The Portland daily press., 1884-05-19
Mr.. Andrews's Petition

The petition of ex-City Marshal Andrews
to the Supreme Court for writ OF certio-
rGri, which means an order to produce in
court certified copy of the record of the
proceedings of the Mayor and Aldermen in
the matter of bis removal from Office, sets
forth these grounds for asking the court to
interfere to annul the action taken that it
does not appear by the record that the May
or removed the Marshal for inefficiency or
other legal cause, nor that in fact he was re-
moved on that ground, that it does not APP
pear that the Aldermen advised and con-
sented to the removal for such legal cause,
nor that in fact he was removed for such
cause; that the proceeding of the Aldermen
are invalid because 1t does not appear that
they concurred specifically 10 any of the rea-
sons for removal set forth by the Mayor;
and finally that there never was any hearing
whatever on any of the matters assigned by
the Mayor as the reasons for the removal.
We believe these are all the grounds set
forth in the petition, and they all relate to
the legality of the form of the procedure as
it may be set forth In the record. The AdVer-
tiser however, with that illogical confusion
so often noticed in its efforts to deal with
matters requiring an exercise of the reason
ing faculty, asserts that it is to be deter
mined 'whether any Marshal may be re-
moved by an adverse party majority on friv-
olous charges, on charges which are dis
proved at the hearing, or on allegations sub
mitted by the Mayor after the hearing and
acted upon without a hearing" Not one of
these issues is set forth or involved in the
petition.
We undertake to say that if the court
was asked to issue the writ on the ground
that all the Democratic aldermen voted
against the removal, which was therefore ac-
compllshed by an adverse party majority, it
would answer that the court had no business
with that question; that if it was asked to
issue the writ because the charges preferred
were frivolous, it would answer that the
aldermen and not the court were the judges
of the suffciency of the causes alleged; that
if it was asked to issue the writ on the
ground that the charges were disproved, it
would answer that the aldermen were the
judges of the suficiency of the evidence; and
that ii IL was asked to issue the writ on the
ground that the removal was made for causes
alleged after the hearing land upon which
there had been no hearing, it would require
some evidence of the fact, at least that the
charges alleged to have been the ground of
removal without hearing should be in
stanced. Everybody but the Advertiser flor
we must assume that the Advertiser is not
dishonest, but simply gconfused) knows that
the Mayor made no new charges after the
hearing.
The grounds upon which this case is taken
before the court relate wholly to the techni-
cal correctness of the proceedings set out in
the record, and not at all to the questions in
issue touching the efficiency or inefficiency,
the integrity or corruption of Mr.. Andrews,
and still less to the politics of the ma
jority of the aldermen which advised and
consented to the removal. Whether or not
the form of proceeding as set forth in the
record was correct, the court will determine,
and no doubt it will determined justly. If it
shall determine that the record is not legally
correctit will not thereby determine that Mr..
Andrews was efficient or honest 1t will
only make necessary an amendment of the
record, or, possibly, a renewal of the charges
and another hearing.