New-York tribune., 1907-07-30
can't REMOTE 4HE4RN."
LittletOn Thinks GOrern0r Is Balked
by Home Rule Principle.

According 10 Martin W Iictletor. who has been
making an extensive study Of the constitution re-
Gently Borough President Ahearo ca-aor be rs-
moved by Governor Hughes because it would he
violation Of the home rule principle. The charter
provisions giving 10 the Governor power % re-
move mayors and borough presidents must baVs
been enacted without reference 90 t.at section q
the constitution comforting home rule ,1 the c-taS
Of this state
Mr Ltttleton said yesterday taa- iavesesaton
Of this subject, IN his preparation ot NJ AhearEs
defence. has showed thar CHIEF judge cullen q
the Court Of Appeals held i- the case ot poles
commissioner that absolute power tt removal q =
municipal officer at with the home rIs
stitution.
Ii it he claimed that the President oS the Bor-
ouEh Is new office since the constitution ~ l>+o
said he the answer is plain that he exercises ne
functions and discharges the duties " offices tAat
have existed FOR more than a hundred years and
that the change was IN name only and the courts
have held that this does not withdraw an or1cs
from the protection Of Section .. Article TO-
BEYOND this, and what is sru more ~e0oars-
able Is the fact that Section OF Article 10 u re
constitution provides: Provision SHAH be made W
law for the removal for misconduct or uaFersa-
tion In office Of all officers except iuii~a whoss
powers and duties are not local or legislative an1
who are elected at general elections
This provision Of the constitution was adopted
in 1916 and expressly puts local officers jui1ch3i
officers and legislative officers beyond the reach
Of the Legislature. Il being the NEXT t' the last
section OF tho home rule provision oI the conS'-
tuition II Is clear that the Constitutional tonV'H
tion intended 10 make home rule effective by rot
only providing that the city officers should %
elected by the people of The city. hut that tneN
should not thereafter be removable bv some otaer
power. An examination of the consJ. -urional de-
bates ON this Identical provision yIetry shows tAs
intent ot the constitution makers
1t would be worse than absurd for the Const.-
tuttoual Convention To- have gone % che tronots
OF providing an elaborate scheme Tor home rule ~
cities and then to have upset IL an by provldl1S
that any officer NJ city might be removed IN tl7
same manner civil Service cupoye - r.
moved; that IS hy serving charges upon him d-1
allowing him "a chance 20 defend"
Defenders OF the tiOVernorS pvrroC1tivH are. ga "a
the other hand. positive Mr. Iitrletou IN tleI
belief that the power OF removal conferred by rs
charter Is CONSTITUTIONAL and quote the very NP--
ion OF Chief Judge Cullen referred % by NJ LIZ
Teton IS authority for their view. one OF them
last night directed Tribune reporters attention
10 that part of chief Judge Cullcns opinion deny
the Police Commissioner in the ease OF the Peop-7
The question before Is very different from t.at
which would be presented nv a provision that ts
Governor might remove for misconduct IN e1hce
alter a notice and hearing. The CONSTITUTIONS
ny Section ). Article y, provides that the Less
Etture may declare the eases which any once
Shall De deemed vacant when provision Is nads
Tor that purpose in this constitution avn
not prepared 10 assert that statute authorizing
the Governor to remove local officer for misc'h-
duct on charges, and after a hearing. could not
De Justified under the section of the constitutions
quoted"