The daily morning journal and courier., 1895-03-05
WILL OPPOSE THE CHARTER
ALDERMEN so INSTRUCT THE COR-
 PORATLON COUNSEL.

1 EOh4AIlON OOONoELs
 The Vote Was Close-AIdeIlnan Macdon
 aids Able Remarks -Police Commis
 sioner GiIhuly's Trial 10 Commence Marcl | 19 Must be Tried by the Full Board.
 All but two members of the board O
 aldermen were present at the meeting
 of that body last evening, the two ab
 sentees being Aldermen Leary ant
 Moore So great was the interest il
 the business to be transacted that tho aldermanic chamber was filled to over
 flowing with citizens, many of whom although unable to obtain seats, re-
 mained throughout the entire evening
 Among those present were Benjamin
 R. English, E. G. Buckland, Dr. H. w
 Ring, Roger S. Baldwin, Edward I. At
 water L. J. Matthews. B. c. Coolidge
 A. McC Mathewson, Frederick B Farnsworth, Howard Adt, John A. Doc
 little, Professor G. D. Watrous, S. liar
 rison Wagner, Colonel N. G, Osborn, John Gaffey, F. L. Rice and a number of others.
 After the usual routine business had
 been transacted communication from
 Mayor Hendrick in reference to the in-
 vestigation of the charges against Po- lice Commissioner Gilhuiy was read and
 the recommendations adopted. The
 communication was in reality veto of
 the action taken by the board in ap- pointing a committee to Investigate the charges. It also contained the opinion of Corporation Counsel Ely, which is to the effect that the committee has no power to try the commissioner, but the trial must take place before the board of aldermen sitting as q court. The opinion was given at the request of the committee.
 The opinion is as follows: Tn answer to your inquiry as to the power of the committee appointed in accordance with the vote of the board of aldermen to in veshgate and repart upon the charges made against Daniel s. Gilhuly one of the police commissioners, and all other matters relating to the appointment and management of the members of the po- lice force by the board of police com missioners l would say;
 Any committee or any person has the right and power to investigate as much as it or he may desire, and the com mittee appointed can sit and hear tes- timony as hong as there is any testimo- ny to hear. The more important ques- ton is, however, whether MT, Gilhuly can be tried on the charges preferred against him by committee appointed by the board of aldermen, or whether he must be tried before the board of aldermen.
 The object of the triai.as of course to remove MT. Gllhuly from office, if he Is found guilty of the charges preferred against him, and that brings us to the question, How and in what manner can a commissioner be removed? The only language found in the charter authoriz- ing the removal of a police commission CT is found in section 3S and reads as follows:
 Any member of either of said boards of commissioners shall be subject to re- rnoval for cause upon charges made in writing by any member of the court of council provided said charges are found to be sustained by a two
 
 The charter provides that a commits sioner be removed flor cause" The in all cases where the mo- ton is for cause is advisory or judicial in character, and if the organic law of the corporation is silent as to the mode of procedure the substantial principles of the common law as to the proceed Ings affecting private rights must be observed
 The person accused must have notice, I. copy of the charges which must be stated, time to answer, an to cross examine witnesses presented against him and an oppor- unity to present witnesses in his own behalf. The charges have been pre- erred i'm accordance with the provisions if the charter and 1t is conceded that 1e shall have the opportunity to be present. at the trial and defend himself II the usual manner of persons &C., used and the only question is before what tribunal shall he be tried. The | ,harter has created the board of al- lermen as a tribunal and has not | treated any other
 The board of aldermen alone has | to punish and remove. In | his matter they do not act as munich | ,al officers, but in a judicial capacity | nd before they exercise the authority | onferred upon them, they must hear he evidence and decide upon it. It 5 not fair either to the accused or he people to have tribunal pass upon question they have not investigated, or Is it fair to either to ask this ribunal to decide upon the question without hearing the testimony as 1t omes from the witnesses.
 Upon general principles, therefore, it would seem that the aldermen had no over to appoint any committee to ear the testimony and report back to hem.
 The corporation counsel then cites a umber of cases, the decisions in which ave been in support of this position nd i'm closing says: Applying the rinciples laid down in these cases,
 clearly appears that the trial must e before the board of aldermen, and
 trial before the committee would be 2 no effect. This is not an investiga- on by committee appointed by the 1urt of common council, but is a trial 2 a commissioner against whom cer- tin specific charges have been pre- ,rred In my opinion, therefore, the to sustain the charges pre-