Evening star., 1932-08-20
MACY QUESTIONS
WALKER MOTIVES
G. 0. P. Leader Says Mayor
Would Divert Case Into Mock
Trial of Political Issues
Continued From First Page.)

assertion that the Mayor had taken one
cent OF public money or that the so
odd city departments. which spent
$4,000, ,000 900 or $9,000,0 900 900 during
the time the investigation was under
way mad been improperly handled or
possible basis for any sort of charge is
based on what is and always should be
regarded as the private business of the
nolVldual and that, with one or two
exceptions. there was not even a pre-
tense that the charges had to do with
pubic or official conduct. He con-
ciuoed by saying that the Mayor, with
ms ms. nVlng voice, as opposed to what Mr..
Curtln chooses to regard as canned"
testlmony. had answered all the
examination. clearly. fully. and fr,,th9
1ully, and had shown them to be IN
true.
;, Judge Seabury replied that he had
listened to eloquence for a day and a
nan out that nothing had been said
Wnlch could result in any mistake bv
one VINO knew the facts and that much
mad been said which might mislead those
ignorant of the facts In almost every
case the Judge went on, it was a oles
Ilon OF an assertion of good intentions
on the part Of the Mayor, a question
snat involved the credibility of the
mayor. The judge declared those were
questions the Governor could determine
from the manner in which the Mavor
mad testified and from the other cir
culnStanceS in the case He asserted
tnaI notnlng had been shown. Gin this
uay ana half OF oratory," which would
Justify the dismissal of single charge.
Court Hearing Monday.
Inc Governor evidently agreed with
the Judge. Having dismissed the mo-
ton, he directed that all witnesses who
mad been subpoenaed Friday return
Monday at l o'clock.
Inc reason for that hour was that
:. a.suHnent Ior an order restraining the
Governor from proceeding further In IN
the case, obtained from Supreme Court
Justice John T. Joughran by John j.
Giynn OF the mayors counsel and
Wncn was returnable yesterday morn
ing pelore supreme Court Justice Err
nest j. Staley, was postponed by the
latter until Monday morning.
Inc order to show cause" obtained
Dy sidney Levine, on the petition of
George Donnelly, was argued before
Juoge Staley, who reserved decision
until Monday. Mr. Curtin sat throush
the argument. as did George Trosk of
the Seabury. counsel group, who did a
oit OF coaching from the side lines.
Martin Conboy of executive counsel
also attended the hearing.
Henry Epstein, first deputy attorney
general, challenged the power of the
courts to prohibit the Governor from
making a decision and acting to re-
move the mayor. He argued that the
power of removal Is an executive, not
a judicial, power
The courts have no power over the
Governors person." he said. "He can
only be impeached."
Cites Charter Provision.
Mr.. Epstein called attention to the
section in the New York City charter
providing for the removal Of the mayor
by the Governor and said that this
section never had been amended or
repealed.
The State home rule amendment of
1928 provides that all existing char
ters and other laws shall continue in
force until repealed, amended, modified
or superseded. The city home rule law
OF 1924 makes it mandatory that a
referendum be held, on 60 days notice,
to pass any local law, If it abolishes
an elective office or changes the method
OF removing an elective officer.
There is argument to the effect that
this provision empowers New York City
to vest the removal power in the Mu-
nicipal Assembly, consisting Of the
Board Of Estimate and the Board of
Aldermen, and that, II this had been
done, the Governors power of removal
dispute this, but, at any rate, it is a
little late for the mayor to bring 1t up
now
Mr.. Levine argued that the Governor
had exceeded his jurisdiction. He said
it was a principle of home rule that
State officers should not be permitted
to interfere in local affairs by remov-
ing local officers, and that the State
removal statute was repealed by the
home rule amendment. which gives
the cities the right to determine their
own methods for removal of their
officers.
No Other Removal Plan.
Again, others on the outside pointed
out that, as New York City had set up
no process for removal, this would
mean that no mayor, whatever his acts,
even if criminal, could be removed, as
there would be no way to remove him.
When the Governor attempts to
exceed his constitutional powers"
argued Mr.. Levine, he is no better
than any other person. Inc Governor
is, despite his majesty, person and
not king"
The hearing in the executive cham
ber was held before waning audi
ence But among those who sat through
it was Paul Block, the publisher, who
had made S267 900 for Mr.. Walker on
Wall Street. He arrived with the mayor
and listened intently to the proceedings.
In the seventh day session, both Mr..
Conboy and Judge Seabury took more
than their usual part in the hearing.
Frequently the play was conducted un-
der the huddle system. Mr.. Curtin and
assistants and Judge Seabury and as
sistants would crowd around the desk
where sat the Governor, Mr.. Conboy
and Mr. Fertig, and all would put their
heads together and confer. Now and
again, the mayor would go dashing in,
like a quarterback with new signal.
Immediately after the hearing, the
mayor. Mr.. Block, Mr.. Curtin and the
rest of their party left for New York
Judge Seabury also went to New York,
taking the members of his staff with
him. The Seabury staff is remarkable
for its youth. Five of the half dozen
young lawyers are under 80 years Of
age.
(Copyright. 1892. by the North American
Newspaper Alliance, Inc.)