Year: 1878

so 10 compel the Mayor To make appointments
agreeable 70 the Board rather than such he would
make Of his own free will Of persons for whom he
would be willing to be held fully responsible Dur
ing the last two three bIayorates reflections OF
nominations have been so frequent as to make the
officials who finally took office rather the appointees
OF tho Board than OF the Mayor; and Mayors Ely
and Wickham have both been able to say y:-fotl
cannot blame me. You would no. confirm my nolni
nations and had TO name men 10 suit you--not my,
SELF. Besides this it is urged that however good
and necessary restriction upon the appointing power
may be in theory in practice in New YORK IT has
simply resulted in making the holding or importnt
positions dependent upon political trades
2 EFFECT UPON PARTIES IN THE BOARD.
Concerning the possible effect of aremovd OF the
conirmatory power from tho Board npon the politi-
cal parties in it this opinion selected from among
others


1T has been argued that the power of continuation
of the Mayors appointments would tend to hold the
republicans and anti -Tammany Aldermen together,
and that il the power withdrawn the two forces
,"Iw nri;laiv that Mavor cooner win favor Tam
many in his appointments He distinctly sad in his
letter Of acceptance that he thought the republican
party should have fair representation upon all the
City commissions. Therefore. since the Tammany
Aldermen win have no influence with the Mayor
and the other members Of the Board
have been elected az his political friends
and associates there is much more reason to expect
prolonged cohesion OF the anti -Tammany forces ot
the Board than there is to expect trading alliance OF
either the republicans or the ant-Iammany demo
Gratis with Tammany.





1T is not believed" says another official. 'that
the withdrawal of the power of confirmation from
the Board Of Aldermen would have any effect upon
the relative positions of the political parties and far-
tions composing that body. The lines would
naturally remain as now. drawn upon other questions
than the question of appointments, and the with
drawal Of the conhrmatory power would not be likely
to obliterate or confuse them


g. POWERS OF THE MAYOR.
| The important question in regard to the powers
of he a
variety of interesting and suggestive opinions. Of
| which the first is that of an expert:-


.At present the Mayors powers exceedingly lin
tied Really he has jurisdiction except to the extent
Of preferrng charges against unworthy oeas s nir Hnr
| removal. But this he can do only in cases OF aD-
soiute derection OF duty he has not even the same
control city officers as the Governor nas over
sheriffs and other county officers for the Governor
can remove absolutely while the Mayor must depend
| upon the Governors approval Tho present city
charter was made at a time when the Mayor
tent to be an ornament and when the men VINO really
controlled the city and the Legislature found II 70 De
for their interest divide the municipal govern
up into a series Of independents principaites There


is likely to be attempt TO revise the charter this
winter and effort will be made to concentrate in
the Mayor virtually despotic power. This effort
viii hardly succeed. Since the average man Is prone
to do evil all the wisest laws are made on the sup
laws to be often hamper good men and prevent
them from carrying out much needed reforms
| The present charter has so hampered some good
| New York mayors. Stin there is public instinct
| which forbids consent to one-man power. In the
present instance it win be argued against the pro-
sonal and political accord with Mayor Cooper that
there excuse reason for withdrawing from the
former his power to approve or nullify the Mayors
removals from Office; and it will always be argued
| with great force and voluminous precedents that
every official who comes under his chiefs dispeasure
ought have the right Of appeal Still, the tact viii
not be lost sight of that Coopers term will outlast
the Governors and il win be urged in favor OF max
ing thelatter independent m 1880.


A THEORY OF MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT.
..The true theory Of the city government proceeds
the authority 'is to my mind this:-Every Mayor
shouh have the appointment of the heads Of city de-
partrnents during his own term OF office, aud they
should retire with him inst as cabinet retiry with
than that OF the federal government for this munich
pality. would transfer in miniature TO New York
cty with this single yarationthat there should be
only one legislative body in the city-namefy. the
Board Of Aldermen


aecond authority treats the same question tlrus
.Tammany, of course. would now oppose such a
proposition and the 'combinaton is not and cannot
be sufficiently consolidated TO induce republicans to
urge it, Being in large minority in tho city. the
republicans would naturally be very losth to make
even an anti-Tammsny democratic Mayor absolute
Nor win the friends Of the Msyorelect be likely TO
pusl such measure long the present accord of
views exists between Mr.. Cooper and Governor Rob
inson An intimation Of q move in that direction
might be regarded discourtesy to the Governor
who has been esteemed their champion. The rcpub-
hcans would have nothing to gain through such an
alteration OF the charter except temporary aninu
ton of Governor Robinson,s apparent powsr because
indications that auon ana tnAS OF t0D
new Mayor Will not greatly vary.


THIRD VIEW.


third authority. of the highest legal standing,
l speaks az foows:-


The tendency of public sentiment in bate years is
unquestionably 10 put great public responsibility
souewLere In sight where il can be held sccomtabie
to popular election. The distribution of govern
mental powers among numbers of irresponsible of-
GERS is growing more and moro unpopular and while
the American people will never tolerate an absolute
onerr an power despotisn, they will far in the
direction of fixing q definite Official responsibility.
powers of the Mayor tho idea being that the people
viii rouse themselves sufficiently ut the election of


single responsible head of the municipality to Sc
cure almost invariably good and competent man.


wTIGHTY OPINION.


The last expression upon this branch of the subject
is from an authority which gives 1t great point


The Mayor Of View York is not in similar posi-
ton to the executive chief OF the State or OF the
subject only TO the legislative control Of bodies
which they respectively exercise the veto
power while the Mayor Of New York is constantly
under the control OF the State Legislature 10
tent which makes him executive officer entirely
subordinate TO the state authorities. In this view
there is no danger that the sole power of appointment
would make him supreme. or even dangerously pow
erful especially long he could not remove from
Office without the concurrent action of the Governor
cf the state. The advocates Of placing the absolute
power OF appointment ia the Mayor do not advocate
the abosion Of the provisions Of law requiring
current acton Of the Governor in Of removal
for that IL the Mayor could remove well


a. appoint at pleasure, ne would De TOO powerful.
of concurrent gubernatorial action Ia removals
mains II entirely safe and wise TO confer the sole
power OF appointment upon the Mayor, and fix upon
him full responsibility for his admins tration.


1T IL fair to that this view OF the case II urged
without reference solely to the present political status
and relations Of the Mayor and the Governor, but
with the consideration of the possibility Of the next
Governor being republican or otherwise differing
opinion from the Mayor.


4. PUBLIC WORKS AND DOCKS.


In regard to the question. "ought the Depart
mcnt OF Public Works and Docks 10 be consolidated by
Legislative actionY' the following observation Is
cited.-


There is considerable probability that such q