The daily morning journal and courier., 1894-12-28

be thoroughly sustained by the Board In view of the mass of general evi-
 ence of the tenor just cited. the aues-
 ton arises whether probable cause for a removal from office of any commis-
 sioner is shown sufficient to warrant its reference to the Court Of Common Council in the manner prescribed by the charter. So far as Commissioner Clancy Is concerned this Inquiry ceases to be practical one inasmuch
 as his term of office expires In January. Without inquiring further. the general testimony as to the inevitable effect
 upon the police Of the present on
 the Board of any man doing so much
 business with the saloons, would seem
 to be sufficient, if MT. Ciancey's atten-
 ton is called to 1t. to lead him to be
 among the first to see that he can
 hereafter serve the public interest
 more .honorably in some other ca
 pacity than that of Q police commits
 sloner.
 The case. however stands differently
 with MT. Gilhuly, as he has another years term of office, unless the same
 weight of evidence leads him to re-
 sign, or he can be removed from office.
 The question. therefore. whether the evi-
 dence in his case furnishes probable cause for further proceedings In the court of common council is one of prac- tical importance for the efficiency of
 the department The charter authorl-
 zes removal from office of commis-
 sioner for cause. The nature of the cause is not defined or limited by the charter. A large discretion Is left thus
 to the aldermen. The general princi- pie under which impeachment proceed ings may be undertaken Is stated as follows by the best legal authorities: But cause for removal from office may exist where no offense against positive law has been committed. as where an individual has from immo-
 rality, or imbecility, or mal-adminis- tration become unfit to exercise the of- flee" Curtis, Hist, of Const 260-1) The precedents establish this principle: Tt is not always necessary that an act to be impeachable must violate a posi- tive law, and there are many misde- meanors which are repugnant to the moral sense, and yet do not violate any positive law.(Am. Cy. of Law, 9, 95S)
 Such being the broad scope both of principle and practice in the impeach- ment of judges. there can be no doubt that municipal officer under our char ter may be removed from office for any
 misconduct, contrary to the dignity and the trust of the people, which, all though not indictable, is ''in Its na- ture or consequence subversive of some fundamental or essential principle of government" .Qmp. of Andrew John son, 1, 147.) I claim in view of this gen. eral principle Of law in impeachment proceedings, and I maintain upon the evidence before you, that prima facie case for the removal of MT. Gilhuly from office has been made out, and should be so reported by you. in the following charges and specifications:
 1. Because Commissioner Gilhuly has violated the city charter in section 267, in this particular thereof, viz, Tt shall be the duty of the board of police commissioners to encourage and sustain every police officer in the faith full discharge of his duty" ?. Because Commissioner Gilhuly has by his ha-
 bituar influence and his personal acts
 subverted essentia! principles of gov
 ernment in the following particulars, to
 wit: He has sought for office upon the
 board Of police commissioners for the
 furtherance of his own business, con- trary to the public interest; he has
 lived up to the purpose, subversjve of
 any public trust, for which he sought
 as commissioner for the gain of his own business: (S) he has interfered with the police in the discnarge of their du- ties without warrant, beyond his au-
 thority, and to the detriment of the
 force; (4 he has by direct word and act discouraged and prevented the enforce
 ment of the laws of the state contrary
 to his oath and duty as commissioner of police.
 In substantiation of these reasons for your finding probable cause for the re-
 moval of Mr. Gilhuly from office of- fer the following citations of evidence: 1. The testimony already cited (which in part MT. lClancey shares with Mr.
 Gilhuly), to the effect that the influence of MT. Gilhuly, as it has been felt throughout the police force, has not
 been such as the charter in the section adduced requires, but on the contrary
 has been a. lindrance to the enforce ment oe law. -"
 In estimating the weight of this evil dence it should be recollected that it. i~ unwilling testimony, drawn from uf
 ficers who have endangered their own prospects by telling the truth against
 men in power over them and reluctant testimony from witnesses who. testify against their own apparent interest. is worth in law it's full face value at least, and presumptively much more. It may be inferred with fair legal pre-
 sumption of fact, that such impression, as several witnesses have testified to, has not been produced by Commission CT Gilhuly without some basis of spe- cific acts and Ltterance by him, even
 though no such act could be definitely
 proved. If. according to the statutes, disorderly houses, and houses of ill., fame which are only reputed to be such, can be convicted in court upon their reputation, still more in the case of municipal officer, who should be above suspicion, on the same legal principle action may be had when his h11sinass is credihly repllted to be con-