The New York Herald Newspaper, February 19, 1875, Page 4

‘4 NEW... YO RK HERALD, £RIDAY, FEBRUARY shrugged their shoulders, a urmonity and formality that the ter was to pp not a tw yeu ona sc, St allowed ko Spapizess tothe inner sanctum waierein Morris, wivkha laugi, when questioned about tne Us potent au -Satisied oficial aisuaily: en- Well, there's a Jong road ahead yet.for it,” 8° pike re fA. rat enter BE the Sees cin Aldermen Howland, Simonson, Southworth and vii a aoor-ae “she, ge be al Kobisen, repubitcans, fad notaimye le say on the subject Whatever; Bul Alderman Bilings, repub- Heap, said, sententousiy;—"l don’) kuow what its chances ave of becommg a law, and | don't care; W 18 their funeral.” WHAT THE DEMOCRATS THINK ABOUT IT, The democrats were very jubilant, Mr. Biles: ing, when he heerd the goo! news, tock off his brand new bat, laid it soitly on a table, eyed i ior 2 Moment, aud (hep cook it up agaim With the re- mark, “I can’t aiiord to mash it jor good luck, but I'm sorry i can’t.” Then he added. with his face Wreathed in suniles, “It tyne use talking. The bil ‘is sure to go through the Seuate now. ‘Tifden kuew that, or he would never have opposed it m whe Assembly. If tt does pass he may veto It. If he does the democrats will Wave something wo say about him in this city some time when Sammy won't ike to hear from them—when thes’re tn bad humor.’ Sata Alderman Reilty:—"Well, 1 fJeit it in my bowes that We demecrats Would piss the bul. It isa good Komerule measure aad we Governor made A GREAT MISTAKE in using Bis influeace against it. I don’t think he Willi dare Veto it if the Senate passes it.’ Aud the Alderman lit a fresh cigar und sat down In front of the grate tire in the Aldermanic chamber as thou, he meant to sit there till tre bill should pass the Senate, Alderman Shandiey seemed to icel particziarily joyful, and Temarked, “1 was not very much pieared by the look of things last night, but there is nech- ing like perseverance, ceptable to every good cittzen, and If a vote was taken on if in this city to-morrow tt would be-car- Tied by 100,000 majority. What's the use of talking “nome ruic”’ on paper betore election and govern- ing New York from Albany afterward by the ard of a democratic Guveruor?” alderman Gilon with andncreduious sulle remarked wieo (oid tke DIL had passed “YOU DON'T SAY 80,” andas he hurried ‘Kerors the Park he called out, “‘T suppose it’s all right now.” Alderman Guntze. was tle more detinite:—“I am very glad of ne exclaimed, mitting a table vear him with his right hand in @ way that made the mk botties dance. “Very, very glad,” he repe ted; *bat,” he added alterwards, as if he was rather started by the sudden idea, “but what will become of Tilden now?’ Aiderman Gross said it was good news to hear that the bill bad passed, and Alderman McUarthy sata it was better than good, “If that bill goes through the Senate,” said he, “and Tiluen should veto it, he may waistle tor Votes in this city In 1876, an. you know @ man don’t get many votes by whistling nowadays.” Alderman Lysigaot quietly remarked, in speaking ol the news, “If the Board madn’t meet to-day 1 would be inclined to take @ holiday—take A ROW ACROSS THE EAST RIVER Just to keep cool.” Alderman seery said he was uelighted, He always oeieved in home rule ever since he went to scdool ana the teacher made him acquainted witu a rue that did not belong at home. “I bope the bill will pass the Senate,” said he, ‘i oly to put Tilden lace to jace with bis avowed principles about local sel-government It wil make him wriggle a litue, judging trom the way he bas tried to have the wil deteated n the Assembly.”’ Alderman Purroy remarked that be was af loss to know posed the bill. “It is a thoroughy democraue Tieasure aud deserved the support of republicans in this city if they really belleved vhat peopie snould be allowed to have any say about their own affairs.” Alderman Powers, too, was giad vhat tLe bill bad passed, In tact everybody avout the City Hall who clarmed to be a democrat was ylad, but there were very many wuo were fear st they migut not Jeel so good over it when tie ate got To voting on it. Se was so ewhat diviied about the rate of the meas ure there. “We hope ior the bes’? was the unl- versal cry. JOHN KELLY'S VIFWS. Mr. John Kelly was sitting in bis office in Nassau Street when the HERALD reporter entered, His massive face beamed with a qtiet satisiaction end bis gray stubby beard was untrimmed with an air of reckless G.sregard of primness, which showed how Indifferent he now felt to the world’s opinion. tue passage of (he Costigan bill in the Assembly. The HiukaLp reporter asked the Temmany mag- nate what ve thought of tue event which had just transpired in Alouny and