The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1896-12-16
TAMSEN IS ENUMERATED.
THE GOVERNOR DISMIssEs TEE
CHARGES AGAINST HIM.

Finds Tint tho Sheriff Used Duo Care in
selecting, Watching, and DiscIptiniug
His SubordiuHtes, Although There May
Have Been n Lack of Wisdom.
ALBANY, Dec. 15.-Gov Morton has dismissed
the charges which were made some moths ago
against sheriff Edward j. II. Hansen Of New
York city. lie says the facts disclosed by the
investigation would not justify the Sherin's re-
moval. The charges. made by Henry Crosse
aud others of New York city, allego that tho
Sheriff is incompetent and has been guilty Of
gross negligence in tho performance Of his
duties. William II. Robertson of Katonah,
Westchester county, was appointed by Gov.
Morton as q special Commissioned to take the
testimony on the charges. The commissioners
report to the Governor vindicaied the sheriff,
and 1t has been known for some time that tho
charges would be dismissed.
The Governor, in n long memorandum, sum-
marizes tho report of Commissioners Robertson
on the charges and the testimony bearing upon
them. He says:
ut is quite clear that the Sheriff undertook to
appoint TO office as wardens and keepers of Lud-
low street Jail only such persons as were pos
sessed OF good character, Intelligence, and Mt
ness for tho responsibilities which would de-
volve upon them rs officers OF the jail" The
governor then reviews at length the familiar
facts regarding the i'm IMPRISONMENT and escape OF
Alien. klliorth. and Russell, the post Office rob-
bers. III CONCLUSION the Governor says:
ms summary of the charges and the cvi.
aehce clearly shows that MIR. Hansen has tried
TO properly perform the duties of his office and
has enueavored to exercise adequate supervis-
ion over the conduct OF his suburdinutes.
IN TINS proceeding the charges AGAINST the
sheriff relate almost exclusively to the conduct
OF ms subordlnates. but 1t Is claimed that lie was
guilty OF negligence in making appointments.
Inc, head OF II department must almost neces-
sarily make experiments in the appointment Of
his subordlnHtcs. Hc can scarcely do more than
undertake to obtain the best information avail
apie concerning their qualifications, and II he
OBTAINS this Information and exercises his best
Judgment he is not n fair subject OF criticism,
even II the wisdom OF his selection Is sometimes
not justified by experience.
The relations or the head of a department to
MS suooruihates were discussed by me IN
another recent inquiry of II character similar to
ms, and | there took occasion TO shy that where
Inc head OF a department has the responsibility
of the appointment and removal Of his sub
orolhhtes. 1t is his duty either to know from
DAY To day what In going on. or to investigate
any supposed irregular transactions to which
his attention IL called, and II he knows, or has
goou reason 10 believe, or IL his Investigation
shows that his subordinates are guilty OF i'm
proper conduct, II Is his duty to remove them.
III lie does not do so his failure to cause their
Executive
1t appears here that Mr.. Tamscn did inyesti-
gate the conduct of severa. Of his su bordlnates
against whom charges were made. and removed
those whose u%nttnesS was satisfactorily shown.
He brings himself within the rule lad down in
the decision rom which | have quoted. and 1t
is very clear that he cannot :airly be charged
WITH ihCompetency or negligence of duty when
he promptly removed unfit snbordinates. 1t
should also be borne in mind in this case that
the Sheriff cannot always know from day TO
day all that las numerous subordinates are do
ing. AMI. II he exercises over them the greatest !
watchfulness which circumstances permit, no
more can fairly be required.
" Upon the whole case. ] am of the opinion |
that the iacts disclosed are not sufficient TO
warrant the finding that the Sheriff has been
guilty OF negligence or misconduct which would !
!nsli,y ms removal, and the charges are there
lore dismissed"