New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1904-09-17
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.
PROVES ANOTHER CHARGE BAsE1Ess.
President Observed Every Requirement Of
Law in Removing Colonel Gardiner.
10 the Editor Of The Tribune.

letter from samuel Jntermyer, dated Carlsbad, Au-
gust T. 1904. IN which Mr.. Unternyer states that
the removal of District Attorney Gardiner bv res,
dent Roosevelt when the latter was Governor Of
the State Of NeY-Eorlk was an unconstitutional act
Mr.. Untermyer. after recIting the charges made
by the City Club against Colonel Gardiner goes
on 10 say:
Colonel Gardiner found himself one morning
without previous warning or intimation command.
60 to appear before the Governor within few
oays IaeTeaIter ana was then and there on the
spot removed by Republican Governor from the
cratic votes Of the people OF the city Of New-Yori
without an investigation and after a farcicaI dis
which wi When s2s fte ei amounted an to
RFoH1aihg more than that Colonel Gardiner had
+} t-1so 20 answer telegram relating to some cleo
Sion matter which he denied having received
following upon the heels Of an unsuocessfui prose-
i 6tn1eqalled for vndictiveness. was ridicu-
iU1S suDterIige for the accomplishment Of an act
Mr. 'I Paas Of the constitution but upon which
Mr.. Untermyers statement is entirely at variance
With the facts. The action Of Governor Roosevelt
IN removing Colonel Gardiner as District Attorney
was constitutional and every requirement of law
was observed. The facts these: The oonstitu-
ton of the State Of New-Yerk. Article X Section
!, provides that "sherins clerks OF counties dis
tTict attorneys and registers of counties having
registers shall be chosen by the electors Of the
spective counties. etc. The Governor may remove
any officer in this section mentioned within the
term for which be shall have been elected; giving
such officer copy Of the charges against him and
an opportunity Of being heard in his own defence"
Chapter 3O2 of the Laws of 1893 of the State Of
New-YOrk, amended by Chapter 737 Of the Laws
of 1900 provides for tho appointment by the At
torney General Of deputies assist the State Su-
perintendeut Of Elections in the punishment of
crimes against the elective franchise IN the metro
poAtan elections district. which includes the county
OF New-York The law specifically provides that
1T shall be the duty Of the District Attorney Of
the county and OF the assistants clerks and en-
ployes In his Office. and OF MI police sutbori+es
officers and men within any such county To render
70 the Attorney General and his deputy Whenever
requested all aid and assistance within their power
In such prosecutions and IN the conduct Of sucb
cases"
Upon NY appointment as Deputy Attorney Cen
eFai called upon Colonel Gardiner for such as
slstance. he stated that the law was an infringe
H1ent on his preTogatives and. instead OF comply
ing with the law. constantly refused 10 render as
slstance' and for more than two months actively
interfered with the prosecutions by the Attorne,-
Generals Office Of violations OF the election law
as the Criminal Court Building IS in charge OF the
District Attorney. and all the machinery for
the prosecution OF criminals IS under his sl,ner
vision and control. II became impossible 70 rrose
cute violations OF the election law IN the face of
eo'o'eI Gardeners opposition. thereupon drafted
charges against Colonel Gardiner on the following,
grounds: ''''0''''s
Tho said Asa Bird Gardiner. as D.str,c, A,,or-
- q ork County, has been guilty Of and
your Petitioner hereby charges him yyi,, ne
The said District Attorne - ana 10 WI: IN tnat
CLERKS ana employees II his Once a. The command
District Attorney when 5cally re9aestei h a 1.T
sss.tl sti as suen Deputy Attorney General Is
and failed % render TO the ATTORNEY Gere-saI ,1C
tons and eos, nee ~ their power IN the Prosecu
~ New ork aud the said District Attorney ara
T mn 5salstlIJS clerks and employees iu hls offlc-
oy Eis command. procurement and advice 6ays
"i.5I 10y ana unla~tHuy delayed iHterfered with
ana numbered the Attorney General and your petit
.ttYt.eIs as MS deputy assigned aforesaid Ia
me prosecution and conduct Of the said cases
The charges specified that coIoue4 Gardiner re-
FUSED tc furnish subpwuas % compel tho attend
anoe Of witnesses before the grand jury although
directed by the court do so: that he refused q,
permit his clerks 10 certify the attendance OF
Witnesses before the grand jury. that he At tempted
70 prevent the Attorney Generals Office from pre-
AentiAg election cases the grand fury: that he
struck OF election cases from the court calendar
and prevented their trial that his assistants argued
N support OF motions made by counsel FOR the
aeiehaants and against the Deputy Attorney Cen
eraI. etc
Complaint also made in the charges OF
colonel Gardeners action IN regard 10 the ndict-
ment OF William s Devery. The facts regarding
this are as follows: Mr. Devery Chief OF Police
issued an order which IA effect directed the police
officers OF the city OF New-Yori6 to prevent the
deputies Of the State Superintendent OF Elections
from performing their duties on Election Day As
thi5 was plain violation OF the law which com
PEELED the Chief OF Police of New York and those
under him 20 assist The State Superintendent or
Elections. and this but one Of a series or
acts Of a similar kind immediately presented the
facts 70 the grand jury and Mr.. Devery was duly
indicted. Upon the publication OF the fact
this indictment had been obtained Colonel Gardi-
ner was quoted as having publicly made the state
HieAt that the indictment or Mr. Devery an
outrage, that II would not held water" ami
ths st the name OF thu District Attorney on the
4l9Ictnent was a forgery.
=, me charges were then presented to Governor
EooseVelt he fixed day for trial, as ne was
n0on u = 10 40 and mo charges were then served
~ @oloilel Hafdlier CORONER GardllerS answer
70 mo ,chafses covered about nIty typewriter
pages. Many OF the facts were admitted. mum
oooh place al Albany, and the District Attorney
SIkeated with practically AL OF his stan, including
well known lawyers, and he was specially repre-
scented by Franklin Bartlett counsel The
until at night and the Governor went into Tho
oa 1d5s at The greatest length and IN detail
statement that the indictment Of Mr. Devery
Was contradicted by reporter 'V Of The New-Yori
Tribune and reporter Of The New-YOrk sun"
Sho testified under oath that they had heard him
make the statements. and that he had made them
terestr1 IN me proceeding ana We're men or unlIn-
peachabie character. and their testimony un-
Governor asked Colonel Gardiner whether ne had
received a telegram from the Governor calling
law was enforced, and that Mr. Devery did not
saperntendent OF Elections Colonel Gardner din de-
MED the receipt OF this telegram. His explanation
from that OF one Of his deputies who stated that
he had received the telegram and forwarded It to
Colonel Gardiner Colonel Gardeners statement IN
regard TO the receipt OF the telegram i'm
portant In view OF ms contradiction OF two dsln-
teTested witnesses regardlny the pubic staterlent
he was alleged to have made as TO the indictment
Governor Roosevelt did not suggest that the
charges be brought, He did not instigate their
was not present ct the trial l brought the
OF the State. who found II impossible TO perform
the OF his office while Colonel Gardiner was
that his actions IN plain violation of the law