what he thought of the bittitselt, Mr. Kelly satd:— “I dou’tsee how any one can doubt the wisdom or justice of the bill, It simply gives the city con- trot of its own afla:rs and allows its officers to curry on the tuterpal government without inter ference from outside. The mataraly be given the power of appointment and " typteal hat ‘The bill Ought to be ac- | a) how any cemocrat could bave op- | However, sentiment | | Is such the case t Mr. Kelly bad just received the news of | one to whom must | removal and coatrol of particular depart. | ments is the Mayor of the city, He 1s the one who 18 naturally elected jor this very purpese, aud there is a proper saieguard avaibst Abuse of power in giving vo the Board of Aidermen Uwe coniirmauon of What the Mayor cues mm the of appointments, ‘This tsa tem @i local government Which the Gemocrauc party always jougat ior. During aiayor Have- woeyer’s term, when it could Hot be Of the sughiest advantage (0 US, We @ivays contended tor the Same system, because we Cousidered Lt is the ouly proper wuy. Tiere is uo ood reason why Lue Stave oficers suould be alewed to Ts. it 18 not Gone in why should it be-doue State or the meddie in our local mat ower cities Of the State; here? iv all cities boty ti Europe aud bere the Mayor is the executive oiiicer. In Loudouv the Fame toing is dove, and Parliament would not care toumeoWme im matters which covcern lhe chy of London alo ine theory oF uome rule 1s the jy ope Wolch is consistent with our plan oF go’ ent, abd it Wa» never broken Ww Upon uDo | Cooper, “for many reasons, | nor is a fried and true man, and although 1 differ | when the republicans first mstututed the sys | teg@ ef commissions appoinred in Aivany. This | was, of cou doue oO give &@ power in New York city whicn ney were vot eutitied to. it Was more particulary uugurated to aliow them to control the Police. The Metropolitan Police Was established, | ving the repuelicans control of @ poruion of estchester, all o; Brooklyn, New York and | Slaten Isiaud, Lo this way, througa the power of atrouage, toe republican vole was run up from WO tO 45,090, Which Ii is to-day, and tis was oly a Mature! result oF sucha system. ‘the demo- crats vid hor ove OF if, for UBL! L807 New York nad always aitsown affairs, From that time until nm we lave been more ur less bur- deped With [his Fepublican Coumuission idea, You Bee by the provisions Of the Costigan vill the Mayor Wil De eLavied Lo appolut and remove. Wuy stould he be obliged to go to the e \uese whon he ap- for power Lo remove jor ca powted? Whiat hus the Gs bor oO] the Slate gow tw do with 1? When the Mayor appowts am he may bel for mtanee, bat they are excel- lent in every ind it way be some Urttle time Lelore bi Ua! (sey ure uatitted or hot proper p ysiions ti Which acy Lave been placed. . then, that as he appointes coem because ke Leieved tiey Were | guod, he should remove tiem reeanse they are | Dad. it 18 the same syslem upon which rhe go! ernment «f the United States is sounded. Th President hi ower 10 appolut, Wiib Lbe con- sent of the Senate, and remove pecemptoruy. We ouly ask the sume privilege for our cit “the opponents ot he measure say, however, that it will lead to Loe Same state Of affutls Winch exisied under Mayor Hull.” “Th bot be. Tue Board of Aldermen are the represeuiatives o/ (he people th matters whicn concern the people so ar as Tr ine city. ‘The Mayor 18 responsivie to then lor wii he does, and ti he does not do it right be will be properiy deait with, If we canno! trast our Mayor aod our Board of Aldermeu woo can we trust? Weare not uukely tu be visited wilh the samme State Of aMuirs Wiigh existed some years azo, IL 18, indeed, imponsible under the present vill, Republicans, of Course, ind fauic with it aud will but be convinced that anything the «ev ocrats ao is dou But, spre of all the obje tivus made, | ersoaally that bul Wil be Sucecssiul in Its practical Workings. “is ittrne thit tne Governor has opposed tue passage ot the bill.” “] believe he has expressed some objections to St and did HOt approve vi Some Of 18 provisions. Hut laa not certain how tai his opposition went, ‘time be was ti the city In re tion to the Matter and expiaimed to mun my rea. or approving the bill, and [do not know vat he took any aclive measures lo have tue vill pated.” “You regard the pas J saw him tue ta ¢ of the bill, I presume, | from ofice as “Co u dictator's prival Was not only guarded by tron bolts, but these, ta turo, were watched over by @ gray-eaded, hard- looking Cerverus, Who resembles tn foatures the cessary LO pass OD The Way Lo Lue great fluancial Mee. This entrance, however, Calban, who was busily en gaged in making away with a thick and uninyitine - looking Sandaviou, Whose