The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1903-12-17

mas taken I'm ward politics. and for this.
they said. he must be removed at once.
and they could see no other way to do II.
In the common council. II the proceed
ings were correctly reported I'm the
papers. not one reason was advanced by
the supporters of this measure for its
passage. O.
GAVE NO GOOD REASON.
I'm the board OF aldermen. although
specifically requested TO do 80, not one
OF those who voted for the amended ordi-
dance gave any reason for hts action I'm
the matter, which would commend IT.
self 10 reasonable and unprejudiced
man. One reason advanced was that II
was thought that II would be we'll To
keep the management OF the fire depart
ment little ooser under the wing OF
the city councils but the argument used.
as l am Informed, when I'm the city
council was favored the taking OF the
control OF the police department from the
city and placing II I'm the hands OF state
officials, was that the police department
was too close under the wing OF tho
board OF aldermen and therefore was in
effective.
III the commissioner aimed at has been
guilty OF misconduct or is incompetent,
the law provides a way BY which he can
be removed, but as no such reasons have
been advanced must assume that there
dft no Fduu sTOundS Tor MS TemONdl
for misconduct or incompetency; other
wise charges would have been made ac-
cordingly and he would have had notice
thereof and an opportunity 10 defend
himself, which would be the only fair
and manly way 10 deal with matter OF
that kind.
DETRIMENT OF PROPERTY.
The attempt 10 punish man for his
political acts which have not met with
the approval OF certain members OF his
party by changing municipal ordinance.
regardless Of what the effect prod uced
thereby would he upon an important city
department or OF the harm which might
result TO the city thererrom, certainly
exceeds any right accorded 10 polit.cal
organization. Party discipline. however
desirable. should not b. exscted TO the l
detriment OF the property interests OF the /
city OF Providence.
IL II could be shown TO me that this !
proposed change in the ordinance was for !
the benefit OF the fire department, II
would meet with my approval as would !
any measure for the Improvement OF that I
or any other department OF our city gov
ernment, but H. as avowed, IL Is only for /
the removal OF a member OF the board OF
fire commissioners elected for three years
and whose term OF service has some time
yet to run. for entirely political reasons.
no law snOlld De cnhn&e0 lot SUCH a puI-
pose. and cannot approve OF such an act
There IL still another reason for my dis
approval and that Is the question OF the
legality OF this proposed amendment TO
the ordinance. The law passed by the
general assembly says that. The City
Council OF the City of Providence shall by
ordinance fix the term OF office regulate
and define tho duties, and fix the com
OF said commissioners. and
may. from time TO time, amend. alter OF
repeal any such ordinance"
Is not then this question presented by
The passage OF this ordinance in amend
ment OF the existing ordinance, do the
provisions Of this legislative act grant ,
to the city council TO so
amend, or repeal this existing ordinance
hat the commissioners duly elected ,
can be removed from office be-
fore the expiration OF the terms for which
hey were elected and thereby be deprived :
of the rights which have been acquired
Inder that lawful ordinance?
IL tho power Of the city council TO q
amend and repeal which is set forth In :
he law under which this ordinance was J
ramed be subject to the legal qualifica- :
ion that IL cannot be exercised In such :
way as 10 impair the rights or the fire r
TO their Office, with the en- =
ire tenure. rights and immunities there I
4. the right Of the city council 20 pass
his amendment becomes a question for Q
mr. careful consideration. .
TERM is SPECIFIED.
1t may be noticed here that Section OF y
hspter i3. which the city council now
ecks TO have amended. provided that the c
ofthe board 81 fire commission j
rs then I'm office should continue TO serve d
or and during tho terms for which they
'ere elected. respectively, and that as n
heir terms expired new commissioners a
hould he elected under that ordinance. L
he commissioners who were serving c
hen The ordinance, Section of Chapter r.
} was adopted. were elected under an or q
nance previously passed by the city r,
euucil which was drawn I'm accordance
18th the provisions OF the same law OF
ne general assembly. passed May 2Ist. .,
's2 in accordance with which the present :,
rdinance was drawn: city council has.ss !,
,uch right to have all tho officers terms
Spire upon its adoption as the present ).
ouncil has to pass such an ordinance as "
now proposed. but IL is evident that the y
,uncil thcn regarded tho rights OF the o
ION members OF the board to continue to "
srve for and during the terms for which
ley respectively had been elected U
No valid reasons having been advanced ~
the city council for the passage OF this o'
feeling AS do that the chang
the length of term OF service OF our a.
re commissioners, each commissioner to Is
ilu DUN lNi tilf N'ais Ai w w fitCifb Hl ~
10 same time. and the term OF all TO eN- III
re at the same time. will not be "a bene- tt
/. but will me seriously detrimental To
le efficiency Of our fire department, and n,
being questionable az least should such OF
measure be passed. whether II will he m
gal and II our city is not liable 20 be tr
avn into litigation by It's passage OF
hile ! had hoped that the municipal pi
AR about to close would end without the m
,cessitv OF any veto message being sent re
me 10 the city council 7 can see no W
her way but, for tn" reasons hercinbe- I'm
re stated, 10 return this ordinance 20
~ without my approval th
lSigned) AUGUSTUS $. MILLER. n
Mayor.
PASSED OVER THE VETO, ~
Smith moved tho passage m
the resolution over the mayors veto
"a Councilman Root seconded the mo-
M.
On roll call the resolution was passed. or