Year: 1874


neglects In the auditing OF accounts and Justly
sentenced TO long term OF imprisonment, which
% showed sSs his oenoe Was with
evil intent, ana IN the prosecution OF gigantic
frauds NJ predecessor in TINS ONCE was n ike
manner Indicted for like neglect IN the auditing OF
the same accounts; and had the same motive and
intent been proved In the OF his colleague,
and be now expiatina the same penalty. But
though 1t could hardly be said that ne was guilty
OF no neglect, yet as the corrupt motive was not
shown 60 exist In his case, he was acquitted OF all
guilt. Men in the exercise OF extreme zeal some
times pass beyond the boundaries OF the law, and
and fruitful IN good results, instead OF being
reproved Is sometimes applauded. I might
you certainly are familiar, where, in a great
exigency, though not In time OF war, and
dsr without & any ove1ruling necessity. high public
any man hauls down the American nag shoot him
on the spot" Had occasion called for the execu-
been drawn in question before q judicial tribunal,
the task OF defending ts might not have been easy
se wsa %Sve % and S %
ceased TO reverberate. ! 90 not hold up such ex-
ampes for imitation. am simply pointing out
the broad and inefa ceabe distinctions between
technical legal offences and those accompanied
with conscious guilt.


siderations have urged Will satisfy you that the
offence OF which the Commissioners were convicted
involved NO violation Of their Official oaths. But
were this otherwise think 1t must be conceded
and when 1t is considered how wholly technical
their offence was and how entirely free irom mali
clous or corrupt intent. their conviction should
constitute no impeachment tOTeappOin tment The
only remaining ground upon which my
OF Messrs. CharIck and Gardner was an
abuse OF the power oonfided to me Is that such
charges were pending against them, and other in
dlctments also which had not been tried; and
without ut any nvestlgatiSn upon my part as TO the
ders Is unnecessary for me to answer this charge
in much further detail. The Aldermen nad IN
fore pointed out, called upon me to remeve az the
Commissioners, without trial or investigation, on
Assembly Committee, duplicating their conduct
concerning the cleaning OF the streets. have.
truss suniciently exposed the groundlessness oi
this proceeding. When called upon by me to put


THEIR ACCUSATION OF THE COMMISSIONERS


In this tangible orm they confessed their inability
ground Of Complaint and resorsed to supposed dts
closures OF misconduct developed by an examlna-
tion before Judge OF the Supreme Court OF the
proceedings OF the Police Board in relation to the
Der, IS7s. This departure from their original
Reality Of their Complaints or In the
ness OF the motives which actuated them.
The Aldermen did, however In communication
received fr0m them by me on the Goth of June
last refer me to the testimony taken upon the
examination above alluded to and pointed out
parts OF It supposed to contain matter showing that
the Commissioners had been guilty or some irre-
gulartties or misconduct They did not, however.
call upon me to direct any investigation, or offer to
substantate any allegations oil misconduct; but
called upon me as before, to suspend and remove
the Commissioners, without reference TO any IN
vesttgation. Although my confidence In the good
faith OF those engaged in hostile proceedings
against the commissioners was not complete;
and I saw many evidences that mere partisan
ings; ana the communication from the Alder
men was accompanied with copy Of the
its language towards me, yet / Determined to
institute investigation. In response, therefore,
20 s s On sas Or re aa
nicatiOn reminding them OF their failure 10 make
any offer to substantiate their charges aud OF the
by me without Investigation, and closing with this
language :-"My entire duty in che premises
% as % 70 Se * aa
and prefer charges which you were prepared to
substantlate, not by your mere opinion, which.
opinion by which my final action must be deter
mined, but by facts verified before me, shall d.
A THOROUGH INVESTIGATION


be forthwith proceeded with under my personal
supervision, and Will take care that you are duly
apprsed thereof, SO that all the facts within your
knowledge, II any, may be produced ana my final
Judgment obtained" The investigation thus con.
medlateiy, but my my duties, at all times Keeping me me
necessarily occupied, were made UNEXPECTEDLY
burdelsome IN the month OF June, and immedl-
atey following the sending OF the last cOmmunica.
tion by the necessity Of attending to the revision
OF the annual estimate and app0rtionment Of ex





ist Of July Notwithstanding this, however, /
should have probably endeayored to find some time
reasons. These Charges related Wholly to the .. ac.
tiOn OF the Commissioners In respect to the prev
tous general election which had taken place more
than seven months before. The investigation or
charges SO long delayed. and IN no way involving
the then present duties or conduct OfJthe C0mmis-
point Of urgency, among my duties Moreover,
was informed that one or more indictments mad
been procured agansi Messrs. Chariick and Gard
N fKn hn
charge charges were particularly aimed; that
M to be
brought to trial; that the leaders OF Tammany
Hall had been engaged in an industrious search
for evidence 10 produce upon SUCH trials, and that
everything which could be proved and that could
be said against the accused parties would be
probably be better enlightened by the develop
ments thus likely to be made in legal forum before
court and Jury than oy any investigation con-
stances, as the delay involved was but Short 1t
would be every way more expedient to await the
results oil these trials think that you Will agree
with me that this was prudent determination.
A trial Of one OF the indictments-the one already
referred to--was had and completed on the goth OF
June last, with the result which l nave already
mentioned The question was Immediately made
in the public Journals and otherwise os to


THE EFFECT OF THE CONVICTION


of the Commissioners upon the Offices they held.
It was alleged in some quarters that 1t was to
create vacancies in them. The point, indeed, had



counsel had requested the Court to charge the
jury that the orlence proved did not have that
effect. The Judge declined TO so charge, saying
that this question was one which he had nothing
to do with; tnat 1t must be decided by some other
tribunal having the power to investigate it; he
would not undertake to say what tribunal had
this power, and he added that he did not know
there was any such. received notice from you
indicating that, in your judgment, the conviction
did create vacancies. My own opinion was clearly
In the other direction, and was so advised upon
the grounds hereinbeiore iully set forth. Still
was under some embarrassment, as you will
easily understand. 1t was. as suppose. to relieve
me from this that the commissioners resigned
their offlces, and vacancies were at all events then
existing. The question then arose. what course
should take in filing the vacancies, and to this
gave as deliberate consideration as l am capable
OF. My impulse was to reaDpoint the same Com.
mssoners, but was not to yield to this unless |
was satisfied that they were TIT and worthy, and
every way capable OF an efficient discharge OF the
duties thus TO be reimposed upon them. Upon
this my conviction was nrm. l appointed them
originally because believed them to be tit, and
especially Oliver Charck, whose unsurpassed
energy and capacity In the management OF
AFFAIRS, known TO me from an acquaintance Of