Component parts it Would have been utterly impossible to discover. It, however, appeared to sacisiy the voracious appe- tite of the guardian of the sacred portals, although ivexercised an evident effect on bis aigestive for his face was fiusned and his eyes el + the glass paues like 80 many coals O1 tre. Perhaps, however, this ay have arisen from the jear that some one ol the less fortunate clerks, whose salaries bave been lately cut down in order to provide the-sum required tor operations-at Albany, might make a sudden raid ou the undelectabie morsel, or it might have been that the i dina iM question saw in the entrance of the reporter @ possible interraplion woich would interiere with his personal rights and com- tors. The reporter.nowever, wae not to be in- timidated by the flerce glauces that were thrown bug, but, feciing equal to the occasion, boldly adv aud endeavored to eflect an entrance, ‘The guardian aforesaid, Uhinking that this proceedipg-inaicated that the person performing this; timorous feat had some in- Muence or authority, immediately rose irom nis seat and withdrew the vous and bars, He, how- ever, only opened the door safMicient to allow him to | emiLthe question framamoutn {ulloi the mysteri- Us CO! uadprevionsly reterred to as lowbat was wanted. The busivess having been explained and @ card passed in tus mode! immediately closed the door with a bang, turned the key in the | lock, put down pis sandwich and proceeded in & leisurciy manner to a sorte: den that bad been divided irom the body o/ the main office. He dived | Into this, With & S0Tt Of despair on bis counte- nance, abd was lost to sight for a few moments, He, however, again appeared after 3 few minutes! conversation With @ iriend, and informed the re- | porter that he mught.walkia and walt in a seat Which be pointed out until the Comptroller was at liver ty. Tne reporter, after wailing some little time, was ft last ushered into the presence, when, having explained his errand to the Gomptrolier, that au. gust official replied curtly, but graphicatly, ‘1 guess you have come tothe wrong suop. I don’t want io give the HenaLp any iniormation.” The | reporter, however, still persevered and endeavored | to get tue Comptroler to answer several q tons. To ail these Mr. Green simply replied, “Go to the otuer departments. 1 bave nothing to say, Jave no opinion at ail onthe Costigan bill. have thougat about it, bus have foimed no upin- jon; bave no views, and don't mean to say any- thing about tt, !here’s lots of information cau be obsalmed avout it elsewnere; but this ix the wrong place,” ‘the Comptroller was fiually asked Nhe thought the bill would aifect him in bis official position. To this he replied, with a grating oi the teeth and a bard look in his eyes, “i don't know andl don't car Rememberlag the old saying about the impossibility of drawing blood froma turnip, the reporter took his leave. THE FIRE COMMISSIONERS. President Joseph L. Perley, of the Board of Fire Commissioners, was ound seated in Cnte! Clerk Whitte’s office, at Fireman’s Uall, in conversation with Commissioner Van Cott. Neither of the two gentlemen had received any information relative to the passage of the bill when our reporter en- tered. President !’erley never appeared in better spirits, while Dis associate Was bo.ding the files of one Of the Morning journaisin tis lap. The fol- lowing conversation ensued :— ReErorTER—I suppose you gentiemen have learned the tact that the Costigan bill bas passed the lower house ? Mr. PERLEY (apparently somewhat astonished) — RevorreR—Lt is the fact; what do you think will be the result ? Mr. Per.ey—I cannot say; [ did not vetieve they Could wave passed it toeday, yet there Is noth ing certain im politics. 1 have heard notuipe from Albany, but it places the Governor in anytuing but @ pleasant position. Mr. Van Corr—Well, they have yet tosee the result in the Senate. ReroRTER—! leara tnat certain republican Sen- ators have decided to yore in favor of its passage ret it pass (he Assembly, among them Senavor Booth, Mr. PERLEY—I know nothing about that; | never heard such a statement made before; but 1 be- lieve many would like to put the Governor to tue test on local seif government. Rerorrer—What will ve the effect should the | bill become a lawr Mr. PEeRiey—it would give the Mayor the power to control every department in the city, Why, he will bave the right to even remove the Scnool Trustees, But icannot tully express my actual opinion until | near from my inends at Albany. Mr. Van Colt would give no decided answer, but | coubted if it would ever reach tne Governor for bis signature, ‘Ths ended the conversation, but the news having spread throughout the building li Was the geucral