The Portland daily press., 1884-05-02

Is not required by the statute or by rea-
son that the Board should attempt to deter
mine specifically and conclusively in the
manner of jury whether he was guilty or
not guilty on each and every count of the
complaint, as If it were an indictment by
grand jury. The legislature of Maine has
not committed any such outrage upon the
rights OF citizens as to commit to body like
the Board of Aldermen the duty, or the
right, or the power, to pronounce the YER
dict OF guilty against any man accused of
conduct in Office which is felony In the eye
of the law.
The statute which secures the City Mar
shall a hearing upon the reasons which the
Mayor, acting upon his official RESPONSE
billty, may submit for thinking it his duty
toremove that officer, does not describe such
aproceeding as would justify a verdict upon
the question of fact in any matter of Grim
inal nature. A hearing is not trial under
articles of impeachment. No Judge prtsides
over it to see that the rules of law are fairly
applied in its proceedings. The aldermen
take no special oath; nor can the attendance
OF witnesses be compelled. Il is simply pro-
ceeding for obtaining information to enable
the Aldermen to determine how they ought
TO act in the discharge of one of their routine
duties. 1t does not differ in sanction, or
powers, or method of procedure, from the
hearings Tat are frequently given in mat
tiers of business, where counsel are present,
or not, as the parties desire.
The only question to be determined is
whether or not the Aldermen will confirm
by their advice and consent the action Of the
Mayor, and the law provides that hearing
shall be given to the Marshal in order that
the proceeding shall not be in ignorance Of
his side OF the case. The law does not re-
quie the hearing to the public; that is Who'll
ly within the discretion of the Aldermen. 1t
does not stipulate that the Marshal NAV be
represented by counsel; that is wholly with
in the discretion of the Aldermen. The Al
dermen also advise and consent to certain
appointments OF the Mayor. Usually we be-
lieve they hold executive sessions for this
purpose. We are unaware of any reason
why the question of removal cannot be
considered in executive session if the Alder
men choose.
There was feeling yesterday in some
quarters that each article of complaint
enumerated by the Mayor ought to have
been voted upon separately. That is nat
ural feeling, but reflection will show that
such proceeding would have been quite
out of order and unjust. After such hear
ing, wanting many of the conditions by
which the accused are protected in formal
trials, no man, however strong his convic-
ton that the Marshal had done wrong, or
was go compromised that his remov-
al from office was advisable, would wish to
answer absolutely, in so serious a matter,
that he was guilty. of taking brides. Nor do
we think any unconvinced man in the posi-
ton Of aldermsnl, with a proper sense of his
responsibility, would wish to say mera. than
is implied in the old Scotch verdict, "not
proven"
The question properly before the alder
men-the old question-was whether, after
the hearing upon the complaints submitted
by the Mayor as the cause of the action he
proposed, they would advise and consent to
the removal, precisely as the only question
when he makes nomination to an office is
whether they will confirm it, and the mo-
| tive of their action in either case should be
the same, the performance of the duty i'm
posed upon them as the executive authority
of the city, bound to protect the reputation
and promote the efficiency of the public SER
vice.