Year: 1879

oCeho Wuicu wuS prcscuteu yeotciuoJ


Mayors Office. We deeply regret the loss OF
temper and the violations Of that quiet ana
orderly mode of proceeding which were SO
inconsistent with the gravity and decorum
of public official action. 1t i'll behts the
dignity of the great office of Mayor OF this
great CITY to sNe orders to policemen
in his presence which he is impotent
to Aaforce. 1t was such spectacle as was
never witnessed before, and, we trust, may
never be witnessed again in the official
presence of the Chief Magistrate Of this
metropolis It.is not blame which we de-
sire to express. but regret; for we cordially
give our full Endorsement and strongest
sympathies to Mayor Cooper in his resolute
determination to remove tho Police Com
missioners. who are fagrantly and no.
toriously unfit for their places, and should
be compelled ~to give way for efficient
SUCCESSORS.


1t is matter within Mayor Cooper's per-
sonal observation and within the observation
ofevery inhabitant of this city that the Police
Commissioners belong to that category OF
officers which were aptly described by
President Lincoln rs ''augers that won't
bore" They are elaringiy unfit for their
places and ought to be deIosed Mayor
Cooper has the almost unanimous ap-
probation Of the whole body of our
best citizens in his strenuous re-
solve to put them out of Office.
We understand and appreciate his indig-
nant zeal and his impaticnce of delay. We
are as impatient as he is of official red tape,
the dilatory methods of circumlocution
Office, and the everlasting wrangling of at
torneys at law who seek to confuse o plain
case by ingenious technicalities, and who
would gladly spin out this hearing into the
tedious prolixity of the Vanderbilt will case.
The Mayor is SO clearly right in substance
that it would be regrettable to have him fall
into self-defeating errors Of form.


We incline to think that he made mis-
take In refusing to hear the Commissioners
by counsel. We will not assume to pro-
nounce on tho legal question involved, but
as matter Of prudence and tact he was
badly advised (if he took advice) on this
point. In oil courts of justice the right to
appear by counsel is guaranteed by law, and
the usage Of parliamentary bodies accords
this right to all parties who are put upon
their defence. This rule, as established by
law in all courts and as established by
usage in all legislative and parliamentary
inquiries, is so evidently founded in justice
tnat it cannot be regarded as arbitrary or
merely technical. It requires moro. train
ing than q citizen not bred a lawyer can be
expected to possess to manage his own
defence when arraigned on charges
which he is entitled to refute if ho
can. The most valid defence might
be spoiled by bungling mode
Of presentation. The, rule of allowing
counsel is dictated by equity and cannot
be- sat aside without offending tae general
sense of fair play. The clearness of the
case against, these Commissioners does not
justify the Mayor in disregarding it, be-
cause if it can be dispensed with in this
case it might be in all cases, and innocence
would lose its protection if the regular
forms of proving guilt could be discarded
at the mere will Of an examining magis-
trate.


Besides, the Mayors power of decision
could not be impaired by listening to coun-
sci. At the conclusion of the hearing, by
whatever method conducted, he remains
the sole judge Of the sufficiency of the evil
dence up to the point when he makes the
removal and communicates his reasons
therefor to the Governor. The Mayor must
form his judgment on the facts, and. not
on the particular agency by which the
facts are urged upon his attention. He
should not seem to distrust his ability to
keep his mind clear in spite of the confus-
ing sophistry of lawyers. His action in
cases of removal is quasi judicial, and
competent Mayor should be in no more
danger Of losing his grasp of the evidence
because it happens to be presented by
lawyer than is q judge on the bench who is
compelled by law to listen to counsel.


The charter permits the Mayor to remove
heads of departments only ''for cause and
after IN opportunity to be heard" What
constitutes hearing is very important
element in this case, and one Oh which the
Mayor cannot afford to make mistake. If
he should remove the Commissioners with.
out a hearing, in the proper legal sense Of
that word, not even the approval of the
Governor could make their removal
valid. We do not undertake to say what
constitutes hearing in the true sense md
real intent of the char. er; but the word cer-
tainly has some meaning, and il the Mayor
should mistake its meaning and fail TO give
the accused Commissioners hearing in the
proper legal sense the courts could inter-
pose and restore them to Office after their re-
moval. II he should attach one meaning to
the word and the courts should establish
another meaning the Interpretation of the
courts would OF course prevail and the
Mayors action would bo annullcd. He
shouid therefore nim TO be on the safe