topic Of Conversation when our reporter lett. | Uttled to be considered bounty of those persons, he has not ontyymade no P C88 AD PPOVCGM HOD a GaINS’ CREM Ol SULbs instituted previous to bis acceptanee o/ oflive as “their gilt, bat bas improved what opportunity he has bad-to shelter them agaiast pursuit, Second—From June, 1863, to July, 1871, Henry Starkweather was head of a Bureau for the Uo.lec- | ton of Assessments in the Street Department. Under color of an vrdinance not applivabie to the case, and by the trauduient connivance of other | pubhie oficers, Starkweather uolawiuily received and thereatter divided with Ms confederates more than $130,000 of the public moneys upon the futile pretence that he and they were entitled to that perquisites ior services never rendercd mpossible of performance. e of these uulawiul acts was given to Mr. Smuth early in 1874, and he was then urged to Proseoute Ube conspirators for the recovery 0! the mmoneys. ‘That he refused to do, and, after the vain state- ment of several reasons, all without merit, and which he has abandoned as untenable. he has dinany pres ert and published as his justification for such refugal this:—That the moneys were vol- untartly paid to Starkweather and 80 cannot be Teoovered back. Without stopping now to re- mark that that defence. tf defence it be, is com- mon to all the cases above re.erred to, that the Moneys appropriated Tweed and ihe rest, were all velamsary’ pele to them by Conaoily or by some other confederate as complaisant—it may be “Observed that, ii the suggestion 18 en- 8 anything more than & mere suam and pretence, ttis met by the fact that, while it Is weil established that moneys volun- tarily paid by an individual or by @ privato cor- poraticn, ana without mistake of fact, cannot ordinarily be recovered back at law, itis equaily well established that that rale bas no application to the cage where the goveroment—a pubiic cor- poration—claims to recover public moneys pald away without autuority of law by one ol its officers. ‘The extent of the authority and powers of every functionary of a public corporation is prescribed the law by which he existe. Every person deahng with such an ofiicer 1s and must be charge- able with knowledge of the law under which dis- bursements of public moneys are made to tim; and itis no deiense to @ suit by the government that the moneys ciaimed to be recovered by it were voluurariiy paid away by the officer tempor- arilyin charge of the Treasury. Were the ruie otherwise, any public purse would be speedily de- teted by the first knave who could thrust uimself Inte piace as its lawful custodian, Thivd—The tacts brought to my Knowledge show that Mr, Smith, after an amendment to the law allowing him & certain discretion in the premises, in causes where the city 18 defendant, 1 some of which large amounts are involved and retance is upon delences 0: frauds alleged to have been by toe plaints committed, has manifested a dan- gerous tactlity in consenting or submitting to it that issues, Which should be tried only by a jury, be sent to wreieres either actually selected by the adversary or known to be a favorite with ptaintitls ip causes against the city. For these reasons I deemed it my duty to make the removal, as the only effectual means of guard- ing the interests of this community. Very ree spectiuily, WM. H. WICKHAM, Mayor. THE REMOVAL OF THE FIRE COMMISSIONBKS, EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT, Crry HALL, } Naw York, Feb. 3, 1875. y liam H. Wickham, Mayor of the city of New York, do nerevy certify that, in virrue o1 the authority vested in me by section 25 of chapter 835 of the laws of 1873, entitied “An act to re- organize the local government of the city of New York,” I have this aay, for cause, alter oppor- tunity to them afforded to be heard, and alter ac- tually hearing them, removed Joseph L. Perley, Roswell ¥. Hatch, aud Cornelius Van Cott trom oftive as the Comunissioneis bererofore consiituc- ing the Board of Fire Commissioners of the city of New York. ‘The cause of removal ts incompetent and waste- ful administration of the Fire Department by said Commissioners, wilful and persistent evasion and Violation by them oi provisions Oj laws prescribing their duties and an undue prelerence shown by them to favored individuals in purchasing sup- plies for the si rbd ViLLIAM H. WICKHAM, Mayor. Executive DeraRtMent, Crry HALL, . New Youk, Feb, 3, 1375. To His Excellency Samvuet J, TILDEN, Governor of the State of New York:. Six—I transuit to you herewith my certificate of removal of Joseph Periey, Roswell D, Hatch and Cornelius Van Cott trom oflice as the Commisstoners neretofore constituting the Board of Fire Commissioners 0! the city of