The sun., 1902-11-29
MAYOR DEFENDS THE ACTION.


Mayor LOW statement II dS iOHOWei
The c rarter places upon the Fire Com
rniSso and not upon N" Ma yor, the duty
OF conducting lls IN the Fire Department.
and II il the sworn duty OF the Commissioner
to make his tHdings upon the evidence ac-
cordng to III, conscience. ltis due to the
provisions Of the Garter itself that the Com
miss son"r has been Obliged both 10 formulate
the cnarses. and 20 try them. The circum-
stances of Il j. case have been such that have
ought II incumbent upon the Mayor to
assur. imself that the G. iel has Tad a fair
trial. and that every opportunity WIS given
to him TO make j. dcfcno" in tie fullest
possible way. Bcing satisfied. as am. upon
tuesr points, there seemed to be no reason
why this trial should not take it- course like
any other uial held b., the tmrnissoner.
The discipline of tn. department.. In fact.
required a. this matter should be dispossd
of IN the usual way.
No one can read the findings Of the Com
missioner with an open mind, without appre:.
ciating both that he has tried 10 bring a ca ndid
judgment 10 his task and also hat some of the
charges upon which h" finds the Chief guilty
questions that ought to be passed upon. II
need be- by the Court Of App,ais He would
the .vid' nee that the Commissioner IL with
out Justification l,or, hi. hndih.gs
The findings of the Commissioner suggest
SON" Question of far-rea9 1lne importapce
First Whether the department should
have chief with such powers as to PRO
motion, transfer, and in some other respects
a. makes him really more powerful than the
Commissioner. II has not a ways been so,
never be be smoothly and ard eflclentiy carrie carried on on
under existing conditions unless the Com
missioner and m" Chief nre in harmony:
and II the CommiSs sioner must give way to
the Chief, as the lower court has said he must
do IN the matter OF r"suninr ac'iv" command
as Chief. contrary to the direct ions OF the
Commissioner. IL j. not fair to hold either
the Commissioner or tn" Mayor responsible
for the department.
| am inclined to propos' 20 the Legislature
that the Office OF Chief, whatever its powers.
should be filed ~ will by tho comm ssoner
for the tim" being. from among the deputy
chiefs, precisely "a the secretary OF the
Navy for the time helug can appoint any
Rear Admiral at viii to the charge OF any
20 point out that IN the navy there has never
been friction between the Secretary and the
bureau officials. because every Secretary
has hccn able TO secure . rlghthand man
thoroughly loyal TO himself. In the army.
on ia" contrary th"I" is frequently friction
between the Secretary OF War and the Conf
inandcr-in-t hei OF the army, because the
latter II u permanent officer not always In
sympathy win "a" secretary Of War for the
time being Net u cannot be- ~ d that this
diforcnC" of 0rgan IZatou has made the navy
less orCl"ut than ia" army.
Second II ra sea H." question whether
SOM provision tor th" trinl of n chief ought
not to br made ~ hiCh does not involve the
sioner Who has himself formula ted the charges.
Inls question, m substance, | have ALREADY
submitted to committee in connection with
the Police Department, and ! hope that some
lght may be- thrown upon the problem s0on.
II now remains Tor the Mayor 10 look closely
partnlent. for the purpose Of determining
whether or not any further action ought -
be- taken IN tho public interest.
CRoKER wOS'r CRIrIcIsE.
Mr. Delaney, Chief Croker's counsel, said
-. A. -