The Portland daily press., 1884-05-02
The Removal of Andrews.

City Marshal Andrews is removed by the
Mayor with the advice and consent of the
Board of Aldermen after a full hearing
regarding the causes assigned by the
Mayor as the ground Of his action. There
is no more reason for saying the Aldermen
who voted in favor of the removal were ac-
tuated by partisan motives than for saying
the Aldermen who voted against it were ac-
tuated by such motives. There is as much
reason for assuming that the five who sup
ported the Mayors action are honorable and
conscientious n.en, acting in obedience to
their views of duty, as for assuming that the
two who were of different opinion are un-
Influenced by meaner considerations. Some
of the offences charged by the Mayor were
established and acknowledged, and these
were offences of such character that III
telligent men may think them good reason
for the removal without just blame from
those who hold different opinion. Some of
the causes alleged as reasons for the remov
al were not acknowledged, but the evidence
in support of them was direct and, to say the
least. sufficiently corroborated by circum-
stances, to justify honest men in doubling
the Marshaps fidelity to his official trust.
We do not say it was sufficiently clear and
conclusive to justify jury in declaring him
guilty of taking brides. In other words we
do not assume to say honest men may not
have reasonable doubt of his guilt, or even
strong conviction of his innocence of helm
Gus corruption. Equally honest men may
be convinced of his guilt, or be convinced
that his integrity is open to suspicion. In
either case they would be derelict in duty if
they did not guard the public interests by
supporting the Mayors action. A merchant
who has reason to doubt the integrity of
confidential clerk, does not feel obliged to
retain him in his service because he has not
sufficient evidence to send him to prison.
He does not want clerk whose fidelity he
has any question about. Nor does the city
want Marshal whose official integrity and
fidelity is questionable.
It is only when man is put in peril of
his liberty or his life that he can claim that
all doubts shall inure to his benefit. When
it is question of appointment to Office or
removal from Office, the rule Of justice and
safety is quite different. The public have
right to require that public servants shall
have and maintain character above sus-
picion. The duty imposed on all who have
to do with the appointment of public officers
is the duty of maintaining the honor and
reputation of the public service, and whoev-
er has responsibilities in the matter of the
election, or appointment, or continuance in
Office, fpnDlic servants is bound in his ac-
ton to resolve all doubts concerning the In
tegrity of individuals with primary regard
to the public interest, not to the interest of
the Office seeker or Office holder. Therefore
We say that any Alderman who, after hear
ing the testimony,was unable to feel that the
Marshaps official integrity, and fidelity
and efficiency were indicated beyond aea-
sonable doubt would have been derelict
If he had voted against his removal.
The vote of the Board of Aldermen con-
senting to the removal of Marshal Andrews
from Office neither convicts nor acquits him
of any of the criminal complaints enumera-
ted in the communication of the Mayor to
the Board. All its significance is that the
Board, after full hearing of all the Marshal
had to say regarding the causes which the
Mayor set forth as the ground of his action,
thinks that there is sufficient warrant for
such action, land advises and consents to 1t. lit