New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1902-04-18
DECISION UPHoLDs DIXIE.
APPELLATE DIVISION REvERsES Jrs-
TICE GAYNOR AND SUSTAINS
GOVERNOR ODELL

BY unanimous decision handed down yester-
day. the Appellate Division of the Supreme
Court. lid Department. reverses Justice Cav.
nors decision. and declares that Charles GUIDE,
was removed from the Office of Sheriff of King,
County by Governor Oden in legal manner
Therefore Colonel Norman s. Dixie. who WAS
appointed by the Governor to succeed Guaer
is the legal as web as the actual Sheriff
Jerry A Weinberg, counsel for Mr. Guden
was much surprised by the decision and de-
clared at once that he would take the case TO the
Court of Appeals The unanimous decision Of the
court seems to have lifted great burden from
the mind of Colonel Dixie. He says that he viii
no longer tolerate the absurd spectacle of Guden
trying 10 do the business Of Sheriff Colonel
Dixie holds both the Jail and the regular
Sheriff's suite of rooms in the courthouse 40
there will be more shifting of possession
The opinion. which is written by Justice Bart
lett and cOncurred in by all his colleagues
finds that an ante-election promise to take GER
tain action after election and installation is suf
ffcient cause for removal The charge against
Guden was that, in order to get Bert Reiss's
influence Guden had promised to appoint hin.
as counsel to the Sherir's office in case Of his
election Concerning this point. the essence Of
the opinion is:
Whatever the conclusion might be. if the acts
committed before GUden entered into office had
direct relation TO his subsequent official conduct.
am of the opinion that a corrupt promise. made
particular way affords a SUFFICIENT basis in law
for the removal of the officer by the Governor,
under Section 1 of Article y of the constitution.
1t seems that the relation of the promise to
the subsequent official tenure is close make
the act of entering into such corrupt agreement
affect the usefulness OF the officer clearly and
GirectIv Is could any r1iscOnd ret committed wholly
after aft eT't the offfeai term began
L unable to find In any OF the decisions cited
in the opinion below any rule authCritatively laid
down which really conflicts with this conclusion.
Justice Bartlett says that the Governors
power of removal over county officials is not
absolute under the constitutional provision. He
limits it in the following language:
The language of the constitution in respect to
this matter necessarily imports more than IS ex-
consist of matters which public officer may
sonabIy be required TO defend himself against
Hence it is clear that trivial allegations in no
manner affecting the character OF the incumbent
or his ability discharge the duties OF his office
are within the contemplation of the funda-
mental law. ! think IL may fairly be said that the
charges to which this constitutional provision re-
fers must be such acts Of commission or omission
as affect the usefulness of the incumbent as a
public officer.
Charles Guden looked much surprised and ex-
ceedingIy depressed when he heard Of the de-
eision Of the Appellate Division. He hurried
over to Mr.. Wernberg's office. and after con-
ference it was announced that the case would
be appealed.
Colonel Dixie said:
Il am glad that the uncertainty of the stua-
tioE which has puzzled the public is over. do
not think that Mr. Csuden will attempt TO trans
Courthouse. That has been a ridiculous situa-
tiOn which I have allowed TO continue only until
the matter could be determined by the Appellate
Court