New York. certificare, incompetent and wastelul administra- tion of the Fire Departinent by said Commission- era, wilful and persistent evasion and violation by them of provisions of jaws prescriping their duties and an undue preierence shown by them to ta- vored individuals in purchasiag supplies for the department. My reasons for 80 removing them are these:— rst—The payroll of the department has been burdened with empioyés maintained in idleness at the public expense or unfit jor the duties as- signed to them, aud who, by evil lives and ruf- the department is missing; and there are no books Which correctly show the amount, cost or value of stock and property on hand. PRTER COOPRR, The venerable Peter Cooper cordially welcomed | a@ HERALD reporter at his residence last night, and Wiillngly ussented to express his views briedy on the Custizan brill. “I co vot think its passage advisable,” said Mr. Our present Gover- with tim politically 4 believe faitutul to the tterests contided 10 ulm by the pre-ent law. He has two years of office yet before him and, under the present eircumatances, 1tmink the change proposed would not be to the benefit o! the citizens. The present Mayor and Goverror are both of the same party, and any action taken by cne would ‘natur- aly be sustained by the otner, and uf voth belonzed to dilferede parucs the present sys tem would be desiraoie by being & check ov partisanship. Vest the powers proposed in tue Ma‘or and you plaee yourseli completely at him to be his control Home rule is @a excellent thing i! we can be assured of honesty at home, bul, im my opinion, the oid system is the best. This constant chang- ing O laws wilhout the necessity existing is to be deplored. I the onl Should pass toe Senate the Governor would be placed in a very embarrassing position. if he shouid veto it he ‘would become, lo @ Ceriain degree, antagonistic Lo his party.” THE REMOVAL CORRESPON- DENCE, The following fs the correspondence which has taken piace between the Governor and the Mayor Te.ntive to tbe removals of te Corporation Vounsel and the Fire Commissions. The Mayor was un- willing Lo make this correspondence pubiic until the questions at issue were settied, but when he learned that tne Governor had decided to make puvlic bis (the Governor's) portion of the corre- spondence be changed tis mind. Tae following are the letters :— THE KEMOVAL OF THE CORPORATION COU! bakowrive DeranrMent, Cry Hat NEW YORK, Feb. 3, 1875. 1, Wiliam H. Wicknam, Major of the city of New York, do hereby certily that, in virtue of the | authority vested to me by section 2 of chapter 335 of the Laws of (873, entitled “An act to reor- ganize ihe jocal govermment of the city of New York,” | have this day, lor Cause, aller opporta- nity lo bim afforded w be heard, and alier accu. ally heanng tim, removed E. Delafleld Smith yeel Lo the Corporation” and Besa of ue Law Departuient of the city of New ork. ‘rhe Cause of removal is his faiiure in perform. d Uis personal unfitness for, the duty of Hol Claims against William M. Tweed ; his refusal to institute proceedings to entorce the claim against Heory stark weather and overs, With the publication of his preiext jor so dotog; and, his disregard of the rights and ioter- ests of the city in causes Wherein it is deiendant, and which be has, by express consent or by neg. lect of opportunities for active resistance, aliowed to be sent for trial before reierees, instead of be- fore @ jury, Lue appropriate tribanal. WILLIAg H. WICKHAM, Mayor. EXeccTivé DEPARTMENT, City Haut, Naw York, Feb. 3, 1876, To Mis Excellency SAMUKL J, (1LDEN, Governor of the state of New York :— sit—I transmit to you herewith my certificate Le. | of removal of &. Delafeid Smith, Ksq., from office as a famaiany victory vt precisely that, as we owe a great Ceal to the couutry Inemvers. O1 course It onginated and Was favored by Us becaure We belicved taal It was JOS! AM Lis measures, DUL We could wave done little With tt bad we wot been atied by the representa. Lives O1 the Siate at iarge. Phe approved Of tt apa ldou't tnink they wou me 80 had they thought the bili was as 8 some People woud save others believe.” “will the passage Of tue bill bave the effect of | Tomoving Green trom his office 0 Comptroiuer? Ls 1t special duvected in that way! Mr. Greeu will Stand in the -ame relation to the Mayor as a)l|be other city oficers, M there Js cause tor lis removal he will be removed, Lf not, HOt. There is NO Special reaching against | Green im this iil. “Mave you wot understood that some action wilt De taken against Lim as soon a8 Whe Di becomes a law? “No, | have really not heard anything of the | op kind, eu i there were some desire to dg tuts there uid have to ve found causes for