New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1902-06-21
THE END OF GUDEN.
cOTRT OF APPEALS AFFIRMS
GOV ODELL'S REMOVAL.
u-nGE O.BRIEN. CONCURRING, DISCUSS
FS MERITS OF THE CASE.


Albany June 20 Cspeciap.-The Court Of Ap-
,sals by q unanimous vote has declared legal
ne action Of Governor Odeu in removing Charles
cuden from the Office Of Sheriff Of Kings County
and appointing Norman s. Dixie as his sue
oesso-. Sheriff Dixie thus retains his Office. and
Governor Odeu Is adjudged TO have acted within
bic -eovyers when he removed Guden
Chief Judge Parker wrote the chief opinion Of
-be Court OF Appeals. and Judge OBrien a con-
curing opinion. The judges who heard argu-
-,ent upon the case were Chief Judge Parker
and Associate Judges O'Brien. Gray, Haight
Yam. Cullen and Werner-four Democrats and
three Republicans. As law case il was an
aDpeaI Of GU6eu from al order Of the Appellate
Division u the Supreme Court OF the Second De
partneut reversing an order Of the Supreme
Court directing Sheriff Dixie TO turn over the
papers Of the Sheriff-s Office 10 Guden. The
Court OF Appeals afTirns the judgment Of the
Appellate Division.
Chief Judge Parker II his opinion says:
In this country the power Of removal is an
executive power, and n this State II has been
vested II The Governor by the people Il does
nor require argument 10 persuade the mind
mat the power thus conferred Is executive. not
lu5icial, and thar II was intended to be vested
exclusively II the Governor n their wisdom
he trainers OF the constitution put the public
interests Il the foreground. and provided sim
he and prompt method Of removal Of county
executive officers by the Governor Of the State
The constitution authorizes the Governor 10
remove. after giving 10 such officer copy Of
The charges against him and opportunity Of
being heard II his defence and an examina-
ZION OF tie record discloses that such require
uleuts Ct The constitution We're fully compiled
with II this case Therefore. we do not ex-
anime into the merits. for they do not concern
ne courts irasmuch as both the power TO de-
eide whether GUden should be removed from
The Office % Sheriff and the responsibility for
right decision rest solely upon the Governor
OF the STATE The order should be affirmed with
costs
Judge O'Brien, in his opinion. said:
In ny opinion. the charges IN this case were
sufficient 10 confer jurisdiction upon the Gov
s-ror 70 remove the Sheriff In Of the
charges presented TO him. and which appears in
The record. Il IS in substance alleged that the
Sheriff abGiCaIed his powers and duties with
respect 70 the appointment Of his subordInGteS
10 al irresponsible body Of men called q patron
age committee That is 70 say. he entered into
81 agreement with this committee 10 make Such
appointments Of subordinaJes as Il deterTnl rled
upor and that 9 list OF forty persons was 1uT-
rished 70 him by this committee 10 be ap-
noir-eS as his suborcinaIeS. and that he ap-
pointed them The charge in substance Is mat
The Sheriff <aTIned out 10 an OUTSIDE, lTreSporSI-
be political body the performance OF duties
which devoIve6 upon himself Il was not neces-
ss-v that the order Of removal should specify
the particular acts for which the removal was
made The order necessarily includes all acts
embraced II The charges and covered by the
proofs just as the general verdict OF a jury
includes ali the facts coraPrehended IN the IS
sue submitted. and the validity OF the Juos-
r1ent indicated by the order OF removal IS not
affected nv the circumstance that the LXecu-
I've instead Of specifying the particular acts
oF misconduct with which the Sheriff was
charged and found guilty. expressed his reasons
n = uilder form. namely, that I appeared 10
~ ze-is<srrion that the usefulness Of Guden
IN the Office OF Sheriff OF the county IS al Oh
end and he can be removed from Office