New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1886-07-02
THROUGH NE " YORG STATE.
ELIHU ROOT ARGUES THAT MAYOR GRACE HAD NO
RIGHT To REMOVE THE GENERAL.
HEARING IN THE sHALER CASE.

EiIHU ROOT ARGUES THAT MAYOR GRACE HAD NJ
RIGHT To REMOVE THE GENERAL.
ALBANY, July / (SpeciaD. When Governor
Hin opened tbs hearing this afternoon IN the matter OF
the removal OF General shacr from the presidency OF
the Health Board OF New-York by Mayor Grace he
announced to Francis NJ Scott representing the Mayor
and Ehu Root. representing General shaler that the
hearing was granted only by courtesy. aud would not
necessarily be precedent IN other cases. Mr. Root
then began speech for the defence OF General shaer
and devoted his attention exclusively TO an examination
of legal jurisdiction OF the Mayor without discuss
ing at all the nature OF the charges upon which tue
removal was based He held that tho Offences charged
General shslcr all committed In his capsciy az
a general In the State militia and member OF the
armory board and that they coult not be made the
basis for his removal by the Mayor FROM
another purely municipal oihce not even remotey
connected with his position In the state militia Inc
Mayor he maintained had more jurisdiction In IRIS
matter than would have over the trial II the charge OF
burglary had preferred against General shaer In
support OF this view he quoted numbersof decisions OF
the Court OF Appeas which hs declared sustained him
Governor Hin interrupted the hearing at THIS point 10
ak Mr. Root to send copies his earliest convent
ence OF t, portions the decisions in which this view
was held
hs.,au, CORPORATION Counsel Scott argued that the
Governor was upon decide, not only as To the
Jurisdiction OF the Mayor, but also to the sufhciency
of the charges Oh which General smaller had been re-
moved In regard to the charges. no quoted
sections ST. IS and SO Of tho Consolidation
Act Section 81 refers to frauds upon tho cry
on the part OF officials. That fraud had been COM
United he argued clear from the case OF tue otn
Regiment arrnnry. Tue evidence showed int 1ene1a
SnaIer VI to nduce the sinking Fund COMMISSIONERS
To oay 49, 900 more for the properly IN
bel ween N!netyfour and Niney-hfth sta thah ils
owners RED FOR IT, General Shsier hsd thus useu
his position to attempt fraud upon the nunclp.iSc
The issue OF bribery. covered In section % n'
WAIVE bu Section 80 clear IN It's prohibition III
cy officials having interest In city contracts lne
.,ctlon Wa ar.wn broadly ani meant to cover more
than direct personal contracts Inc evidence sho"su
that in return for aiding securing tho purchase OF h
arInory property at high valustons oeneraI oh"te
was TO have $4,000 mortgage on ms
Srw.Ter.cv property raisel by its owners. and
Tins he became an interested party to city contract.
uts Offences, therefore, hal not all been merely as
stale officer bnt had also violated the city law. w
thr question OF the Mayors jurisdiction ne hed ma.
Eng ian law a. interpreted Ivy Lord Mansfield aud other
authorities, airns tina any infamous act VtatsS VIZ
right TO Continue in office even II the act De not commit.
icA in the src line OF Official duty. TIC hearing con
sumei only forty minutes and at It's conclusion
nor I'M both counsel TO submit 10 MIN ofieiS VI
their argument