New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1879-08-07
THE GOVERNORS DEFENCE.

OFFICIAL ORDER REMOVING COMMISSIONERS Err
HARDT, NICHOLS AND SMITH. AND ASSIGNING
REASONS FOR The REMOVAL.
ALBANY, Aug. Ex-Governor Robinson has issued
an address to the public In relation to his removal
of Police Commissioners Erhardt Nichols and
Smith. 1t is dated August a. the day he signed the
order for General Smiths removal. After stating
the law governing the case, and the proceedings IN
relation TO the removal Of those officers he says:
The Importance OF this subject cannot well be over
stated the proper ttOn, government and discl
pine OF the police force matters which lmmediaeV
not only The property but the personal safety:
the health ana the VeS OF Tue llllOh OF men, women h
children residing in the CITY Of NewYOTk, aud also Of
the other millions who annually visit Il; Approaching
tue great aud vital interests involved, nave endtaN-
Ored To examine the questions presented ia TINS matt T.
with thorough mparilahty AID nave devoted TO ihef
consideration every moment mat could be spared from
other and urgent Official duties.
Every well orNlnzsd government, whether htIonal,
State or municipal has three distinct depar
executive, the legislative ana judicial No one o1
nan The executive. Without 1t any government
would be ike a human body without a head.
this executive the strong right arm must needs DO the
Tie Legislature has undertaken establish for the
City Of New-YOrk a safe ami efficient government
upon the principles ABOVE stated The ChaItrr OF
1873. in enumetating the powers ana duties OF
10 keep himself informed OF tie dOingS Of
the several departments; to be vigtlant aud active in
to be executed aud enforced For the athfu perform
ance OF duties the Mayor is responsible to the
and efficiently he Is authorized To remove the heads
Departments for cause at any time as hereln0efore
The cases came 10 my Official notice not matter Of
Original action my part out uuder That provision Of
ing refusing to the Mayors acu us the ap-
prevail upon which takes effect. Tne statute
gives 70 the Governor part or lot IL
The pHJceediugs precedent TO the removal
Those well as the removal tse T, are strictly under
The control OF the Mayor. These officers Therefore
stand before ne already removed. Tue sole question
for my consideration is whether upon the whole case
4sV Il
OF the uicicncy Of the facts stated 10 warrant
mOval there Is no question Iucir NadItY as cdus is
counsel the removed officials. ANY one Of the charges
i sutcieut II true 10 SUPPORT removal The trutn OF
the frst charge is admitted verbally ana IN Whiting by
| Commissioner Erhardt, who Chairman OF
the committee having charge Of the discipline Of the
10 Of MS own knowledge and II is nowhere
properly denied. These two accusations the
most Weighy ones brought by tue Mayor and
seem to me SO far proved that am not
Justified IN either disappearing the Mayors
removal OF in sending the matter to Commissioner to
ake further evidence. the record OF Tue proceedings
leaves toe truth O. these charges in 40 d"uOt ana do
not Therefore, feel autIoIzed TO comply with the re-
quest OF counsel Tor another iuysstigaton
TIE only distinction winch am aOe to make as 70
Commissioner Ncholss case, Is That he 70 more directly
dton Of the streets lie was enlrusttd by me Police
SOard with the suprrvlsIOuO The street- Hnlng depart
meut, and in duty bound TO make II efficient al all
hazards whatever excuses 81 ignorance ON that mead
could be made for hs associates he certainly re-
spousble with knowle zee ~ mat particular. Beyond
this OF the opinion tuat Ne j. responsive Us len-
Der Of the Of Police FOR the omission and neglect
W
The single point of distinction the of Commits
.iouer ErHardt and maiu subject # his counsel
has already expired he cannot be removed Tor
cause. u is not p"cessary 10 go into any DIS
cussIon Of authorities ulOn this point. To sustain
Ia s.mpg 10 III 9ii a. he s1nointr,at II
sccessors In Judgment the responsibilities OF such
officers nOtuns more and nothing less than those
winch attach 10 an officer whose term has NOT yet eX-
All the commissioners warmly insisted before The
MayOr upon the rlgu, 10 BE- heard by coW o T. The
..Ili fHsl
charter, his powers were altogether executive, and
not judicial apd i1%T duH w t f6 snSea %nn ol
not The COMM slOners claim hat the May or had no
i'm he matter that b. acted In a judicial ca pacy,
srd yvts bound by law 10 allow the parties appear
and answer bv counsel and that they might refuse 10
T question as 10 the absolute right Of the Commas
soper 10 be heard through counsel and to resc other
hearing has again raised before me and i ~"
principal objection taken 10 tie regularity OF the
Mayor pros eodug. As matter OF courtesy each Of
the Commissioners asked an opportunity 10 be
heard before me- and each has thus been scpar-
atey heard at length through able counsel IN OBJ
lection 10 my approval OF me Mayor action IL
il not and cannot be dstued OF course that the oppor
tuntv to heard contemplated by the Charter j. TO DO
before The Mayor and is precedent 10 thr removal II
error has been committed there am not au nor yea 10
correct IL here now In the nnai arGs.on El an sae
questions raised am tOcarIN Out as perfectly rs POSI-
Die the mt uon OF the Legislature as embodied III the
after careful review OF and the decisions
cited eli others bearing on the question,
Mayor viii allow counsel such cases the
present is entirely matter Of discretion ana not
any spuse judicial uficer. His executive and
Ministerial The object OF this proceeding is not To- OBJ
tam Judgment against tue officer sought 10 be removed
but simply to insure the execution OF the laws.
But the enIre argument the right 10 appear by
counsel proracted and elaborate AZ 1t LAS BEEN now
out Of place The law assured 10 the Commissioners an
opportunity be heard" In my Judgment they had
that opportunity at TIE hrst hearing before the Mayor
But granting the sake OF argum Mt that they were
right IN tue position whicn tney then assumed, OF
refusing answer except by counsel, they are yet
cept The second opportunity given them by the NAV Or
They had right 10 presume that he would not amor
mn, M tbe second opportunity every legal righ, aud
IN refusing appear before hlm Ley nave cut them
selves of entirely from the right 10 except 10 Their
chance OF hearing.
IL the case OF Commissioner Smith. cannot
admit the doctrine tuat an Intelligent and experienced
officer boiling biEh position o. PresidD Ut OF the Police
Board the greatest cy on the Continent Is % Dc tN
cused nom AL responsibility an therefore, CON
strained by sense Of oc al duty approve the acllOn
of the MAYOR In removing them from Office
RAPID Transit OVER THE RIVER.