The Bridgeport evening farmer. [volume] (Bridgeport, Conn.) 1866-1917, 1911-08-16
DODGlNG A DUTY

1t cannot be said that the Common
Council increased its reputation for
wisdom much when it ordered Mayor
Buckingham to assume the duty of
removing the city engineer. The
power of removal was specifically
taken from the mayor some years
taso,- because a mayor had exercised
the power. The so called O'Rourke
Ham became a part of the charter.
This law had the effect of making a
spublic job stick much closer to the
incumbent. In order tosremove a man
Iron office today the provisions Of
t&he O'Rouri<e law must be closely fol-
bowed, OF the courts will promptly re-
fanstate the one who fhas been remov-7
Id. And this has no. regard. to the
nature of the offense which oecasioned
ithe removal. - Aa 81 s.
The. proceedings in the McKenna
lease must again be gone through with
ifrom the beginning, if removal is con-
lAeinplated.
The proceedings which have closed
,were an Investigation of'the office of
the city engineer. No removal can
he had under them by anybody Be-
IloFe, removal can take place the
body which has power of removal
mustsfile charges against the accused
lofficer He must have notice that it
- proposed to deprive him of his Of
lAce. He is entitled to be heard by
tpounsel Witnesses to tsusfain the
E~harges must be summoned: Wit
kaasses- for. the accused person may be
Essnnmoned and heard. Must be, il
IL demands it. Then, if the charges
whereupon he hass the right to appeal
hottie courts, who must hear the case
Ieal over again.
The legislation which compels this
raong and technical procedure came
Unto being. after the removal of a di-
lyeotor Of public works for cause and
after theieorts had decided that they
would not1go into the matter Of cause
OF removali further than necessary to
md that he had not been done a
4
decided that they would not oppose
their Judgment against the judgment
of the removing power, as TO whether
the cause ofiremowal was sufficient.
- 1t was designed apparently not to
Iexpedite the removal of public Of
ficers but to make their removal as
/ difficult as possible. The power of
removal, which had been in the may
or, was taken away. 1t was not vest
1 ed in anybody else. But the rule Of
law seems to .be that where power is
not expressly given to somebody. it
may be exercised by the corporation
l1tself, which means by the Common
Council, which, as the legista tive body
iof the CITY,, represents the corpora
sion
The Common Council is the only
body that has power to serve charges
upon the city sengineer; the only body
that can hear the charges after they
ARE served; the only body that has
the charges in Its possession with the
evidence upon which they are based;
the removal.
What then, 1t can accomplish by
thrusting its duties upon the mayor,
who has no power whatever, and
whose attempt,to exercise it would be
a gross abuse that would be resented
by Judicial authority, is difficult to
see.
The council is evidently sincere in
its desire to remove the city engineer.
But it is moving backward and trav-
cling away from the thing it appar-
emily wants to do. The action of
Monday night is wholly beneficial TO
the city engineer, to the extent that
1t delays by so much the Inauguration
of the steps which the charter re-
qi1ires before any removal can take
place.
The mayor will doubtless in his re-
ply to the councils resolution make
/ his own duty clear to the council,
and the councils duties and response
bilities clear to. it. &i@