Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1931-04-28
ROOSEVELT DROPS
CHARGES AGAINST
Jimmie" WALKER
Governor Declares AlIega-
tons of Mayors Accusers
Were Too General.
FINDS EVIDENCE LACKING
TO ORDER HIS REMOVAL
Action Follows Study of $4,000
Word Reply of City Executive
Received April 90.
By the Associated Press.

ACCClteO ApIA NO'
By the Associated Press.
ALBANY, N, Y, April 28.-Gov
Roosevelt today dismissed the charges
brought against Mayor James j. Walker
of New York by the City Affairs Com
Ynittee.
The committee had asked that Mayor
Walker be removed for Incompetence
and neglect Of duty.
Charges Received March Is.
The Governors action was announced
ut the executive ONCE here.
Mr.. Roosevelt was at his Hyde Park
home.
The charges against Walker were re-
ceived by the Governor on March Is.
They were signed by DR.. John Haynes
Holmes as chairman of the committee,
and Rabbi Stephen s. Wise as vice
chairman. Gov. Roosevelt advised
Mayor Walker in California of the ac-
ton taken against him. and that his
reply should be forwarded to Albany
when he returned from the Pacific
Coast trip, intended to benefit the
mayors health.
On April 20 walkers reply was hand
ed to Roosevelt
The New York City executive defend
ed his administration, lauding its ac-
complishments in the $4,000 word reply
he had prepared. DR.. Holmes and Rabbi
wise sought an opportunity to file a
rebuttal.
Regarding the charges. the Governor
said:
II do not find sufncient Justification
In these documents as submitted to re-
move the mayor Of the City OF New
York or to proceed further In the mat
ter Of these charges.
Text Of Decision.
The text Of the Governors decision
"The Governor OF the State has the
power under the constitution or under
city charters TO remove certain Spefi-
fed county or city offlcials. Under
these Sewers, every year that passes
sees many charges brought TO the Gov
ernor asking him TO remove public ofn-
GERS. The Governor, on receipt Of such
charges. can do one Of three things:
He can decide to take no action ON the
charges; he can invite the oficial COM
planned against TO submit his version
Of the charge complained about; or ne
can take evidence concerning the
charges either IN person or by COM
missioner appointed BY him. The de-
cision as to which course 70 follow Is
exclusively an executive function.
the C%0gnrT4OF
has followed the second course about
enumerated, and has sent the charges
to the mayor Of New York City. The
mayor has submitted TO him an answer
in which he sets forth his version OF
his conduct in respect to the charges
made. Both the original complaint
and the mayors reply have been widely
printed In the public press. They are
made part of this decision.
1T has ever been fundamental
principle Of our Government that the
people of the State and Of our various
communities shah be allowed TO exer-
else without restriction the right 10
select wlnomsoever they see fit to MI
elective ofices The greatest caution
must therefore be used In the exercise
either of the impeachment power by tina
legislature or the removal power by
the Governor. in order not to annul the
uEl1DCk01E 0CNAo1Oh Va LAX SOt@Ao UN Vs.
state or Of any municipality thereof.
Otherwise, precedent might be eStab-
lislled by which the win of the electorate
might be set aside for partisan adj
vantage or for personal advantage on
the part of legislative majority or
an INSCRIPTIONS governor.
Charges Held Too General.
THE impeachment and removal pow
ers were created primarily In order
to meet conditions where q pubic of1-
cial, after election by the people. betrays
his trust by act or corruption, Grim
tnality or Incompetence.
I'm the case before me. the prtn-
ciple allegations relate TO acts and con-
duct of subordinate officials Of the
public officer complained against. When
the charges are Of this nature, it must
clearly appear either that the various
acts and wrongdoing complained OF on
the part Of the subordinate officials were
known by the mayor and that he failed
to take steps to correct or punish such
wrongdoing or that he was negligent
and recreant in failing to keep himself
properly advised.
THE present charges were so general
II: character and related so predon1-
inately to the acts Of the subordinates
of the city government that hesitated
as to whether I should take any action
on them at ali. but after mature DELHI
Grafton concluded that they were SUI
ficiently specific to warrant my follow
ing one OF the customary courses and
I therefore forwarded them to the
mayor.
IT have given the charges and the
reply my most earnest consideration,
keeping always In mind the principles
above set forth which must euide O
Governor In his decision. do not md
suficient Justification In these docu-
ments as submitted 70 remove the
mayor OF the City Of New York or TO
proceed further in the matter Of these
charges"
WALKER DELAYS COMMENT.