such action “Do you think the Senate will pass the bill with+ so strong # repub ican majority? “TL uunk 0, yes J do not think toere will be now any speciai effurt to oppose it, Democrats are in Garnest now in seeking the rights to’which tuey are chtitiead, New Yerk city has no wish to be furtuer gove. ued (rom ajbapy, 1 think within # lew days the v1.1 wilt become a law aud will then be submilted to prac teal working.” Mr. Jolin Kelly then continued to receive hig pyilitical iriends, some of Wuom called to see biw Jor the | Ui pose Of congratulauon ab the success of the measure (hus far. A VISIT 10 COMPTROLLER GRERN. , Among the many public officials and heats of @epartments visited yesterday irom whom an ex- pression of opinion in reference to the ‘Costigan bil” Was sought was the guardian of the pubiie parse, Comptrotier Greeu. It was after mo little as “Counse: to the Corporation” and head oi the Law Department of the city of New York. | ‘the cause of bis removal 1s, a8 stated In the certificate, his faiiure in performance of and his personal unfitness for the duty of prosecution of claims against Wiliam M, Tweed and others; his revusal to institute proceedings to eniorce we claim against Heury Starkweather and others, with the publieation of tis pretext for so dong, and his disregard of the rights aud interests of the city in Cases wherein it 16 delendant, and which he has, by €xpreas consent or neglect of aT Lonities ior a resistance, allowed to be sent jor ‘rial be eer a of belore w Jury, the appropriate tribuaal, My reas yr 80 removing him are these: Firsi— Kecent derisions in the Court 0! Appeals have es'a lished the doetrine tuat, in the present State O! Lhe jaw, frauds Upon the city treasury or upoo junds here produced by locai taxation, are irremediavle by any juaicial proceeding other than actions im toe bame of “the Mayor, Aldermen and Commonralty of tue city of New York.” And, ve- fore my OWD accession to vice, but since Mr, Smith “became” Counsel to tne ‘Corporation, & spectal act of the Legisiature has been procured, giving bi department complete und exclusive control over ail Hugasions in Which (hose parties may be concerned, Mr. Smith was appointed to office in the autumn of 1671, under extraordinary clreumstances, and by persons all of whom al that ime stood charged Wilh, abd some OF whom bave since been proved to bave been guilty of, Nierally stealing evor- mous sums from the municipal treasury, the fNagitious detais of whose transactions had then been exposed to general Observation with stich appalliog distinctness, that none, not even the thieves thomse.ves, bad attempted a denial. Aud iu the more chap three years during which Mr, Smith has coutinued to be tne beneficiary of (hat | been given Third—Apparatus and machines on hand have been discarded aud destroyed to be unnecessarily replaced py olbers, in the sale of which @ near relative of one of the Commissioners bus had a pecuniary interest. Fourth—Business at the repair shop has been conducted witbout discretion or proper system; and no means have been taken or records kept to ascertain the actual cost of repairs in any specific work dune there. fF Jth—Under patents, or pretended rights to patenis, in and to which one of the Commissioners apd one or more other officers o1 the department huye had or claimed interests, large sums Dave been exacted, as royalties and otherwise, vy which the Cost o! apparatus and machinery or- dered by the Commissioners to be used im the department, has been increased to an aimount notoriously exorbitant—sowe o1 these purchases having been made (as others hereinafter men- tioned were) with an utter disregard of reguia- tions and laws for such cases provided, Sizih—1be painting ior the department has been, for nearly a year, dohe nnder ap arrangement between the Cominissiouers and a person nut & painter or bimself 0: practical acquamtauce with the business, who has charged and been paid, for the raw material alone, some twenty-live per cent above the murket rates and in quantities in exXoess of What Was actually required, ‘ ‘The regniations direct each of the several bureaus aud engine companies of the de- pariment to make quarterly requisitions in ad- vance upon tbe Board of Commissioners for three months’ supplics, as needed by it, whicn reguisiuon, after passing through the bands 0: the Commissioners, Shouid be transierred by them to the Superintendent of Supplies, who should tnere- Upon purcbase and furnish such of the supplies designated in the requisition a3 shail bave been approved and allowed by the Board. 