New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1884-01-21
NETWORK CHARTER REFORM
ALETTER FROM GEORGE BLISS.

intended solely for its benefit and he free iroin-l VIII ho
say potical-but partisan purposes The LegiS''uie =
Republican. the Executive is Democratic Both must
concur in the passage any bill In view OF the arouseu
condition of public opinion aud Of the approach oi
National election neither party will dare to FAVOR
ton clearly bad, ana neither party Will dare 10 S'' ~
the way OF that which Is good In this CRY the hep'"
can part has few comparatNe! speA
ing in Office that there will not be- as there nave oo
more than once in the past powerful personal lhh"ep
adverse desirable legislation In view oil TINS
condition of things, you VIII permit me 10 'no O''
few suggestions in regard TO charter REFORM
they do no other good may at least eAel'c
discussion.
AN ENTIRELY NEW CHARTER NOT "ANiEp'
rg If i not wise TO attempt to make an entire new
revising and reenactng all the existing po''h'
good had and Indifferent What should be Gone may Oecou
tanned In few sections, substituting new provisions o
existing ones which Objectionable Any other coI7o
throws away all the benefit from the numerous jndcial
INTERPRETATIONS Of existing provisions ana exposes "n't
is good in existing laws to injurious changes
The MAYOR.
coud Experience and common sense tell IFS that tho
mower OF the Mayor of the city ought to he nccSeL
is absurd to have municipal organization without some
head which can he responsible tisequaly aburuto
think Of holding Mayor responsible unless lie mas aoo
Int mower to select ms own eutenants the heads OF de-
partmepts through whom he must act think, there
fore all who are not Influenced by partisan prejudice OF
nersoual interests viii agree that the Mayor ought 10
have the power OF appointment OF heads OF uep"'ne9
without the necessity securing the concurrence OF the
Aldermen He has that power now in the case OF vaca
cics under an act drawn by himself Why should he not
have it in the case of appointments for the full term
But If this is conceded does it necessarily follow that
the Mayor must have also the absolute uncon'roHeu
power of removal OF heads of departments Must they
he in effect his mere puppets whom he may remove at
any time without without iustlfabie cause
The subject is usually treated If the absolute power OF
amendment involved necessarily ali equally absolute
power of removal Perhaps i'll theory the Two would 20
together OF the troubles in past ehater-haAhs
has been the pcrsi>tency with which general tcoles
haze been urged without regard TO peculiar situation
The problem to solved j. to get good munepal gov
orprept 70 do this Il il substantially agreed you mus
have one head the Mayor and must give hin the apso-
ute selection OF the heads OF departments imncdateV
under him to 60 further and give him the 'Dsoue
power of removal Is lot submit the way 10 gel e"o
government so long ~ yon must have Mayor who IL
human and one moreover, whose humanity necessarily
partakes of political and partisan bias and that bias
pretty surely Democratic There are in this clty
900 to 900 persons who either hold ONCE ana posi-
ton under Le City Goycrnmeutor depend ior tleH i've
lhood upon IT, There Is no snch aggregation OF once
holding humanity elsewhere t, continent, aud II Is
! precisely thia exceptional condition OF things Whrh
seems TO me to render inappcabe theories and anao-
o- These 10000 or 900 would be practically az the
mercy and Therefore at the control oil any Mayor VINO
| had the absolute power OF removal sueh Mayor mas
only 10 say head of department 40 ms an" III
does it or of goes his head The Mayor couid In TINS way
control and MI every Of these 10000 OF l2ooo posi-
tinps he could the eby dictate his own denomination
ar if he wa. made ineligible dictate the nomination OF his
successor. think ne could with such power cohu"i
absolutely the nominating conventions Of both parties
and have sufficient available surplus to organize clu
! zens movement or two.
! PROVISION AGAINST \ DICTATORSHIP
If this /. So what then Il the romcdy How are we
10 unite the conceded necessity of giving the Mayor the
| uncontrolled power OF selecting his own heulenants
with the equal necessity OF keeping MIN
from becoming practical dictator 1t seems to me
that th may be readily done by giving tie Mayor dur
ing limited period after be comes into Office the absolute
power Of naming all heads Of departments but after he
has once made his selection giving him no absolute power
of removing those whom he has selected II. for instance
Mayor elected In November and takes Office III Jan
nary provide that at any time before the first OF April
thereafter he may AIRY head Of department and
I'm his place This gives him five months from his cleo
tou in which TO select his leutcuants After that time
let the heads of departments he irremovabe except Tor
wclldefned laid down IN the statute ana ascor-
tanned exist by full, public and speedy trial The
latter provision is obviously necessary to cover cases or
misconduct which may he committed 10y any Official no
matter how carefully selected Under sucn system
this no Mayor could complain. for he selects his own
a0ents still they are left free 10 exercise their own
judgment as 10 the details of administration, and the
Mayor could not control their army OF suborlinaics.
no necessary part Of the general scheme suggcs-that
INV idea of he mode Of providing for the removal after
the limited period, OF those who there Is reason to believe
ougbt TO be removed is about this The statute should
define the grounds Of removal but OF course necessarily III
general terms The Mayor any one else could at any
tulc make charges against any head OF department
when 20 made let the Mayor refer them to referee to
take testimony ana give fun opportunity 70 he heard.
Lut require the hearing TO proceed without delay When
the testimony all takenIct it De reported TO the Mayor.
and il on examination Ae prepared TO say that It shows
that the accused has been brought within one OF the
statutory causes Of removal Jet HIM remove him, specify
! ing the ground IA writing But to prevent the hayor
from fastening on merely plausible excuse for
removal would give the accused, for very BRIEF
period, right OF appeal TO some Judicial tribunal when
should say just the General Term does now In many
c9sc whether in the record OF evidence laid before
Them the removal was iu-tinablc. would not allow
such appeal he stay of the Mayors order Of re-
moyal unless member of the judicial tribunal ordered
il 10 De So This tribunal might well be composed OF the
three Chief Justices of the supreme. Superior and Com
mon Pleas Courts.
Taking is whole scheme together. should have the
Mayor with fpl power select his heads Of departments
for I've months after MS election If he is not competent
10 do within that time he ia not fiji u be Mayor aud
ought 10 have powers. head of department once
selected would be free do his duty he understands it,
but " corrupt and incompetent could be removed under
charges He would be protected against unjust proceed
jnes by the right Of appeal but that appeal would not
cary with it any stay, corrupt officer could not keep
himself even temporarily in Office by an appeal. If
| thought desirable there might be a limited power OF
suspension of the officer after charges preferred ana
! before the testimony was taken.
Iprcpared a section embOdyng this general idea some
wears ago and presented to committee OF the Legis
la.ure No objections Wert made TO 1t, but 1t was sup
pressed by the committee because the result would nave
been 10 expose several Republican heads OF departments
| 10 what they thought a premature removal.
resurrcct II to people thinking Of 1t and find
ing fault with it. ought to be part of such scheme
that the Mayor who should fs put it in practice should
he elected it becomes law and think his term
should be Ut least three years
READS OF DEPARTMENTS