The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1894-01-23
Governor Werts Decides in
Favor Of the Street and
Water Commits
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 Mayor Wanser's
Conclusions.

Conclusions.
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 Hall, and every
one was anxious to see on what grounds
Governor Werts had based his decision. The
full 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 the matter of charges preferred by Hugh
Leslie and others, prosecutors, against John
F. Madden ct ais Commissioners, ETC., re-
spondendents.
To Hon. Peier F. WaRser. Mayor Of JerseD
Cftp
I am in receipt from you of copy of the
charges preferred against the above named
respondents by the above named prosecu-
tors: also of a transcript of the testimony
taken on the hearing of said charges before
your Honor, and your conclusions thereon.
Tou state that said conclusions are my
(your) reasons which have induced me to
remove the said commissioners, and that
81 communicate these, my reasons, to you,
in writing, pursuant to Section 10, Chapter
1874, 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
such case shall communicate to theGovernor,
in writing his reasons for such remoVal," ," etc
The charges preferred by Frank o. Cole
and others are nine In number; those pre-
ferred by Hugh Leslie and others are also
nine in number, making altogether thirty
four typewriter pages. Your conclusion,
four in number, are three of them based Oh
charge one. and the other on charge four,
preferred by Frank o. Cole and others.
The charges submitted involve the extreme
considered and determined Judiclally.
The commissioners can only be removed
stfor good cause"
AUTHORITIES CITED.
asCause of removal Ii a statute means some
derelction or general neglect of duty, or in
capacity to perform the duties, or some de-
linduency affecting his general character, or
his fitness for the office. 1t is not sufficient
that the duties of the office can be more effi-
GENTLY performed by another"
People ex rel Munday v. Commissioners,
I'm. Y. 445:-
g Where a power to remove from
Office for due cause is given, the words
due cause operate as limitation on the
power What is due cause for the remova
of an officer is question of law to be be de
termined by the judicial department, and IL
the absence of any statutory provision as tx
what shall constitute such cause, should bt
determined with reference to the nature ano
character of the office and the qualification!
requisite to fill it,
State ex rel. Gill VS.. Com. Council, 9 Wis
261
1.-The removal in such case is not a mere
matter of judicial discretion; some unftnes
must be shown"
Moore Mining Co., l.. R. IL ch. div. 325
ssThe power to remove person from offic
for cause means that reason must exist
which is personal to the individual sought t.
be removed which the law and sound pub
lie opinion will recognize as good cause fo
his no longer occupying the place.
People VS.. The Mayor, 19 Hum AL
'sThe cause intended is just cause, and tn
power may be exsrted only. after the office
has had opportunity for defense"
Haight VS. Love, 10 Vroom On. J.) %.
CHARGE NO. l.
Charge number one on which your frs
three conclusions are based, is as follows:-
SIN ordering paid and disbursed the sum
.F. = hat fif,1ac f1a fI1A
for the objects next hereinafter mentioned
the said board is charged with violating an
evading the provisions of the law governln
such work. land which law requires that n
contract shall be entered into or pnrchas
OF personal property made by or on accoun
of any board, or department. of city GOV
ernmentl where the contract or purchas
shall exceed $500 without six days adyel
tising in the official newspapers, and th
awarding of the contract, or the making G
the purchase, to or from that respons
Bile bidder, who offers the terms mos
advantageous to the city. And wlt
violating and eyading the provisions OF tn
law requiring the making of contracts TO
pubiic work or the purchase of real OF pei
sonal property above the sum of five hur
Gred dollars, and requiring the taking c
bond or bonds for the faithful execution an
performance of such contracts or agree
1nents; and the approval of such bonds b
such board, and requiring the filing of sue
CONTRACTS or agreements in the office OF tn
comptroller"
THE LAW REFERRED TO.
The law referred to in the charge is Ser
tion l59 of Chapter 424 of the Laws of 1871
which is as follows
siTbat no contract for work or material
shall be entered into or purchase of persona
property be made by or on account of an
board or department of the city government
!. except after due advertisement for six day
at least in the official newspapapers; whert
mon the contract shall be awarded to or th
purchase shall be made Of that responsible
bidder who offers the terms most adyal
IN mis- Section contained shall apply to cast
where the amount to be paid by the city Q
to be raised by assessment for or on accour
of srlch contract or purchase shall not excee
the sum of $500; provided further, thu