The Portland daily press., 1884-06-16

jurisdiction OF the case, and whether the re-
suit which was ultimately reached was or was
not legal. And 1t is In pursuance of that right
and for the reason that these records do not
pretend TO show every step taken in this pro-
ceeding, nor to set forth fully the grounds on
which the Board acted in reaching their con-
illusions, that these respondents have presented
to this court, under their signatures and upon
their oaths, a further return of their proceed
ings and judgments so far as they affect the
merits of this case.
This matter has been fully considered by
your honor in Levsnt VS.. County Commits
soners, 81 Maine, where your honor has stated
somewhat in detail t 20 practice in proceedings
OF this character and it is there stated that the
answer is in the nature of return and is con-
elusive in all matters Of fact within the
jurisdiction of the board.
The great issue presented to the Board OF
Mayor and Aldermen was whether or not the
evidence introduced at that hearing sustained
the charges that had been made against
Marshal Andrews. For upon their judgment
on that issue turned their decision of the
question whether they advise and consent to
his removal. Now the record which has been
introduced here, il read by any other person
than LAWYER would have raised no doubt but
that 1t clearly appeared that charges were pre-
ferred against Mr.. Andrews, that a hearing
was had on those charges in which he was re-
presented by counsel and that a vote was final
~ reached upon these charges which resulted
layman could read this record and not
see that Marshal Andrews had been weighed
in the balance by the tribunal entitled by the
law OF the land to pass judgment upon him
and that in their Judgment, in the judgment
OF six-eighths of the beard including the
Mayor, he had been found wanting. 1t matters
not whether the court would have reached the
same conclusion under the evidence, as that
question is not open here and the action of the
board Is conclusive.
Let us see in what position this matter stands
upon the record without reference to the re-
turn or certificate filed by the respondents.
The record shows at the start upon what the
action Of the Mayor was based, what the meet
ing was called for. and what the charges were.
Able and distinguished counsel appeared for
Mr.. Andrews and after several sessions we
finally come to the time when all the evidence
having been presented, and the arguments of
counsel having been concluded it became
necessary for the board of Mayor and Alder
men to take action upon these charges. That
action is shown by the record, not record in
the case bnt a record intended to show substan-
TALLY upon what charges their action was
based and what that action was.
The remarks of the Mayor on resuming the
chair have been the subject of special COM
ment by the learned counsel who
opened the case for the petitioner, his
ingenuity has been exhausted in finding
some cause of complaint in the fact that the
Mayor, in finally pronouncing bis solemn judg-
ment upon an officer of the city on charges
no had preferred against him, which involved
his integrity as man and his efficiency an
officer, thought it proper to explain to his as
sociates the reasons which had compelled him
to take this action; and because he saw fit to
state that numerous complaints had been
made to him as to the manner in which the
laws were enforced, and to call attention to
the formation of the claw and Order League"
learnaA ha1 n
at length that there was an abandonment of
all the previous proceedings and charges that
had been made, and that the Mayor, ignoring
everything that had been previously done,
presented these as new charges and that the
removal was made for those reasons. will
call your Honor's attention to the remarks
which the Mayor addressed to the board.
These are the preliminary remarks which my
brother objects to. He says the petitioners
counsel were not called in to hear the
instructions of the Mayor to the Aldermen.
That term indicates the view which my
learned brother takes of this case. He argues
that the Board of Aldermen we're instructed
by the Mayor to ignore the proceedings that
had previously taken place, and wer1 advised
to consent to the removal Of Marshal Andrews
upon other grounds than those contained in
the charges. The Mayor says, 81 have given
them (the complaints) wnat care and atten-
ton could and have submitted the result in
the form of reasons for his removal to you"
These are the complaints which counsel claim
constituted new charges. The Mayer, in sub
stance, says all these complaints, all these
facts which have been brought to my atten-
ton have been incorporated in the form OF
reasons which have presented to you for the
removal of Mr.. Andrews
From the beginning to the end of the record
there is no Abandonment of the charges upon
which the hearing had been bad and upon
which the action OF the board was asked.
The Mayor further says in substance that
some of the charges are grave and criminal in
their character, while others go to show ineffi-
cheney on the part of the Marshal in the per-
Torrance of the duties of his office. Taken to-
gether his remarks amount to this: That if any
members of the be ard are not satisfied under
the evidence presented that Mr.. Andrews has
corruptly taken brides from the witnesses who
have testified in the case, yet if they salts
fed that the other charges showing inefieiency
are proved, that would be sufficient ground
for removal. Ineficiency may be proved in
many ways. 1t may be general incapacity,
lack Of judgment, indisposition to faithfully
perform ones duty, or 1t may be all of these;
and the charges other than bribery certainly
tended to show that such inefficiency existed
Counsel calls this travesGy of justice.
Is there any doubt that the boald
had right il they saw fit to aequit Mr..
Andrews of all the charges affecting his integ-
rity as man, while finding the other charges
proved, and that he ought to be removed for
charges? Unless your Honor is satisfied that
the board had not right to do that, then there
is no objection to the suggestion that the Mayor
made that they had right to take that course.
What course they did take is shown by the
record.
After all these proceedings the Mayor re-
moved the petitioner from the office of Citv
Marshal; this is plain from the record. Is there
any question upon what ground he removed
him? The record shows the reasons he had sub
mitted and what he stated at the commence
ment OF the hearing he should ask the board
to do. At the conclusion of the whole matter
he says: And now you will be called upon to
vote on the question whether you advise and
consent to such removal. What removal is here
meant If not the removal which the Mayor
had previously stated he should ask the board
10 consent to? Is it to be assumed in the face
Of this record that the question which was SUBJ
mitted to the Aldermen as to whether they
advised and consented to such removal was
not based upon this hearing that had been had?
The record itself shows that the Aldermen un-
derstood that they were voting on the charges
that had been previously preferred, for the
next thing that appears In the record is that
Alderman Gallagher moved that we vote on
each charge specifically. What had they to
do with these specific chatges If they we're no
longer before the u? There is nothing to show
that they ignored them, but everything to
show mat the board understood what they
were doing and that whether they should vote
on the charges as a whole or on each one
separately was question which the board had
right TO pass upon. The two gentlemen who
did not find the charges proved wanted to take
them up separately and possibly were willing to
lind certain charges proved and the others not
proved while the other members of the board
believed that all of them were proved and did
not see the necessity OF taking the vote In that
form.
There is the record, and this Is the form in
which the matter stood when the learned
counsel applied to this court for writ of
certiorari to quash the proceedings in remoV-
ing Mr.. Andrews.
AS that record then stood, under the law of
the land the Mayor and Aldermen had a right
to say the construction you have sought to put
upon the record is not true, and to certify to
the court that the grounds of their action in
removing Mr. Andrews were that in their judg-
ment, as a tribunal, every charge formulated
against him was proved by the evidence, and
that upon that judgment those who consented
to such re moval acted in advising the same.
The learned counsel criticises the word "judg-
ment," used in the return. l believe
the wcrd to be we'll chosen and
technically correct. This tribunal was
constituted to hear the evidence on charges
preferred against an officer of this city. AS q
basis of their action, they must come to some
conclusion upon those charges, and they were
to find them proved or disproved, and, If dis
proved, they could not consent to and advise
his removal. When they certify that their
judgment was that all these charges were
proved by the evidence, they certify to a con-
clusiOn reached by the hoard which ooas tn