The sun., 1900-11-24
VAN WICK CHARGES FAIL.
0Ov ROOsstELT DIsHissgs THsu ron
IACH or gvgDE>rE.

says That Neither the world" Nor n. Auor.
neys Have Furnished Evidence which
would warrant HIN 10 Even Appoint n
ALBANY. Nov. 20 The charges fled by the
World against Mayor Van Wyck II New York
city with Gov Roosevelt. upon which wa-
based the Worlds application for the Mayors
removal from OF, CO on account of his cohnec-
tion with the American Ice COMPANY Nere
dismissed to-day by the Governor The rem
son for such dismissal WAS tl.at neither the
World nor iLs ATTORNEYS, }. Noble Haye. and
Wheeler II Peckham. had furnished the Cow
ernor, after months of waiting on their part
with q scintia Of evidence which would warrant
the Governor in even appointing a special
commissioner. as was done IN the charges
against District Attorney Asa Bird Gardiner
TO take testimony regarding the charges At
torney General Davies has repeatedly advised
the Governor that the Worlds attorneys had
not In the least degree made ont u case against
Mayor Van Wycb. 80 at last after giving me
World months OF opportunity to substantiats
its case against the Mayor. the Governor to-day
was forced under the law. and pursuant to
the advice Of the Attorney snsral. to throw
the charges out The Governors decision
follows:
THE oovRRsoR's DECISION.
"sTArp or NEW lolk. EXFCUIrE CHAMBER.
ALBANY, Nov %. ION
In the matter q ths thsrses svdr pFeissrIsSd # ,Ss
city Of New fork-Decision:
The brief presented by flr Hayes 9t eoIn-
sci to the " ord. undated. but received IN ms
Office Nov 10. contains no additional tstl-
ponv or Indication whore additiOnsl testimony
car be obtained The situation is therefore
wSeU ,Ss rS wroe %n I his e
TO me There is. therefore. as stated by The
Acknowledgment in his ie,tcr of Nov ?s lltte
To add 10 what was contained In his letter oi
Oct T. and in the statement issued by ne on
Il concur in the Attorney-General's opinion.
is not a corporation in which the. Mayor Of
New York .hould hsy, s'9Sk bTs n9 pIoofi
Justify the drastic measure of rer/bvins Lin
9, sscs Ts f.. so..2 In ssss %ufs
is an extraordinary and not an ordinary remedy;
"fhe normal remedy for bad sovsrnmsInt
%us' IN Wholly n 1s .so.pRlca sRRts % sss .
substitute for this appeal TO the people an
70 hs e d
missed. TaRopoRR ROOSEVELT, Governor,
Attorney General Davies's letter advising
ATroRyRT-oRNERAL's REPORT.
ITO he Honorable. the Governor:
~siE: have the honor 20 say that, pursuant
amined the briefs submitted 10 YOU by counsel
for the ,s m s oae the yo1 S
briefs which leads me TO change the views
snGer sas 70 yYn Oct my hss
[ suggested to you that before any further
proSeSdns. were taken IN !hs asseT You IN
POSSESSION Of evidence which standing alono
and undIsputed would Justify the removal OF
sht the outset OF their brief COUNSEL state
that II contains statement of what they deem
TO be first. the issue raised by the Mayors
which stand admitted by the, answer and those
which remain to be Troven n surport OF any
S the Th are to to
Offer in support n the same. In spite Of this
statepent I have eearched through the brief
the petitioners could OF would furnish IN sup
port of the charges or Toy any SUGGESTION a.
70 where such proof could be obtained. SO
lu'ely 10 change in the situation since the date
~ ny. former cornrun!icntioT :" von
p? sn 10 .sy a r
heretofore expressed 70 you are unchanged
still believe that an official who Is the owner Of
sio'c shs cy " W.En the meaning
section 1888 OF the charter; but u his ownership
were without his knowledge. then be, ia guilty
Of no moral offence, as guilty knowledge Is tho
SThis seems 10 be the view entertained by Gen
to tho brief W Of counsel The Concluding senisaoe
Sfa OF hs SPn2Sn aSy " an os Is%: oo9. s
1t follows. therefore, that the city officer who
ss, ss Ss S wG
and u gu1ty Of misdemeanor.
You have also submitted u NE telegram
under date Of Nov 7l, IN which II Is ~lggcetrd
by counsel for the petitioner that the Appellate.
Division OF the Supreme Court have decided
ana IL this connection they cali attention to
certain remarks, which are entirely dlcta.
in oce of the 2pnnoas nN, N .,s
any 81 the other romhers Of the court. I
am At a loss to understand how this contention
tina, the Attorncv-Cencral has rot yet c@m-
menc~d an action against the COMPANY. and
Il follows, of course. thai no Dlcadnrs have
duced, and tho contracts which II Is ALLEGED
croa,e ~ terd 70 create r'onopoly have meyer
Sean rie.cntcd to the court. The proceeding
Attorney General pursuant 70 the provisions
of section l. chapter 0ao laws of 1870. for the
evidence preliminary to the bringing Of an
action IN test tie question whether or not the
ic: rSrnn 3n ~ bn,o1. he Court related
wholly 70 the constttuiionnlity md validity of
the statutory provisions ms TO this preliminary
procceding Under these circumstances II
must he apparent. even 10 the loE mind that
no court has vet decided that the ice COM nnv
is n trust or TINT its OF sratons have been in
violation ~ the law Very respectfully YOURS.
JoHS c DAVIES. Attoiney-Genersl
Nov -. IGO.
In addition 10 his written ornion dismiss
ing the CHARGES Gov. Roosevelt had this 10
sav on tho Ice Trust question
THE GOVERNORS srATrMFST
"Tbcre has uHt been nm tour'- urracers1rv
delay on the part Of the Stte authorities
Fiitv-nve dlys elapsed from June 2 when tho
W ,rid 0r~t lied H. charges until July q when
Its amended CONF lRIut put those charges in
final form and fortv-tvo d1vs elag-ol from
Aug II when those charges were served upon
the Mayor uulil sent % when the Mayor fled
his answer Tho dcay sirCo thcu has boon
solely due ~ the fact that tho Wo'h NJ Tint
,ir. g ll-clirrrt tho counsel hich II formerly
ON, love and refused - 70 on with tho clse
leaving j, completely in ~" mir Tor tie time
being
'NtD,uyh Tho matter Il 4 trusts Ia not
dlr,r,lv involved in : X decision ! wish to
print ont thni tho existing law of IN. state.
even pr vi'.d thnt urccr II the Attorney-Gon-
erals action rpaiist tn" ice corr Iurrton should
no succ,ssfGi IS not ADEQUATE IN my last
annual message 70 tho Legislature 7 recon-
lssl, 4, H.. Of a 49,. /.