2 examination of toe duplicate billson fle with the yeneral boonkeeper of the department discloses the lact that they are so made out as to appear to show that tne purchases of supplies have been made in compliance with the require- ments of that system. In fact, however, no regard bas been paid to the restricuons and prohibitions of the law, which have been persisteutly evaded, For instance, since the present Commissioners | have been in Office all the supplies o! feed, oats, hay and straw for the horses of the department (some 200 in number) have been purchased of & brother-in-law of One of the Commissioners, There aby particular case an order in writing has been made, spectiying the quantity of, whetver feed, oats, bay or straw to be furnisned daring the bext mouth 10 any bureau or engine company iD heed of ir, None of these orders which have been brought to my attention specily that the arucie required is tO De OF the best of any designed quality, or of | proper standard as to weight or measure, though 1t ts pretended that It has always been undersiood that (he quality was to be the best, and tue weights and measures of full standard. The article 80 ordered has been thereupon de- livered by the seller, not on @ designated aay, but ona day aud at an hour to suit bis own convent ence—the person who receives it merely sigaing @ ticket (already prepared and fied up by the seller) for the number of bags of fced or oats, or of pounds of hay or straw. thereby pretended to be delivered, ho tmestruciions or authority having nd Po facilities afforded to anyooay at the place ol delivery or elsewhere in the ser vice of the department, as inspector or other- Wise, to test the accuracy of tue pretended meas- ures or weights, or (Oo ascertain the quality of the article supplied. ‘The resuit ts tat the department has been far- nisbed With supplies of the articies mentioned of interior quality, sort Measure and ligut weight, Which have, however, been charged and paid for at figures nearly or quite fliteen per cent in excess Of the market 1ates Jur supplies os the vest quality and of iil measure and wet which would have been readily ‘urnisned by respectavle dealers had uitabe Contract been votes g offered for Jair COmMpetition, a6 is by law require: By such practices the eficieucy of the Fire De- partment has been greatly impaired, the public moneys have beech Wasted aud the city govern- ment itseil bas been suvjected to reproaca by good citizens, 1 should gladly discriminate between the pra removed iruii Otlice as to Lhe responsi- y bie Condition of affairs, But the tacts beiore me iity attaching to each for this very reprenensi« do hot exouerate either of them from the coarges Stated as the cause for removai, and, in the hear- ings had before me in the matter, all thice of the ex-Uommissioners have chosen to stand together, without claim by either Ol exemption irow @ joint accountability. 1 was ieit, therefore, no alternative bat, in the discharge of my own jrum omece, a8 | bare done, Very respeciiuily, WILLIAM H, WICKHAM, Mayor, THE GOVERNOR WANTS TOE TESTIMONY. SraTeE OF NEW YORK, EXPCUTIVE CAMBER, ALBANY, heb. 5, 18,5. Hoo. WittiaM H, WickuaM, Mayor of the ciiy of New York :— Sin —I received last evening the certificate and statement in the case of the removal of KE. Dela- ficld Smith a8 counsel to the Corporation, and like Papers in the case of the removal of doseph L. Veriey, Roswell D. Hatch and Cornelius Van Gott a8 Commissioners Hoard of Fire Commissione York." in tie Orst case I huve a newspaver copy of the The cause of their removal is, a8 stated in the | flanly conduct, have been an occasion for scandal, | Second—A very important book of tne records o1 | duty, to 1emuve them ail | of the city of New | cnerges communteated by Your Honor to Mr. | Such, and have received from Mr. Smith a prinredpaper, wate I suppose tebe hi ewer, 1 understood trom you that 8 me r to certain ulegations of Mr en siub- mitted. In performing the dufy im | stacate (chapter 385 of the ; 25), tt is proper, necessary, that I should Lospect all the allegations | of the parties—the proofs, if any, taken—and documents which may Lorow light.on the case. 1 there.ore request that, at your earliest con- venlenee, you will transmit to me the papers alluded to, And any others whicn may have been before you. In the other case T have nothing before me ex- cept the paj knowled; L request a copy ol the muaicated to the Commissioners, of tl apswer, if it was in writing, and, if not, a statement of that tact and of any verbal answer which they may have made, and any other papers which relate Lo the Case, With much respect, 1 have the honor to be, very truly, yours, SAMUEL J. TILDEN. THE MAYOR'S RRFUSAL TO FURNISH THE TESTIMONY, Executive Department, Oiry HatL, New You, Feb. Wa, 1876. To His Exceliency Save. J, ‘TiLpEN, Governor of the State of New York :— Sin—Your