New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1897-07-14
GovERyoR AND COMMISSIONER.

7, "a not probable that Governor Black is
much disturbed by denuncation OF his decision
in The case of Police Commissioner Parker; nor
is there anv reason why he should be- II Is
nossible that he has too good an opinion OF that
of,ci,, and WAS glad to save him the trouble
If an appeal TO the courts; but such suppose
linn however well founded. is irrelevant. The
Governor was bound by the records before MIN.
7, was his duty 10 leave everything else out OF
the question and to determine whether or not
the evidence sustained the charges. 1here -
little risk in saying that nobody expected him
TO approve the action OF Mayor STRONG anu 'n"'
q great majority of those who having some
knowledge of the matter. believed that ne wouiu
keen the Commissioner in office Dased their
opinion not upon what they supposed the Gov
ernors political and personal sympatnies 10 De-
but upon their estimate Of the evidence. II
Is extremely doubtful If the Mayor himsel
thought he had made out good case. He want
ed to get rid Of Mr.. Parker, and he honestly
felt as did a multitude Of citizens. that his re-
moval would be Of great advantage to the 70
lice Department and the community Out MS
distrust Of the evidence which he had succceded
in putting on record was pretty accurately IN
dictated by his long delay In acting upon IT,
Under all the circumstances 1t is indecent 10
assail Governor Black for taking course which
in all probability relieves the courts OF the ne
cessity Of reversing his decision.
This Is by no means equivalent to saying that
Commissioner Parker's official conduct has been
INDICATED. great many persons VIII con-
tinue TO believe that he Is much more to blame
than any or all Of his colleagues for the harm
full and discredtable course Of affairs in the
Police Department. But so long as the law re-
mains what it is clearer proof OF an o1ncials
unfitness for his place than was forthcoming
IN the case of Mr.. Parker will have to be pro-
duced before lie can he justly removed. In the
nature of things, the consequences Of an obsti-
nate temper and an unhappy disposition do not
usually supply a good foundation for specific
charges Of dcreliction Of duty. Nothing short OF
such obvious malfeasance as would justify a
verdict under a criminal indictment Is likely 10
be held sufficient legal warrant for removal
from office 1t was indeed. chiefly in considera-
ton Of this fact that so strong an appeal was
made for provision in the new charter giving
The Mayor the absolute power of removal
throughout his term, instead Of during only the
first six months.
1t is easy at time when no issue has been
raised over public officials character and con-
duct to adduce strong arguments In favor OF
investing the Mayor with this great power. and
at time when controversy has been raised
those who are anxious for the dismissal of an
office holder naturally enough become convinced
or are strengthened in the conviction. that he
ought to have ii. But there are two sides 10
the question. and 1t Is certain that II in the
future q bad Mayor should try TO get rid OF
q faithful and cO,,rag eOus appOintee his nab
ity to do 80 would be generally regarded as a
blessing On which side the larger margin OF
security and advantage lies further experiments
in municipal government may hereafter deter
mine. Al present good citizens may adhere to
either view, as in fact they do, without mental
or moral discredt.