The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1896-12-31
TIE CITY'S EXECUTIVE.
A Tendency In Providence to In
crease His Power.
Case OF a Mayor whose Authority Re-
ceived Judicial Backing.

/ AhStC ~ kcuSful uu1SFbtouulnK l0N
when the draft for the revised charter O
this city IL finally made public Il vii
show, as one of its mcst interesting fea
lures, q provision for bestowing upol
the Mayor much greater powers and re
snlting responsibilities than that officis
now enjoys. For instance, It is propose,
that he will have tho power of appoint
ment and removal OF those officers wb,
are now elected by the legislative body O
the city government.
Mr.. Rathbone Gardner, chairman Of tn,
chsrtsr commission. did something
toward paving the way to such q propo
sition night before last ct the council
dinner, when he referred to the radically
wrong methods Of government which pre-
vail In this city and pointed out the fact
that the Legislative and administrative
duties are not kept as distinct as they
should be.
The following article on "Stripping a
Mayor" relative to the city of Annspo-
lis, 10 from the Municipality and County
and. is OF interest from the other point
OF view.
Way back in 1917 the Legislature os-
creed that:
"The Mayor of the city shall nominate,
and by and with the consent of conven-
tion Of the two branches of the City
Council, shall appo,n all officers under
the corporation, except, etc."
Eleven years later. in 1928, the Leg isla-
ture, at the request of the Mayor and
Council, passed an act empowering the
corporation to pass ordinances regulating
the manner OF such appointments, said
act stating that:
"The Mayor and City Council may pass
ordinances reg ulating tho manner OF ap-
pointing"
The first designates the location of the
power OF appointing, and the second per-
mits the Mayor and Council to prescribe
the manner or method OF same.
When these two laws we're consolidated
In the codification known es the Coue Of
Local Laws. In section 30, article 4, their
respective priority OF enactment was re-
versed and made to read as follows:
"Ihey may pass ordinances regulating
the manner of appointing but
unless such ordinances be passed.. the
Mayor shall nominate and by and with
the advice and consent of q convention
of the two branches OF the City Council,
shall appoint, etc."
little over one year ago, in the fall
Of 1895, there occurred In Baltimore q
revolt against the local Democratic ms-
shine, wherein the Good Govern ment
|orces com bined and succ eeded in elect |
ng Repu blican Mayor and Council who
'tood for better municipal government,
he Mayor being Alcaeus Hooper.
Standing squsreIy, firmly and bravely
or tie principle, upon which he was
iected, the Mayor nom mated men of nt-
less for public Office end stu pbornly re-
used TO appoint spoilsmen. Tne newly
lected councilmsn could not stand pros
perity. Long absence from power had
nnde the local Repu blicans eager for
flee. The Mayors steadf stness: an
cred them; his appointments were not
snd eventually the Council de-
ermined to strip the Mayor Of bis share
the appointing power. To do this they
cisconstrued the law above quoted, and
nterpreted 1t to suit themselves, and
assed over the Mayors vetoss, by the aid
some Democratic.mem hers, ordinance,
'hich placed the appointing power In a
INVENTION of the two branches of the
ity Council, leaving out the Mayor alto
ether. The mistake they made In this
as In assuming that the 1928 law grant
~ the right to regulate the manner, was
iperior TO the Que of 1877 which vested
10 power OF appointments. They failed
reslizs that tho permission to say how
thing shall he done does not destroy
,e power to do the thing. Hence Ia at.
mpting to destroy the Mayors share OF
'e power they overreachsd Themselves, as
icy have just found out.
Following up the passage of the new
dinancts, the Council proceeded to ap-
lint the men they wanted, and then
sy struck q rock, for the Mayor refused
swear In these sppointess and without
is they couli not qualify nor assume
ice. Then commenced the legal battle,
. mandamus issued by s.lowsr court
dering the Mayor to swear in the Coun-
y s2pointees. The Msyor appealed to =
. Court OF Appeals, which now decides
at the ordinances were invalid, and ,
At the mandamus shouts not have been :,
ed.