Year: 1874

properly called reply to the charges
under consideration by the Governor nor q
defence of the Mayors alleged illegal and inn
proper official acts II is rambling medley of
excuses, explanations, evasions and attacks.
apparently designed to confuse the mind and
lead it from the real issue But we fail to find
in it a single strong point for the defence or
an argument that can justify the Governor in
dismissing the complaint Its object seems
rather to be the promotion of some political
| purpose than the refutation of serious charges
of official misconduct, and if we did not know
that Mr.. Havemeyers official life is forever
moval, in the hope that he might use the
specious plea of martyrdom to aid his re-
election Indeed, he takes occasion to inform
the Governor that he hesitated long before
be determined to make any reply, and only
concluded to do 80 because he thought it ex-
pedient to put his story on record. Through
out the document he assumes defiant tone,
and, brushing aside his judge, claims the
right to use the Office of Mayor for his own
purposes, 30 long as he keeps within the strict
letter of the law in his official acts.


The first plea of the Mayor to the charge
that be failed to investigate the official conduct
of Police Commissioners Gardner and Charick,
when offences against the law were alleged
against them, is repudiation Of the plain
provisions of the charter. He thinks it quite
inexpedient, he says, for the Mayor to insti-
tute such an investigation into the conduct of
heads of departments except upon the making
Of some grave charge by responsible person,
who avows his readiness to maintain it by
proof But the charter makes it the duty of
the Mayor Ito keep himself informed Of the.
doings of the several departments, and ''to
be vigilant and active in causing the
ordinances Of the city and the laws of
the State to be executed and enforced" To
faithfully perform this duty he must make
it his business to assure himself that each de-
and that its management is honest and
efficient. He could not screen himself be-
hind the excuse that no definite charges were
made against the Police Commissioners by o
responsible person, even if the statement were
true. He is not constituted by the law o
judge be is constituted the guardian of the
public, and the trust is his, and not the
public's, to administer. But charges were
actually made against Messrs. Gardner and
Charlick by the Board of Aldermen, when
they declared it to be the duty Of the Mayor
to investigate the official conduct of those
Commissioners, and adopted, as the grounds
of such declaration, the report of the Assem-
\ kbo
Cleaning Bureau and the allegations of the
Tammany leaders in regard to violations of
the Election law. These charges came not
from single citizen, but from the rep
resentatives of all the citizens of New
York, and were the more deserving
attention on that account. Further on
in his disjointed statement the Mayor seems
to recognize the necessity of excusing his con-
temptuous refusal to comply with the demand
made by the Board of Aldermen. He asserts
that it was his intention to investigate the
alleged illegal acts Of the Commissioners at
the election but that before he could find
time to do so the indictments against the
accused were brought in by the Grand Jury.
He therefore resolved to await the trial of
these indictments. cit seemed to me-" says
Mr.. Havemeyer, s'that should be better en-
Ightened by the developments thus likely to
be made in legal form than by any investi-
cation conducted by myself, and that under
the circumstances, as the delay involved was
but short, it would be every way more expe-
dent to await the result of these trials. 1
think that you will agree with me that this
was q prudent determination" Surely, if
Mayor Havemeyer, with his avowed opinion
as to the caution that should be exer-
cised in institutng an investigation into
the conduct of heads of departments


had resolved to take up and investigate the
charges made against Charlick and Gardner
in regard to the violation of the Election law


be must have done 80 with the intention to
remove them from Office if the charges should
be substantiated- Else why investigate at all ?
But he awaited the result of the trials and
when the accused Commissioners had been
convicted he reinstated them in the positions
of which the law had stripped them. 1t is
evident, therefore, that Mr.. Havemeyer does
not tell the truth when he asserts that he in
tended to make an investigation into the
charges against the Commissioners, or that he
had determined on their acquittl before the
investigation commenced


The Mayor is yet more unfortunate in the
excuses he makes for neglecting to inquire into
the corruptions in the Street Cleaning Bureau
OF the Police Department. He did not think
the charges deserving of consideration, and be
insults the people of New York by entering
into laudation of the two convicted Police
Commissioners, especially of Oliver Charlick.
The Mayor had, indeed, glanced at the report
of the Assembly committee, and had observed
some testimony leading to the belief that
small Sums had been taken from citizens fOI