New-York tribune., 1902-04-24
POWER OF RENOFAL.
THINKS THE HANDS OF CITY DE-
PARTMENT CHIEFS ARE TIED.

To the Editor of The Tribune.
Sir: Your editorial printed to-day makes it clearer
than the facts warrant that the head of city de-
partment easily rid himself Of an incompetent
employe. Permit me TO suggest that you study the
record of reinstaements by the Of discharged
incompetents. IT is two barrelled responsibility
for department head to dismiss any subordinate
except for wrongdoing glaring and wicked as to
warrant Imprisonment well as dismissal. Other
wise the courts will reinstate the incompetent,
he will go back on the eligible list 10 be employed
again. Even If it is possible to get another
name, what guarantee is there that the newcomer
will improve the si' Iation? The fact is that every
city department and bureau is filled with incom-
petents. The public work is performed blunderngly
and grudgingly. Constantly the whip has to be
snapped the heads OF the public employees. I
hope the time is when it will be safe to suggest
a complete revision of the Civil Service laws. when
another Frank S. Black will appear TO tell the truth
about the Civil Service, that reeks with politics. If
not with corruption. A great newspaper like The
Tribune could perform no better work than TO go
about cleaning up this Civil Service Commission.
You will create nasty odor and mighty scandal,
but in the end shall all be the better for it
suggest that you talk with Willis Ogden. who
has some strong views on this subject. J. G. B.
New-York. April Il lS0z
THE Tribune's statement absolutely war
ranted by the facts. Our correspondent con-
fuses veterans and persons in the uniformed
forces with ordinary Civil Service employees 1t
is not necessary to offer such proof as ne
ina gines TO warrant dismissal of the latter.
The Court of Appeals in the case Of Kennedy
against Brady Q66 n. Y. A, has clearly de-
fined the procedure in dealing with such eh-
ployes, and has said:
The sole question, therefore. is whether the
official act of the defendant in removing the
relator was judicial act in nature or character
Unless it was. the court below had no power
70 review II llpon certiorari. The relator was
entitled to an opportunity to make an expana-
ton and this he had. He was entitled to nave
the reasons for his removal expressed in writing
and filed in the department. and this provision
of the statute was complied with. He was not
entitled to be sworn or TO introduce witnesses
with respect to the truth or merits or the rea-
sons which assigned for his removal he
not entitled to trial or a Judlclal near
ing and. manifestly there was no trial or
judicial hearing before the Commissioner The
statute simply provides that in such cases re
movals, when made, shall be acconpaniea wiz, ar
certain formalities and If these formanties are
not complied with the party removed mas d
right to complain, and the action OF the COM
missioner in such cases may be corrected since
there is no Jurisdiction, and. consequently 1t IS
an error of law to make the removal without
complying with the statute. But there is no
statute and no rule Of law that gives the right to
the relator to review the merits of the case upon
the facts since the power or removal Is col-
ferred upon the commissioner in the broaoeSt
terms, subject to no limitation Whatever. eH-
cent that embodied in the statute which requires
the reasons to be stated in writing ana neo' ana
an opportunity for explanation given.
It is not requisite that the charges and speclnca-
tions shouId be drawn with the formal eXactness
of leadings in a court of justice, nor is the
subordinate entitled TO a regular trial the
head of the department, if the explanations are
not satisfactory to him, may in his discretion
remove without calling witnesses TO supstah-
tiate the charges or allowing testimony on the
part of the subordinate He may exercise the
power Of removal upon facts within his own
knowledge or based upon information received
from others. The reasons assigned for the re-
rnoval must appear upon their face, to Justify
the action; in other words. they must be SUD-
stantial and not frivolous, but when they ap-
near to be sufficient to Justify the determination,
the courts have power to interfere on the
Ground that the reasons, though good In them
selves had no existence as matter or facl,i or
that the expla nation given by the subordinate
ehould have satisfied the head Of the depart
wont Tn other words the suficiency of the re-
lo+ors exclamation a question for the COM
missioner alone to determine, and the courts
hive MO mower to interfere with his discretion In
that regard
The superior may dismiss on an absolutely
false charge. SUCH for instance. as larceny. The
srnnlove could not recover his place. but he
Gould hiring action for slander against the ofl-
cisl as against anybody else who falsely
charged him with crime. Public opinion would
s,so check plainly unreasonable removals.
IF Colonel Ogden president of the Municlpal
civil Service Commission, has any views to eH-
,oress. nublcly on this subject doubtless he Will
40 so in his own way. We do not feel called
mon IN follow up his private and confidential
conversations.