Year: 1874

against him by the Board of Aldermen and
two bodies of citizens has at last bcen for
waried TO Governor Dix The length of
tune consumed in the preparation of the
defence indicates the gravity OF the charges
and the difficulty experienced in answering
them. The act for which the Mayor is now
arraigned lis not denied. After two persons
holding the Office of Police Commissioners OF
the city of New York had been convicted IN
the Court of Oyer and Terminer OF misde-
mesnor involving violation OF their oath OF
office. and after the Governor of the State, in
accordance with the requirements OF the
statute. had notified the Mayor Of the vacan-
cies created in the Police Commission i'll con
sequence OF such conviction Mayor Have
meyer reappointed the convicted men, This
| act is attempted to be justified on the ground
that although found guilty of misdemeanor
and sentenced to pay fine OF two
hundred aud fifty dollars each IN
lieu of suffering imprisonment Messrs.
Gardner and Charhck were not ineligible
Tor reappontment, and, further, on
the plea that their prosecution was
secured by Tammany democrats for
political purposes 1t is rumored that
this forms the groundwork of the defence
thus tardily forwarded to the Governor. and M
it accords with all that Mr.. Hayemeyer has
said and written on the subject we accept the
rumor Al correct. As to the first branch OF
the plea, If the position taken by the Mayor
could be sustained the law which depriyes
man of his Office on conviction OF violation
OF his oath to perform its duties faithfully
would become nullity. The object Of the
law is to secure fidelity in the discharge Of
public trusts. II an Office holder commits
infamous crime. or is guilty Of violation of
his oath OF Office, the law regards him a. un-
worthy, and on conviction takes his Office
/ from him. Is it consistent with common
sense to believe that the intent of the law is
satisfied when the guilty party is deprived of
! his Office one minute only to be restored the
next? But i'll the case of municipal officers,
| like Gardner and Charlick the charter, as we'll
as the general law. steps in to prevent the
outrage of their reappointment. 1t declares
that no office-holder who has been convicted
of violation OF any of the provisions OF the
charter shall be thereafter eligible to
any position under the city government.
The pretence that the offence of the two Com
nlissioners was violation of the Election law
and not Of the charter is too shallow to require
notice The Election law is virtually embodied
in the charter, for the Police Commissioners
are expressly required by the charter to faith
fully perform all the duties assigned to them
by that law. Two legal barriers were there
fore erected against the act performed by the
Mayor; the barrier of the general law and the
barrier of the charter II is charged that in
striving to force back Gardner and Charlick
into the Office OF Police Commissioners he en-
! deavored to break down both these barriers
nnd defied the law.


The second plea advanced by the Mayor in
justification of his action will scarcely be ac
cepted satisfactory by 50 clear-headed a
o man as Governor Dix. The political squad
bles between Charlck and Havemeyer on the
other are of little interest and of less impor-


tance 10 the people. If the charges that haye


been placed before the Governor had any
relation to these family brawls he might
well dismiss them without ceremony.
They would be undeserving OF his
consideration But, while it may be true that
political interest melted the investigation and
detection of the illegal acts of the Police Com
missioners, that fact does not lessen their
guilt and cannot be accepted as reason why
the penalty of the law should not follow their
conviction 1t is immaterial what motives
may prompt q prosecution. When person
charged with au offence against the law has
been fairly tried aud found guilty the public
safety demands his punishment, no matter
whether the crime has been brought home to
him through malice or from the purest
motives. The plea Of the Mayor amounts 70
nothing unless it can be shown that political
considerations obtained the indictment of
Gardner and Charick, Influenced the verdict
of the jury against the evidence, and con-
trolled the action of the Judge in the conduct
Of the trial and In the sentence lie pro-
nouuced. BY accepting the plea as directly
or indirectly . justification Of the reappoint-
ment of the convicted men, or even as an
excuse for the action of the Mayor in seeking
u so-calied illegal opinion" to excuse their
reappointment, Governor Dix would impugn
the honesty OF the Grand Jury who found
the indictment and of the Judge and jury
by whom the accused were tried. The Gov
ernor will hesitate to take any snch course,
and the Mayor should have accepted the trial
and the verdict in good faith, as the Governor
viii accept them. What value would either
of them have set upon plea advanced by
Tweed after his conviction, that his prosecu-
ton had been brought about by his political
opponents2 What would they think Of a
, Mayor who, as soon "a Tweed has filled his
term Of Imprisonment, should seek a favor
able opinion from Corporation Counsel