New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1911-08-27

from being granted by the Board of Esti-
mate and Apportionment. but II also en-
aoles MIN In exercise an almost compel
ing choice on the question to whom any
franchise should be granted. since condi-
uons may arise in which the city would
prefer 10 give an Objectionable franchise
rather than have no franchise at all.
Indeed, such conditions exist at the
present time. II the city has to choose
between additional rapid transit provided
by corporation which II dies not trust
and upon conditions which il regards as
objectionable and having no increased
rapid transit at all. il probably would Sc
lect the first alternative This provision
reverses fundamental principle of de-
nocracy-that the granting of franchises
IS legislative, not an executive, func-
ton. There are other illustrations of the
increased power Of the Mayor
In regard TO the weakening Of the
safeguards thrown around appointments
under the civil service law Or. Abbott
said:
II Is true that there are not now and
have not been for many wears any liuita-
tons on the MAYORS appointing power"
But the Municipal Civil Service Commits
sion has exercised effective limitations
upon the appointing power exercised by
the Mayors appointees.
As to the Civil Service.
The new charter invests this commission.
which Is appointed by the Mayor. with "ex-
elusive power to prescribe. amend and
enforce rules not inconsistent with the pro-
visions of the constitution and the civil
service. and sbohshes the provision re
curing the city commission 70 do this work
under the supervision Of the state com
mission.
So far as T can see, al requirements that
appointments 10 the civil service shall he
made upon evidence Of fitness are taken
away. How radical is the weakening OF the
power Of this commission by the new
charter IS indicated by the fact that It has
itself. though appointed by the Mayor,
protested against the changes. (Sec. 2m,
page loo)
things which in his opinion would tend
to impair the non political character Of
the school system. He wrote:
Under the present system members ~ the
Board Of Education can he removed only
for cause and after hearing under the
new charter the power Of removal by the
Mayor is unlimited Under the old char
ter the Superintendent OF Education is
cN-offlCio chairman Of the board Of eX-
aminers. The entire board ofs examiners
under the new charter is appointed by the
board ~ trustees
Under the old charter no person can he
appointed 10 any educational position
whose name does not appear upon the
proper eligible list. with certain definite
exceptions. Under the now charter. exam
nation Of applicants shall be made so
Far as practicable by examinations. which,
SO far aS practicable. shall he Compet-
tive"
Schools and Politics.
To constitute a paid Board Of Educs-
ton which may be made partisan. and
give II power 70 appoint A board Of ex-
amlners who may also he partisan. and
make II possible 10 appoint teachers and
superintendent subject 10 examinations
only when the board thinks this eXamina-
ton practicable. would seem 70 me 10
make IL easy for the party in power, II
IL chose 20 do So 70 transform our pres
ent nou-DartlSsn eduCa tlOnal system into
a very powerful political machine
There arc other and equally serious OBJ
leCtiOns 10 the proposed revolution in the
proposed Board OF EduCat ton. objections
which have been expressed by leading ed
ucators both within and without the state.
hut I answer here only the question which
your letter raises.
Turning to his last point Or. Abbott
said.
7 am glad 10 read your statement that
the power Of removal by the Governor
of city officials rs not done away with, and
the matter Of removal is held open for
public discussion" NV criticism was based
upou the official printed COPY Of the char
ter secured ny me from the Senate Of the
State Of New York.
This charter ourts all provision for the
removal Of the Mayor. either by recall or
by the Governor. upon charges filed against
him. Sec. 100. page So. Your letter sue-
gestS that the power Of removal may by
future amendment he either restored 10
the Governor or given to the supreme
Court. IL does not suggest the third al
Tentative. recall To is certain that in some
way power Of removal for cause should De
provided.