Year: 1875

TIE MAYORS PROPOSED REMOVALS OF MUNICIPAL


oFFICERs-How THE GOVERNORS REQUEST FOR


TIE EVIDENCE Is LOOKED UPoN-DEsIRE FOR


HARMONY IN THE PARTY.


The interest manifested in the present legis-
iatIve municipal problem is unabated. Whether or
not the Governor Will insist on having the testimony
sent to hun which the Mayor bases his wish for the
removal Of the Corporation Counsel and Fire Comuis
sioners and whether the Mayor Will comply with the
request questions that are asked by many, and no
one IL found who give authoritative reply. 1t Ia
held by many Of the prominent members o. Tammany
Hall that the Governor has right TO
demand that such testimony should be given him !;


that the for the removals contain all the
strong points of the testimony, and should he sufficient


for the Governor Section Is OF Chapter 1876 OF the Laws
of 1873 provides that the heads of all departments and
all other persons whose appointment Is in th section pro-
vided for may removed by the Mayor for and
after opportunity TO be heard subject however before
such removal shall take effect to the approval OF the
Governor expressed in writing The Mayor shall in all
cases communicate TO the Governor In Nntng his
reasons for such removal"


Iii argued by who have examined the law that
the act does require that charges should be pre-
ferred as is necessary the OF removal by the
GoyefuOr OF an officer elected by the people, does 1t
designate what be deemed sufficient cause. IL Is
left to the discretion Of the Mayor to determine the suf
hciency and reasonabeness OF the cause. 1t Is under
stood aso that the Mayor Is bound 10 give reasona
BILE explanation OF his acton but that the statute does
not authorize the Governor 10 demand as matter Of
right that the evidence upon which that action is based
need necessarily be made known to him. The Mayor
something more than a mere CQmms-loneg deputod TO
take testimony IN certain case He, Possesses the
p8wer Of appointing the heads of department. WITH
and In without the consent OF the Board Of
Aldermen. 1t Is part Of the duty imposed on him By
the charter to keep himself Informed OF the doings ~
the several and 10 be viRiant
in causing the ordinances Of the city aud the laws Of
the State be executed aud enforced lie may
tue head OF department, after hearing for cause, Of
the existence and sucieucy Of which he s in the first
instance the Judge Ii IL held therefore, that the Gov
called 10 determine whether the decision
OF the judge, in other wOrde, Of the Mayor Is
not against the weight OF evidence and ks approval
should moi be withheld when II Is made 10 appear
him that the substantial requirements OF the statute
beeu COUPLED with, aud tnat the grounds OF
decision do not contravene some prneipe Of law
or puJc policy.


Any coOluess or material difference between the
Mayor and Lbe Governor. growing of tins que ston,
IA deprecated Oy lac clearer 0 the Democratic
leaders. 1t could only have a very bad effect ont he
party tue city and State. The advocates OF Home
Rule tbis city hat the Governor was q strong
advocate OF this poiicy un his election, AMI that he
now somewhat retceut tue subject while those who
which embodies Home Rule" pure and sInple. 1t Is
we'll known that the pressure the Mayor place
has been very great since he entered office Be
cause he did not move more rapidly In ing the
existing Commissions. RESOLUTIONS censurlnG him
were prepared by certain malcOptents In Tam
had not the Cosiigan bill been prepared with
a view 20 harDODize all differences. The retention
OF tue Corporation Counsel. Commissioner OF Pub
lic Works, CONTROLLER, Fire. Police, aud Dock Commis