The Paducah sun. [volume] (Paducah, Ky.) 1898-1906, 1904-01-19
Mayor Does Not Have to Retain
Commissioners.
So Thinks the City Attorney Of Louis
Vile in Regard to Munich
pal Boards.
CAN DISCHARGE ANY TIME

not waste time on the bill enabling
mayors in the larger cities of Ken
lucky to dismiss at any time and with
out cause members of police and
boards of public improvement and
safety. This question is of consider.
able interest in Paducah, and it has
been proposed to ask the legislature &c
amend the second class charter to
make it possible for the mayor to dis
charge the members Of such boards ct
any time, as he can have his own
friends working under him.
Yesterdays Louisville Herald says
along this line:
81 do net believe that it is neces-
sary for the Legislature to pass bill
to give to the Mayor Of Louisville the
power to remove from office the men,
bers Of the Board Of Public Safety, "
said City Attorney Stone last night.
II take it that the Kentucky statute
on the subject if properly construed
would be found to give this power
beyond all doubt to the Mayor.
1.-The spirit Of the statute and the
purpose of the men who passed the
law undoubtedly intended that the
Mayor could remove the members Of
this board when he sees fit.
"In the case Of George d. Todd VS..
r. J. Tilford, Charles E. Wilson and
Daniel E. Sullivan, the Court Of APP
peals did not decide directly on this
point. They decided on the merits of
the particular case in question. be-
lieve that the true meaning of the law
in regard to officers appointed by the
Mayor is that what he creates he can
destroy"
The opinion Of City Attorney Stone,
coming at this time when o bill IL
pending before the Legislature to give
to the mayor the power which he may
already possess, is extremely interest
ing to the many politicians in the
State who are considering the Ripper
bill.
1t will be recalled that in the Todt
case the mayor preferred Impeachment
charges against the members Of thu
Board Of Public Safety for taking &C
tion in an important matter without
consulting him. The Council, i'm
peached the members. but Judg,
Toney issued an injunction restraining
them from removing the three mem
bers in the particular instance. The
court Of Appeals, when a phase of the
case was brought before them, decided
that the council and the mayor should
have obeyed the injunction Of Judge
Toney. Owing to the political
emergency and the exciting conditions
then existing. the construction Of the
Appellate Court has always been q
doubtful matter. The following is
the statute on the subject.
"The Mayor may by a written order
giving his reasons therefor. remove
from office any head of department,
director, or other officer appointed by
him. A copy of said order shall be
sent to the Board Of Aldermen at ITS
next meeting. Unless said order
be disapproved BY the BOARD Of Alder
men within thirty days, said order
shall stand. "
The real reason il is now desired 70
have . plain law enabling the mayor
to fire his board members whenever
he deems il necessary, is not only that
he may start his term Of office with
his own friends, but also to keep the
members after he has appointed them,
properly subjected. II a member of q
police or other board thinks he is Ap.
pointed for two. four. OF more years,
aud cannot be removed, he is likely
TO become Independents of the boss,
and thus possibly cause trouble. The
mayors want an unequivocal law that
will give such board members to
understand that thew are likely to be
Is mise at rny time they aisple'se