The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1889-05-27
CHIEF MURPHY'S TRIAL.
WILL HE APPEAR BEFORE THE
OLD BOARD OR NOT?

The Summons Presents a Dilemma
with Two Horns, and He is still
Wondering Which to Choose Contem-
plating the Possibility of the Old
Boards Return to Power.
The treatment Chief of Police Murphy
may decide to accord to the notice of
trial served upon him by the old Board Of
Police Commissioners will not become
known till this afternoon, when he is
cited to appear to answer charges Of
insubordination and disobedience of
orders.
Shall he appear? If he does he will be
according to the Board an official recog-
milton that he has heretofore denied them.
Shall he stay away? Then he will be
guilty of disobedience of orders that, If
the old Board should after all be held to
be the rightful Board, might make their
dismissal of him SO conclusive that all the
veteran laws and all the tenure of Office
acts in the universe could not save him
1t is understood that the Chief Will be
absent in person and present by proxy:
and intimations are thrown out that
Messrs. Vredenburgh & Garretson, his
counsel, will make the contemplated
meeting an interesting one, In more
senses than one
CHIEF MURPHY's HOPES.
Chief Murphy's anxiety as to the course
to be pursued indicates that he is not in
different to personal consequences; and,
as matter of fact, he has hopes that,
whether the charter be sustained or
whether it be set aside, the courts viii
boo \ .nff fHr.h - Il. ~
partment. OF course, Ii the charter is up
held there can be no question of his con-
tinuance in office. The new Police Com
missioners would keep him there.
But If the old Board should be restored
to its functions no one knows better than
he that he will have to fight to retain his
position, and the legal aspect of his posi-
tion naturally increases in interest to him
day by day, as the time for the final de-
cision approaches.
WHAT HE CLAIMS.
In conversation with his friends. who
have urged that he could safely have re-
cognized the old Board as the de facto
Board, he argues that both Boards were
in possession when he cast the die. and
that he was forced by that circumstance
to make choice. He believes that
if the old Board, returning to power,
were to attempt to GUST him
the courts would protect him from re-
moval under the shield of the tenure of
office act He is preparing even to excuse
his refusal to appear before the old Board
to answer the charges already made against
him with the experience of Police
man Herman, who, after failing to pre-
sent himself when cited for trial, APP
pealed to the courts against the dismissal
with which his contempt had been pun
ished, and was restored to his place.
IS 1T A REsIGNATIoN2
IL. \
take another view of the situation. They
spring the point that his refusal to obey
the orders of the old Commissioners is
practical abandonment of his functions,
and that the courts will meet his appeal
against their order dismissing him with
the decision that he had coDstructively re-
signed his position, and that the only way
for him to restore himself is to be re-
elected to it.
THE ACTING CHIEF.
There appears to have been no special
significance in the appointment by the
old Board of Michael Nathan to the
Acting Chiefship. To keep up the fiction
that the old department is intact, it was
necessary for it to have a head, and Mr..
Nathan was made the head. Till Chief
Murphy has been tried, convicted and re-
moved, he can not be made full Chief,
and so he is designated to act as Chief
pending the inquiry. Intimations are
made that Chief Murphy may appear by
counsel today and ask for an adjourn
ment of the hearing. In that event Mr..
Nathan may be Acting Chief longer than
he anticipated.
The Acting Chief has no doubt of the
stability of his position, and he does not
believe that even the clause of the tenure
of Office bill forbidding Unemployment Of
men over forty-five years of age Weakens
his appointment. He does not admit that
he is over forty five; but even if he were,
the tenure of office bill would merely
make it impossible for him to claim any
right under it. and does not preclude his
staying in office as long as his superiors
see fit to keep him there-that is, If they
wanted to put him out, the tenure of
office bill would not keep him in, conced-
ing that he is more than fOrty-five years of
age.
THE CHARTER ARGUMENT.
The main argument on the charter is to
take place at Trenton, as everyone knows,
on June g. II is believed that decision
will have been reached by the middle of
June. An appeal may be taken by the
vanquished side from the ruling.
But" said one of the charter lawyers
one day last week, 1.-THE Supreme Court
Judges will have prejudged the case for
the Court OF Errors, BY which the appeal
at the hearing by the Supreme
Court, and they are all the
Law Judges that will sit in
the Court of Errors, the Chancellor ex-
cepted. The question is not one of law
only and so the matter will have been
practically decided for the Court of Err
rors, by the finding of the Supreme Court.
Appeal seems therefore to be useless on
either side."
1t is said that if the charter be defeated
in the courts, on the ground that the cleo
ton was irregular or on any ground not
affecting the integrity of the bill itself,
NIn,rc,. Glnnoln1nd n,rill on l,rhnif fn 1rnta