New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1894-05-05
OBEDIENT TO TAMMANY.
GOVERNOR FLOWER vETOES THE sHEF-
FIELD REMOVAL BILL.
he SAYS IT WOULD GIVE THE MAYOR AUTO
CRATIC POWERS He SIGNS THE MEAS
UREs MAKING THE SHERIFF \ SAL
AIRED OFFICER AND PROvfD-
ING FOR CONTRACT WORK
IN THE DOCK DE-
PARTNENT
By TELEGRAPH TO THE rRIBUNE.i

BY TELEGRAPH TO THE TRTBUNE.i
Albany. May 4-Governor Flower has yielded
to the commands of Tammany Hall in respect
TO the Sheffield bill authorizing each Mayor Of
New-Yorl< hereafter elected to remove the head
Of any city department He has vetoed the bill.
He filed a memorandum reading in part as
follows:
This bill is short that incorporate it, FRO
visions In full in this memorandum OF di,ipproVai:
the commencement Of his term of office, each Mayor
of the city OF New-YOrk hereafter e,cc-cd, may
remove from office any head Of department and
appoint his successor. Such successor shall hold
the expiration OF the term OF office of the Mayor
who appointed him. and until his successor is AZ,
pointed and qualified. Nothing hcren conta nf ,.i
Mayor to remove any head OF department for
cause"
it VIII be observed that it is not an amandmen,
OF the charter of New-York. II does not specify
the heads OF departments which are affected. br;
Includes them all in It's sweeping clause. IL does
not directly change the term Of Office Of any head
OF department as defined by law. But Indirectly,
though none the less effectively ii limits the term
OF office Of the head OF each municipal department
10 two years unless the officer is allowed TO serve
out his full term by the favor Of the Mayor. Al
ready there is pubic dispute TO whether the
bill affects elective heads Of departments Ike the
the bill that the measure might appear TO bear
that construction am asked to leave to the courts
The fact that controversy to the meaning OF the
bill has already arisen is sufficient indication
ton for its dIsapproval
My objection to the BIZ, however. does not rest
the dangerous principle which they embody. They
make the Mayor Of New-York an autocrat; the
They destroy the present wise system of checks
and balances in municipal administrations system
tect the people from wholesale abuses by bad
officers. Ply giving to the Mayor as the bill
innate and Apportonment, 1t would place under
his absolute control the expenditure of between
if 80 disposed he could use for p' the Sasesi
personal or political ends. 1t would bring
the spells of office for every such officer would
know that upon the election of his candidate for
The 'spols' idea is too much a feature OF our
municipal politics now, but under this proposed
law the entire civil service of the city would be
form in municipal government would receive
such a law the peOp.e would be more likely 10
select capable man for Mayor The powers now
centiy broad TO ince the livelest interest among
al good citizens In the question OF who that Mayor
is alive every day in the year and at every election,
and not the kind Which is bottled up for occasional
In this opinion, to the danger of comforting
such arbitrary powers upon the MAJOR l am Sus-
Gates Of this bill must respect one authority Is
the so-called Fassett investigating Committee OF
invest gait N into the workings Of IN municipal gov
p pop n S pe esauT 'nn made many
tons but none of these involved the feature OF
this bin. Indeed on this question the committee
said: I'VE do not believe in making the Mayor
autOcrat." But even more distinguished authority
is that Of the famous Tilden Municipal Commits
sion OF 1876 and 1871 whose report is much valued
by municipal reformers. This commission consisted
of New-York: oswald Otendorfer and Z. l.. God
kin. DISTINGUISHED editors OF metropoHtan news i
others. In the course OF their able discussion OF
municipal government these genienem slia er WIN
reference to the suggestion OF coAiTtrhg very ~
tensive powers upon the Mayor; 1T mas OF Iate
years frequently been suggested nat ne Io
OF It's intended effect. for The reason that under
present there are a SJe to cer1 the be-
officials upon whom maladmnistraton Is rea ny
Mayor aIth full authority to appoint and remove
all the principal executive officers ana tneil 10 YES
ness of raising and aDpropriating moneys. 1t is
argued that under such civil arrangrmehihtI t fn
waseful inefficient administration. and would be
sure to apply the proper remedy by changing the
new I've 81 have no confidence IN such scheme. Il
c,ds no s,ppcrt in the established principles of
nnru,or representative government The importani
functions Of determining how ruch more shall
the various local objects and purposes are IS
scntiay discretionary ana s tGS of ro obliSa
lions. restraints fears except such rs proGsseu
from their convictions of the Pubic wehTe cren
such places at the hards OF master who could
make and unmake them at p"aEre ,gges,ed pace-
the control OF vast sums Of money-in the cry o.
$50 t hpGG. rsVsn snq Ina MAN. mat No
,nb cnnrol over The public resources IS lodged even
with the sovereign in any constitutions or
/ a. 90 people might not suffer himself 70 he us,
pa1c;na, Elections to remove unworthy officers Is
mainly attributable to an Inability 10 race tne re-
81 erroneous The real difficulty IS that the mass OF
The citizens however strongly they may De con-
,nced ~ the necessity of political change, are not
iii,nr n enter upon a campaign against thoroughly
organized political combinations, for the reason that
And. again with reference to the Mayor this Com,
nnISrp Of appointment removal of all the prncl
hal executive officers would, in the great cltles'
render him an aItoea resp h eny yor fastener
upon him. but 10 apply the remedy 9i ,i
r mi into the hands of a single the control
of 500 900 OOO with liberty 70 use 1t TO Keep hseil
al have quoted at length from the report OF this
distinguished commission for the reason mat rs Hs
Conclusions upon this subject so fully coincide WIN t
NV own and are 50 particularly appropriate IN tne
discussion over this bill. How. much more forcibe
nearly $40 OOO0o annually and the number or us de-
pariments is largely increased 49,, .ooso,.
Perhaps l have taken TOO seriously tne 49, c
urged for this bills enactment, for am aware
that the bill is regarded generally as one urseI
from political motives rather than from an no ,h,
desire to secure good government IL Is true 'n s
the bin was rushed through the LegslatGre ny In a
spur of party caucus; that the E 20 other
fused make its provisions applicable 10 olht
Of the Bills supporters. and that II was OPPOSE h
most unanimously by the represehi5iutVe,s q, ,n
city Of New-NOrk In the iLeslSatuIe, ps, ana,ad h,,
members of Various reform organizations IN New
York. the honesty Of whose motives Is OF course ~
pcica aspect Of the bill ami coniine myself solely
10 i,s substantial faults. am convinced, win
Wesers carter Ottendorfer. Godkln and the other
members OF the Tden commission mat the way 10 10
tho principle embodied in this bill The only sure
way is by proper division Of municipal q' ncn1
and the unceaslng vigilance OF every cltlzen;
anu NV ROSWELL +. FLOWER.
THE SHERIFF AND DOCK BILLS SIGNED
The Governor acted creditably to-day upon
two of the New-York reform measures passed
bv the Republican Legislature. These were
Assemblyman Shefiields bill declaring that the
100000 IN fees which the Sheriff of New-fork
annually receives shall hereafter go into the
city treasury, and that his salary shall De IN