO the higher charge Of the Constitution that he
shall take care that the laws nre faithfully eX-
| ecuted." And even with all the record of past
| neglect Of duty and violations Of aw on the pHrt
OF the Clerk. II would yet perhaps he possible TO
| escape the unpleasant duty Of his removal. II in
his entire course since this investigation was
| commenced he had not resOutely persisted in
| his infractions OF law, and given every indca-
| tion that proper discharge Of official duty and
observance OF law Mt his hands was not to be ex-
| pected in the future. He has even attempted to
tal bn hou hf i