The record-union., 1896-05-26
MAYOR AND CITY TRUSTEES.
The Contention as to Their Respective
Powers.
A Message in Which Mayor Hub
bard Boldly Defines His
Position.

At last nights session OF the CITY
Trustees the following communication
was received from Mayor Hubbard In
response to one from the board Gaining
his attention to an alleged non-compn-
ance by him with the terms OF the
charter relative to appointments:
To the Honorable Board of trustees:
At a regular meeting of your poaro
held on the 18th inst. your ooard
passed a resolution, of which your
Clerk duly notified me, requesting me
to live up to Section 80 of the charter.
The language of your resolution is
couched in such general terms that 1t
becomes necessary for me to defne my
own Interpretation of that section, IN
order that you may understand my po-
sition in the matter. The sectlon re-
ferred to reads as follows:
"The Mayor, by and with the consent
of the Board of Trustees, shall appoint
all officers of the city whose election is
not otherwise provided for in this char
ter or by law. When a nomination is
made to the board, action shall be
taken thereon by the board in not less
than five 90 nor more than fifteen days
thereafter; and in case the officer NOM
shall within ten days thereafter name
another, and may continue doing so
until the place Is fillsd.
mo member of the Board Of Trustees
shall ever suggest or request the ap-
pointment of, appoint or name any Of
ficer, clerk or employe to any place In
the city government except to fill a
vacancy in the office of Mayor, elect
the President Of the Board Of Trus-
tees, City Clerk and necessary cleo
ton officers"
1t will be observed, in the first place,
that whenever a nomination is made
by the Mayor for any office un-
der the city government, he must.
should the person first nomin-
ated be rejected, nominate an
other, "and he may continue to do so
until the place is filed" In every case
thus far in which I have made nom
nations for any office, have made at
least two, and the second always with
in ten days after the rejection of the
name first proposed. The appointing
power is vested in the Mayor, and it
was never expected that the Board Of
Trustees would refuse to confirm his
appointments except for good and suffi-
cient reasons.
In my judgment, your board, by re-
fusing to confirm nominations that
were eminently proper, without giving
any reason for your action, has GER
tainly abused the power granted you
by this section, and If you continue,
the INJURY to the public service and the
gross injustice of your course will
doubtless cause this and correspond
ing section Of the charter to be revised
in order that there may be no ques-
tion as to where the ultimate author
ity and responsibility are lodged.
l do not understand in what par
ticular it is claimed that / have not
cOnformed to the requirements of Sec
tion 80. AS already observed, in every
instance where a vacancy has occurred
in any of the departments of the city
government, I have nominated a person
to fill the same, and when the person so
nominated has been refused confrma-
tion by your board I have named an
other. A reading of the section should
convince you that its language in re-
gard to the making of nominations by
the Mayor is permissive merely, and
not mandatory. In other words as I
fail to find in Section 80, or elsewhere
III the charter. anything requiring the
Mayor to continue sending nomina-
tions to your body after you have re-
fused to confirm the second name pre-
posed, I conclude that it is optional
with me whether I shall make any fur
ther nominations.
The language of the section does not
admit of any other Interpretation, and
the difficulty between the terms en-
ployed in respect of the second nomi-
nation and such as may be subsequent
- made, seems to indicate clearly the
intention of the charter-makers that,
If the Mayors second nomination is re-
jected he may, or may not. at his dis
cretion, nominate other persons to fill
the vacancy, and If the office is filed
to the satisfaction OF the Mayor he may
we'll conclude that the public service
demands no further nomination.
There seems to be a disposition upon
the part of some members of your
board unduly to interfere with such
temporary appointments as may be
necessary under the charter. Your
board should remember that you are
vested only with the power to confirm
such nominations as the Mayor may
make but have no other rights or priv
ileges in respect of appointments.
Section &c of our charter designates
the Mayor as the chief officer of the
city; by Section q it is provided that he
shall have general supervision of all the
different municipal departments, offices,
etc.
In my first message to your board.
January 9th last, l mentioned this sub
-