New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1909-08-30

While the resolution Of tire latter board re.
fers 70 the place as public park 4 appears ina
ter line. and only about one acre and half are
Upland IL would seem as The commissansr IIs
hardly BE justified"
HUNTS POINT PURCHASE
The utter. unsuitableness OF the property for a
describing in detail the characteristics found by
the mouth OF a huge douLs-trunk sewer. that near
iy ene-half OF the frontage is rendered actualis
depth AZ distance of three hundred feet from the
shore Is from three and ene,haif 10 four ana one
AZ eight hundred feet from tho shore Is apoo F
shore more grossly unit for public bathing beach
The respondent urges that the acquisition Of this
property was decided upon by the Board OF Esu,
a5s ana ad ma 5ns pres
ings in the supreme Court; in other words tnat n
chase or for the amount paid
Certainly. the Borough President should not ne
Hcers OF the city. Yet on the other hand. he can
not escape responsibility for his STn part IN r at
Of others The locality was within his borough as
ha 9Sy 70 nsw ths actual
Sregsht the bsfora the hos seon
initiated the proeeedins II cannot be SUPPOSE eS
thai Il would haze been Instituted ri or continued
II is further Urged by The respondent iaal MAS
done during his former term OF ONCE. and that
hence il IS not within my jurisdiction. a,-
not fairly be said thar the matter has no s egt
the administration OF his oflce during ms preses
hnasy purchased by the city u2t aIn STe-
soners Of Estimate and Apportionment hied tner
report" ,... A.. -o.an+ the
facts a. 70 the conditions within his own borough
and save the city from this wssteful I e.
sPonsibtp to to MAKE the endeavor Ills duty 70
take suitable steps to preset han ns wns at the OUT
Sci Having submitted such Recommendation. ne
SP t be snGshey q 6s
therefro His breach OF duty was ,i on ~ he
Wh,Ie sne Tn sfsfes his conviction that the
Borough President has been guilty or serious eA-
eSnioyeseand md this 20 be established as al
ready stated-he suegests that II may pe sac ' a
piled by the electors st the polls rather than by
WITH this do not agree. IN my judgment. these
charges should not be disregarded b,it should os
pTessnted OF course there must be serious deere;
fiction justify removal from Office Mcgee an
for the exercise OF this extraordinary power But
on The other hand she snd as said in the
case OF Borough President Ahearn III mere s me-
ing the public welfare snj gross hTeacn Ss beTe
obligation the duty OF removal Is eie s;sSonas.v
DUTY OF THE EXECUTIVE
The office Of Borough President is one Of great
Importance and the character OF its administrator
Of grsye to hs peGPae elective ocer
mas the control of large number OF public posi-
in The construction and maintenance of streets,
sewers and public buildings, and IN the dlscharse
omy in the city government cannot be secured
without maintainins proper nndenbtedy
that the provision was inserted IN the chai.eI
Governor by comforting upon the Executive the
power of removal upon charges Inc obvious p u,-
conseonences OF maladminstTation in the borough
government When the matter Is oedG5s the io their
Judgment But it is none the less The DUTY OF tne
according to the intent of the statute when case
is properly brought before him. .,,.
in administration than the multiplication Of places
Ier Interior Parp95es ana %ork Overnmena
concerns necessarily widen with the increase oI
fi and the cursaimeTt Of waste When
a course OF conduct reveals serious neglect OF duty
ton OF the public interest other considerations
sn9s nGi pc Te Of PaS funds and
unnecessary and eNtraFagant OUTLAWS in connec-
There e'n are p1O other Charges which have sum-
married. as established in whole or part. II is
suflcientiy in the commissioners report Charges
II and N.Y. In mad sad b eTs rea
shown do not appear to be as grave as the Others
cannot properly be dismissed. There is well found
ed objection TO the method OF charging the ex-
PTe el fand and 70 the characsr Of the
respondents certificates 10 the gineers payroils
found by the commissioner Charge VID. And
ind 10 be sustained the charge relating TO the
portions OF Broadway in contravention OF the speei
hcaton tChsrSe N-el; the charge relating 70 the
methods Of the property clerks Office, which have
been very careless and lacking in suitable bust
precautions Charge KID: and the charge
with regard 20 the rejection Of bids for certain
work because u feared that certain indi-
yidual might not be the lowest hidder-the said in
dividual being continued at work on open orders
in violation OF the intent and spirit OF the pro-
vision of TIE charter in regard 20 the letting OF
contracts. (Charge XNITl
NV conclusion IS that the RESPONDENT should be
removed from the Office ~ Rorourh President.
CHARLES r. HUGHES
"PURPOSE- 1FFIRM4TTTE."