Year: 1874

There are two ways in which the people of
New York may be protected against the mis-
conduct Of unfaithful public oficers-one
through the exercise of the power of removal
! and the other through the action of the Grand
Jury In case of the neglect or refusal OF the


proper authority to remove the offender


when q public trust has been abused


the only resource of the people is


in an indictment by Grand Jury.


There is a provision in the charter au-


thorizing the summary and public examina-


ton by justice of the Supreme Court of any


head of department or any officer of the Cor


poration who may be charged with wrong
] full diversion or misapplication of any moneys


or fund, or any violation Of the provisions of


law" &C., on application for such exannna-


ton being made under oath by the Mayor,


accounts, or five citizens who are taxpayers;


but no penalties follow if the charges should


be established. The examination il re-


duced to writing and filed in the


Office of the County Clerk where it


is open to public inspection. But
proceedings looking to The punishment of the


offender or his expulsion from Office must be
taken afterwards, as we have said, either by
the authority possessing the power of removal
or by the Grand Jury. Police Commissioners
Charlick and Gardner were examined before q
judge and when Mayor Havemeyer neglected


to act upon the charges Of official misconduct
made against those Commissioners their case
| kaHo int fho Iurv nd


trial, conviction, sentence and expulsion from


Office followed The law thus steps in for the
protection of the people and the punishment
of corrupt or illegal acts when the Mayor re-


fuses or neglects to perform his duty by re-
moving untaithful officials; and it is pre-
posterous and dangerous doctrine which in
sists that after the law has thus cast its shield
before the endangered community it may be-
stricken down by the hand of the Mayor.


The object of the city charter is to secure
good government, to provide agairst waste,
extravagance or corruption on the part of
public officers; to erect barriers against fraud,
incompetency and violations of law; to exact
responsibility from all city officials. from the
Mayor down. When the charter OF 1873,
under which we are now supposed to live, was
enacted, the people Of New York had just
learned by experience the necessity of pru-
dence and caution in framing laws relating to
public trusts The city had been cruelty
pfundered by men who seemed then to be
able to set the law at defiance 1t is fair to
conclude that the barriers erected against any |
violation of the provisions of the new charter
were regarded as indispensable and were in
tended to be kept sacred. 1t was not only
made the duty of officers of the Corporation
to obey strictly all the provisions of the
charter, but, in order that the people might
have security that the duty would be faith
fully performed. the examination before u
Supreme Court Judge was provided for; the
power of removal was given; the taxpayers
were authorized to examine the books and
papers of the Departmental commissioners OF
accounts were created, and the ''powers
and limitations Of all the departments
and officers of the government were
guards and limitations were designed
for a good purpose or we're inserted in the
law to deceive and mislead the people. If the
former, then it is clearly the duty of the Chief
Magistrate of the city to see that none Of the
barriers are broken down and that none of the
limitations are disregarded. When he fails in
this duty it is just as clearly incumbent on
the Grand Jury and the courts of justice to
step in for the protection of the people, for
without the action of the Mayor no officer of
the city government, however grossly he may
break the law, can be removed until he has
been convicted of misdemeanor involving q
violation of his oath of Office. The statute
then declares his Office vacant. This is pre-
cisely what took place in the case of the Police
Commissioners. The Mayor sustained them
in their disregard of the law, and the Courts
tried, convicted and sentenced them. But
then new and unexpected difficulty sprang
up After the law had turned Messrs. Gard
ner and Charlick out of office for the violation
of their official oaths the Mayor restored
them to the positions they had forfeited He
not only refused to protect the people by him
self investigating the conduct of the Police
Commissioners, but, after the only remaining
power of protection had been successfully ap-
pealed to, he instantly nullifed its action and
reappointed the convicted men.


If this is allowed to be the end of the mat
ter it is absurd to pretend that the provisions
of the charter have any force or that any head
of department who may be guilty Of official
misconduct can ever be removed from Office.
A remedy for the evil is however, wisely pro-
vided by the law The Governor of the State
is empowered to act in just such situation
for the protection of the community. He may
remove the Mayor from Office in the same
manner as he removes sheriffs. 1t has been
pretended that this power Of removal is re-
stricted to cases in which an actual violation
of some particular law can be legally proved
IL.