The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1894-01-23
WON'T REMOVE THEM
Governor Werts Decides in
Favor of the Street and
Water Commis-
sioners.
TEXT OF THE DECISION.
Document Delivered This Morn
ing to Mayor Wanser
at His Office.
THE GOVERNORS REASONS.
Contends There Was No Proof to
Warrant Mayer Wanser's
Conclusions.
WHAT THESE CONCLUSIONS WERE.

WHAT THESE CONCLUSIONS WERE
As exclusively foreshadowed in THE JER-
sEY CITY News last Friday, Governor
Werts refuses to remove from Office the five
rascals of the Street and Water Board. His
letter to Mayor Wanser on the subject was
delivered at the Mayors Office this morning.
When the news became known there was
great excitement in the City Hail. and every
one was anxious to see on what grounds
Governor Werts had based his decision. The
tun text of the decision is as follows:
add after decision
In the matter of charges preferred by
Frank o. Cole and others, prosecutors,
against John f. Madden and others, COM
posing the Board of Street and Water Com
Inissioners of Jersey City, respondents. Also
in tIle matter of charges preferred by Hugh
Leslie and others, prosecutors, against John
F. Madden ct ais Commissioners, ETC., re-
spondendents.
10 Hon. Peter F. Wanser. Magor of JERSEY
Cftg:
am in receipt from you of copy Of the
charges preferred against the above named
respondents by the above named prosecu-
tors; also of transcript Of the testimony
taken on the hearing OF said charges before
your Honor and your conclusions thereon.
You state that said conclusions are my
tToufJ reasons which have induced me to
remove the said commissioners, and that
81 communicate these, my reasons, to you,
in writing. pursuant to Section Is, Chapter
134, laws of 1891, page 264.
The section referred to provides, THAT
any commissioner Of such Board OF Street
and Water Commissioners hereinbefore pro-
vided for may be removed from office by the
Mayor of such city for good cause and after
opportunity to be heard, subject however,
before such removal shall take effect to the
approval of the Governor of the State ex-
pressed IN writing, the said Mayor in every
sucn case shall communicate to the3oyerner,
in writing his reasons for such removal, etc.
The charges preferred by Frank o. Cole
and others are nine in number; those pre-
feIred by Hugh Leslie and others are also
nine in number, making altogether thirty
four typeBritten pages. Your conclusion,
four in number, are three OF them based on
charge one. and the other on charge four,
preferred by Frank O. Cole and others.
The charges submitted involve the extreme
penalty of removal from Office and should be
considered and determined judicially.
The commissioners can only be removed
'sfor good cause
AUTHORITIES CITED.
''Cause of removal III statute means some
dereliction OF general neglectef duty, or in
capacity 70 perform the duties, or some de-
linquency affecting his general character, or
his fitness for the Office. 1t is not sufficient
that the duties of the office can be more eff
GENTLY performed by another"
People ex- rel. Munday V. Commissioners,
~ n. Y. 445:-
1yl
Office for due cause is given, the words
due cause operate as a limitation on the
power What is due cause for the removal
of an officer is question of law to be be de-
telmined by the Judicial department, and in
the absence of any statutory provision as to
what shall constitute such cause, should be
determined with reference to the nature and
character of the Office and the qualifications
requisite to fill it.
State ex rel Gill VS.. Com Council, Wis.
261
1.-THE removal in such case is not mere
matter of Judicial discretion; some unftness
must be shown"
Moore Mining Co., L. R. II ch div. S95.
'sThe power to remove person from office
for cause means that a reason must exist
which is personal to the individual sought to
be removed, which the law and sound pub
lie opinion viii recognize as good cause for
his no longer occupying the place.
D. L
ssThe cause intended is just cause, and the
power may be e, cried only after the officer
has had opportunity for defense.p
Haight VS.. Love, 10 Vroom On. j. %.
CHARGE NO. i.
Charge number one on which your first
three conclusions are based, Is as follows
SIN ordering paid and disbursed the sums
of money at the times. to the persons, and
for the objects next hereinafter mentioned,
the said board is charged with violating and
evading the provisions of the law governing
such work, (and which law requires that no
contract shall be entered into or purchase
of personal property made by or on account
of any board, or department, of city gev-
ernnent) where the contract or purchase
shall exceed $500 without six days adver-
tising in the official newspapers, and the
awarding of the contract, or the making OF
the purchase, to or from that response
BILE bidder, who offers the terms most
violating and eyading the provisions of the
law requiring the making of contracts for
public work or the purchase of real or per-
sonal property above the sum of five hum
dred dollars, and requiring the taking of
bond or bonds for the faithful execution and
performance of such contracts or agree
ments; and the approval of such bonds by
such board, and requiring the filing of such
contracts or agreements in the office of the
comptroller
THE LAW REFERRED TO.
The law referred to in the charge is Sec
tien 159 of Chapter 424 of the Laws of 1871,
which is as follows:
ssThat no contract for work or materials
shall be entered into or purchase of personal
property be made by or on account of any
board OF department. of the city government,
except after due advertisement for six days
at least in the official newspapers: where
upon the contract shall be awarded to or the
plrchase shall be made of that responsible
bidder who offers the terms most advan-
tageous to the city; provided, that nothing
in this Section contained shall apply to cases
10 be raised bv assessment for or on account
Of such contract orpurcbase shall not exceed
The sum of $500; provided further, that