New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1884-03-18
FULL POWER FOR THE MA1Oh'
THE CoNrIRMAToRY RIGHT ABOLISHED
THE GOVERNORS REASONS FOR SIGNING IhS
ROOSEVELT BILL.
Inv TFIFGRAPH TO TIE IkIBUNt'I

q
IL. ,vbor Il was stated that the Governor hau
signed Mr.. Roosevelts bill depriving the Board oi
Aldermen of the cOnfirnatory power. Few OF them
tbonoht that he would sign it. Now that he mas
dome so the Tammany Hall Democrats are as 1ree
in ,heir denunciation of the law as before, but the
County Democracy members are less inclined 10
differ with the Governor. -
The Governors suggestion that other piiis ol liAo
nature be passed also caused cOmmoton among
The New-York Democrats The SUGGESTION u WAS
tboucht indicated his desire TO sign some OF the re-
form bills introduced by Mr.. Roosevelt, which are
intended TO concentrate power in the hands OF the
next Mayor of NewYork.
THE MESSAGE OF THE GovERNoRs
The Governor gives the following reasons LOT aP
proving the bill ,..
The interest which has been aroused regarding the
merits OF this bill and the determined hostility which mas
been developed on part Of those entitled 10 leSec
s,eraton arpear TO Justify brief reference to the
nrncnles and purposes which seem to me TO be nNoNe
iu the measure incidental statement OF 'ho pro
cess of thought by which have been lea 10 approve 'o
same The opponents Of the bill have invoked the IN
Vloabty Of right OF the people to rule themselves
and have insisted upon the preservation of wise ds-
,rbution of power among the different branches OF lie
governments and | have listened to solemn warnings
against the subversive tendency OF concentration Vi
mower in municipal rule and the destructive consequence
of any encroachment upon the peoples rights ana pre-
rocatyes Ihope have not entirely misconceiVed the
sonc and reach of this bill, but it seems TO me at my
determination TO whether or not IT should oecohc
law does not depend upon the reverence entertain Ior
snch fundamental principles. The question Is ho'
whether certain officers heretofore elected oy e peopo
Of the City Of NewYork shall, under the provisions O
new law be appointed The transfer OF power from an
.Iection lW the people to appointment Oy Ouler
authority has already been made The present charter
Of the city provides the Mayor shall nominate ana
by and with the consent of the Board of Aldermen "-
1olnt the heads OF the departments
The bill under consideration provides that aef January
1888 all appointments to office in the City OF New
York now made by the Mayor ana confirmed by tue
Board of Aldermen, shall be made by the Mayor without
such confirmation The change proposed is clearly a-
parent by the present charter the Mayor elected by
all the people Of the cityif majority of the twenty
four Aldermen elected by the voters OF tveniy-four
separate districts with hm-may appoint admin
istratve officers who shall Rave the charge and manage
en the city departments. The bill presented ior my
action allows the Mayor alone TO appoint these officers
This authority is not conferred upon the Mayor now III
office who was chosen without the anticipation on the
part of the people who elected him that he should eXe
else this power but upon the incoming Mayor Who after
the passage OF the act shall be elected with the fu
knowledge the part Of the people at the time they east
Their votes they constituting an agent to act o
them in tbs selection OF other city officers This Sc
lection under either statute Is delegated by the people
In the one case Is exercised by the Chief Executive
acting with the twentyfour officers repre- senting as
many different sections Of the municipality in the other
by the Chief Executive alone.
ABUSES OF THE PRESENT SYSTEM.
Icannot see that any principle of Democratic rule is
more violated in the than in the other. II aU
pears 10 be change OF the instrumentahues' IL
will hardly do say that because the Aldermen are
elected annually ard the Mayor every two years that the
former are nearer the people and more especially their
representatives. The difference in their terms is not
sunicent TO make distinction in their direct relation to
the citizens NOT the rights Of the people to self
government in theory and principle better protected
when the power Of appointment j vested III twenty
men, twcnty-our Of whom responsible only to their
constituents in their respective districts than when this
powsr is put in the hands OF one elected by all the
peope OF tie municipality with particular reference TO
The exercise Of such power Indeed in the present con-
dition OF affairs, If disagreement arises between the
MAYOR and aldermen. the selection Of officers by the
representative of all the people might he defeated by the
adverse action OF the representatives of thirteen alder
manic districts and it is perfectly apparent that these
thirteen might and often woad. represent decided
minority of tic people OF the municipality 1t cannot be
claimed that arrangement which permits such Ie-
suit is preemucutly democratic.
II has been urged that the proposed change Is opposed
20 the principle of home rule. If it is intended TO claim
that the offices, the creation Of which Is provided for
should elective it has relevancy for that question IS
not in any presented for any determination And
81 surely cannot said that the doctrine Of home rule
prevents any change by the Legislature Of the organic
law Of municipalities. The people OF the city cannot
themselves
not be invoked that end IL follows that abuses hagant
and increasing, must be continued, and the existing
charter provision, the nadequacy OF which for inc
projections and prosperity Of the people is freely admit
ted, must be pePetuated IL Is the lheIleiShce OF tlo
Legislature with the administration Of a munich
nal government by agencies arbitrarily created
by legislative enactment and ne assumption oy the law
Details city government or should be, under the
sueryson of the local authorities, that should
6enned ms a Violation of The doctrine Of Home Rule. IL
any event am convinced that should rot dsapprove
ciple whichis now recognized ard exempll1ed in the
Government Of the City Of New-foTk
EVILS OF A DIVIDED RESPONSIBILITY.
lam also satisfied that between the system
prevailing and that proposed, expodency and
a close regard for improved municipal admins
t1atton lead TO my approval of the measure
il the chief executive of the city is 10 be held Tepon
hampered by any meIieIenee WIN MS selection OF sub
nilied to find divided responsibility for
plcs should never be heard that bad nomination had
been made because II the only that could
confirmation. No instance IS cited in which bad
BoDTd Of Aldermen Of Sew- York to confirm nomination
An absolute undivided responsibility on the part OF the
appointing power aecords with correct business pIinci-
Pies tine Application % , Of which public affairs wll always
protection of the peoples interests
The Intelligence ana watchfuness Of the citizens OF
the duties and powers deyolved BY this legislation
upon their chosen representative viii be well
betrayed their remedy is close at hand
who would accept at the hands Of his neighbors this
sacred trust and standing IN the fun H. ht of pulic
observation should wilfuly prostitute his powers and
defy the will OF the people To say that man could
by such means, pcTpetuate his wicked rule comedies
either that the people vile that self government h
deporable failure. Ii Is claimed that because
these appointees become members Of the Board Is
innate and AppOrtionment, which determines very
largely the OF taxation therefore power select
them should given to the Mayor II the question
presented whether officials having such important
duties and functions should be elected by the people
appointed. "a consideration might well be urged IN
favor OF their election But they are now appointed and
ehoud be rejected approved This being the situation
the Importance OF the duties 10 be performed by these
officials mas TO do with the be exercised In their
selection rather than choice between tho modes Of
appointment which under consideration.