The San Francisco call., 1898-05-23

It gives unparalleled powers to the Mayor, who is made, for all practical purposes, an autocrat.
 The annual cost of conducting the municipal government Is over five mil lion dollars. The Mayor Is authorized to appoint the heads of the departments of the city government through which from three and one-half to four millions will be expended annually. These off cers. though their tenure Is fixed by the charter, nevertheless hold at the pleas ure of the Mayor. The charter provides that any appointed officer may be re- moved by the Mayor, who shall notify the Board of Supervisors of the removal and furnish a statement of the cause (Article XVI, sections IS, 20; D. 142). Every appointed officer, therefore, holds at the will and pleasure of the Mayor. He can be removed when 1t pleaseS the Mayor to remove him, and the suf- ficiency of the reasons are not open to review.
 In his letter published in your issue of Friday, MT. John T. Doyle points out that the power of removal secured by this provision involves eight hundred employees of the city government. In the Examiner of to-day, pr. E. R. Tay- Tor, one of the freeholders, makes the claim that when the charter says the Mayor may remove "any appointed of ficer" 1t means any officer appointed by the Mayor. If 1t means that, 1t does not say it. A deputy is as much an of ficer as his principal so that if the pro- vision limits the removal to heads of departments, 1t Is because the charter means something which 1t does not say.
 But, concede that the Mayor has no power to remove the subordinates of an appointed officer, confessedly he can re- move the principal. The principal can remove his subordinates at pleasure. Section 21 of Article XVI (p. 142) pro- vides that every principal may re- move his appointees unless otherwise provided. Dr. Taylor claims that under the civil service provision (p. 13D appointees cannot be removed except for cause, upon written charges and after trial. I expect to show under an> other heading that this provision has been three times declared unconstitu- tionai by the Supreme Court of this State.
 So that, whether the Mayor can directly remove the subordinate of an appointed officer or not cuts little f1g- ure. He can remove the principal as a matter of caprice, and can force the removal of the subordinate under threat to remove the principal fthe sub- ordinate is not removed.
 The principal departments of the city government over which the Mayor has this absolute authority, with the amounts appropriated for their mainte- nance dur.np the current year. are: The School Department, $i,2o0,o00; the Street Department and the Surveyors office (absorbed by the Board of Public Works), $56S, 900 the Fire Department, S646, 200; the Police Department. S773,- 89S; the Park Commissioners, S207, 900; the Health Department, $265,S00.
 Whatever arguments may be ad vanced in support of the appointment by the Mayor of a very considerable number of the heads of the departments of a municipality. no argument can be adduced in support of such power where the officers appointed hold at the will and pleasure of the Mayor, ex- cept that government by the people in municipalities has proved a failure and we must now resort to a strong one man government.