The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1880-08-22
THE MAYoRALTY IMBRoaLIo.

hhah WV NV tSN BAOPNt W N~~Na ~ ''-N--
in the shortest period allowed by the charter,
viz. ten days. We do not regret it on &C.
count of Judge Thurmond, the ousted OH
cal, no. on account of any of the ambi
tious ones who are willing to be sacrificed
for the general good. But it
would have appeared more gracious
to the people and more seemly to
themselves that the council had fastened
the hour for the expression Of the citizens
wishes rather than delayed it. The entire
city of Dallas has a lively interest in this
matter. There are questions involved which
had best be definitely settled at
the earliest possible moment The
business which the council assumed
to handle on last Tuesday evening
was, as we have already stated, a very serious
one, not only ss to its matter to the individ-
ual concerned, but in its effects on the city
atlarge, for whether the action was legal, not
to say proper in its procedure, is subject of
the deepest interest to every citizen. The
main questions at issue are lst: Is the sec
ton of the city charter under which the
aldermen acted constitutional grant and,
End, was the proceeding legal, the mayor
pro tenn. voting, and thereby making, as
claimed, the requisite two-thirds voteG The
section in question NO. 1879, chapter MI,
special laws, reads: "The city council shall
have power to remove any officer for in
competency, malconduct, etc, after due no.
tice and m opportunity to be heard in
his defense. 1t shall have power
at any time to remove any officer Of the cor
poraton by resolution declsratory to its
want of confidence in said officer, provided
that two-thirds of the aldermen elected vote
in favor Of said resolution" Certainly it
will be conceded that this is very sweeping
power, and ought to be exercised with
the EXTREMIST caution, even it
it were legal. There is no provision to
measure the character or the amount Of evil
dence as TO the incompetency, misconduct
etc. which the council must be in possession
of, and none to govern or control their dscre'
ton other than the revisory powers of
court. But the question of its legality
is the proper one 10 first consider
To say that the council may remove "any
officer" elected by the people is one thing
to say that they may remove "any officer o
the city elected by them" is quite another
The charter Of the city OF San Antonio, as
also that of Austin, if we remember rightly,
reads after the latter fashion, and thus
more in accordance with the prin-
cples of constitutional liberty. The
10Th section, Let article, of the constitu-
ton of Texas recites: No citizen Of this
state shall be deprived of life, liberty,
property, privileges or immunities, ETC., ex-
cept by due course of the law of the land"
Now, "the right to hold and exercise the
functions Of Office" said the supreme court
in 1873, 'to which the individual may have
been duly elected, may be regarded both as
property and privilege, and therefore the
incumbent can only be deprived
OF his Office, etc, in the matter
pointed out, viz: BY due course
of the law of the land" Now,
what is this law of the land? Evidently, the
common law, which affords to defendant
the right of regular trial, with all that that
lmples-such as due presentment of charges
and specifications, proper evidence regularly
adduced, etc., on the case then and there at
issue. Collateral proceedings might do to
prove what the civil law las in Louisiana) de-
dominates merely the "rem ipsam,"
but nothing further. On the sec.
ond question, as to whether the
mayor pro tenn. had the right then and there
to vote, that is likewise question to be set
tied by the law. Section %, chapter of the
city charter, declares that 1.-THE mayor and
aldermen shall constitute the city council of
the city. The mayor when present shall pre-
side at all meetings, and shall
have in all cases casting vote
except in elections. In his absence
any one of the aldermen may be appointed
to preside" In section 1899, chapter NH,
we read..'the city council shall have power
to remove any officer for incompctcncy,
malconduct, etc" Here is distinction
drawn. If "the mayor and aldermen con-
stitute the city council" and if "the city
council have power to remove any officer,
then would it not appear that the mayor (un-
til any vote for ousting had been declared
carried) was equally entitled to a
vote! But the other confusing question
arises, has the mayor pro tenn. the right to
vote in such case as the one at bari II
might be urged that therein he was no! rep
resenting his ward constituency after the
manner of the speaker Of the house of rep
re.entatives, but that he was acting rather in
tho status Of member of court Of i'm
parchment after the manner of the United
States senate, and we showed q
couple Of days ago that on
the trial OF President johnson
the presiding officer was entitled to cast q
vote only on tie. We are not lawyer
nor the son of lawyer, and the election Of
Judge Thurmond we sought, in February
and March. 1879, with all our power, day BY