New-York tribune., 1906-11-11
WHO APPOINTS THE RECORDER,

The election OF Recorder GOff to the Supreme
Court raises a novel and interesting question
concerning the filling of the vacancy which will
be thus created. 1t has been assumed that the
Board Of Aldermen, under authority of the Con-
sOlidation act of 1882, would choose a new
Recorder TO serve for year, but there seems to
be some doubt about it, and a plausible argu-
ment is made for appointment by the Governor.
The issue turns upon the technical construction
of some rather obscure points of law, and no
one can with any certainty foretell the view
which might be taken OF the question by the
courts but ii would seem that logically the
Governor should fill the vacancy, just as he
would fill the place of judge of General Ses-
siOns or justice of the Supreme Court
When the Consolidation act of 1882 was
passed the Recorder was essentially a city Off
Ger. He was the head. indeed. of the Court Of
General Sessions, a county court. but the city
and county were cOterminOus In addition, he
performed many municipal administrative
functions and, with the Mayor and Controller.
was a member of several city boards 1t
was thus appropriate that a vacancy In his
Office should be filed by the city legislature.
When consolidation took place the Recorder was
stripped OF practically all his functions as a
city officer and became 10 all intents and pur-
poses merely a judge of the Court of General
Sessions. His jurisdiction did not extend
county. He is essentially a county and not a
city officer If duties and jurisdiction control.
as they have been held to do in other matters
where 1t was necessary TO discriminate between
city and county government.
The Greater New York charter does not men
ton the Recorder and makes no specific change
in the law providing for filling the vacancy by
the aldermen 1t does. however. contain some
provisions perhaps indirectly applicable 10 the
Tg~F.
the various corporations within the boundaries
Of greater New York, mot including counties y
and repeals the Consolidation act of 1882 $50
far as any provisions thereof are inconsistent
with the provisions of the charter" Now the
question arises how far the provisions OF the
Consolidation act treating the Recorder as d
city officer become inconsistent with the present
charter. which has made the Recorder, mega
lively at least, simply a county officer. The
home rule provisions Of the constitution differ
entiate city and county offices and prevent the
city government from being invested with the
power Of appointing county officers, and vice
versa: and in deciding what is a city or a county
officer function rather than name and tradition
counts.
In the absence of a specific repeal OF the pro-
vision Of the Consolidation act vesting the ap-
pointment Of Recorder in the Board OF Alder
men 1t is extremely doubtful whether the courts
WOuld COnSIrue 1ne Greater New 1Ork cnarIer
as a constructive repeal Of the provision of the
Consolidation act, or the constitution as a bar
TO the continuation of the rule which prevailed
when the Recorders functions were different.
The chances are that the Board OF Aldermen
will choose Recorder Goff's successor, but if the
courts do not prevent this as is possible. TIE
law ought to be changed for the future. There
is no prOpriety I'm the continuation of the rule
established by the Consolidation act. The Re
corder is the chief judge of the most important
criminal court of this county. His duty Is the
administration of the criminal law of the state
not the performance Of any city administrative
or judicial work. He should be classed with the
District Attorney and the Sheriff. and In case
of vacancy the place should be filled by the
Governor The Board of Aldermen Is not n
body fitted TO choose judges. and no one would
dream OF comforting upon 1t such a power. If
II really possesses that power to-day, 1t is an
anachrOnism surviving from the time when the
Recorder was really a city official which he has
now ceased TO be.