letter, dated 5th tust., reached me on the 6th. In it youacknuwiedge receipt of First—My certilicate, dated 3d inst,, of removal ol E. Deladeia Saitn, ., from oMce as Vounsel to the Corporation and Head of the Law Depari- ment of the city oi New York—with the accom- panying communication to you, tn writing, of my reusons for such removal; and of certificate, apers im Suatth tad be sed on me by the always prudent and may olen be "223 COM> Seoond—My also dated 3d inat., of re- moval of ‘Messra. Joseph L. Perley, Roswell D. Haten and Cornelius Van Cott trom office as the Commissiouers heretofore constituting the Board ol Fire Comunissioners of the city of New York— with the accompanying communication to you, in writing, OL my reasons lor such removals. Your letter informs me that, as to the case first menuoned, you have a newspaper copy of the charges commanicated by me to Mr. Smith, and that you have received trom him a printed paper, waich you suppose to be his answer; but that, ag to the second case, you have nothing before you, except the papers received from me. You do not iniorm me 01 the contents of either the newspaper woich you state to be a copy of the charges com- municated by me to Mr. Smith, or the ‘printed paper which you suppose to be his answer; and any answer addressed to me, and while I still heid his cuse under consideration! need make no ooservation here, Your letter proceeds with a request to me to transmit to you all the pers Which may have been belore me in either of the cases, particularly specityiug @ copy of the charges communicated by me to the Fire Commissioners, of their answer if 1t Was in writing, and, if not, a statement ol that fact and O01 apy verbal answer which they may have made, And you mention that that request is so made because of the apprekension that, in you by the statute, “it is proper, always prudeaot aud may Often be necessary, that (you) should in- spect ail the allegations 0! the partres—the proois, i! any, taken—and documenis which may tuiow light on the case.’” I should teel more hesitation in assuming to controvert tha. suggestion were I not quite sure that the apprehension tuus expressed 1s ouly & first impression, and not the result of mature con- sideration Of the provisions of tue statute pre- scribing the duty of the Governor in such cases as shore atarga in my communications to you o! the mst. With regard to those cases I had reached a defi- nite conciusion beiore receipt of your letter; and iy course in reterence to the Officers removed by me was 10 strict conformity to the practice now established by precedents in cases where removals were made by Mayor Havemeyer or Mayor Vance, and were approved gr disapproved by the then Governor. 1 ai informed that the practice was adopted by my predecessors uuder auvice of coun- sel, and that it was assented to by Governor Dix aiter mature Consideration, Simce the receipt of your lewter, and prompted by respect for any suggestions of yours, I have re- viewed tae grounds 01 my Own opinion, and have availed myself of the advice of several of the mem- bers of this Bar, in whose sound judgment, ac- quaintance with affairs and thorough kKuowledge + the Law, you and 1 have beretolore placed re- tance. Jam satisfied that. in what I have done, and by transmission to you of the papers now tn your hands, I have fulfiied my duty in conformity to bota the letier and the spirit of the 1aw. And I | am advised that it is not only not your duty to | cail upon me for apything more than wuat 1 have already furnished you, but that, as Governor of the State, you have no power to require more from me a8 Mayor—no authority to consider any- thing else; that it 18 your privilege to be ex- empted from “be labor and responsibility of ain- vestigating or deciding the questions of fact in such Cases, and that Lhere is ROW DO Other obiiga- tion resting upon you than, upon the papers for- warded to you by me, and without reference to any other communication, to approve, or, in your sound discretion, 10 disapprove the removals made by me upon my own official responsivility for the Causes und reavons stated. ‘Tbis ts said with ail proper deference to your own conclusions us to the requirements of the law; and it 18 stated the advice of eminent | counsel, to me give a8 @ guide ior my own con- | duct, which is here set forth merely as an expla- nation Oo; my OWN Aactivb, and not at all os any- | thing more to you than 1ni0rmation of the grounds nee which I bave assumed the position occupied | by me. j ,, But, an this matter, the Mayor is certainly some- thing more than a commissioner to take testimony | Jor the cousideratton of the Governor. He is in- vested With powers and cuarged with responsibtti- ties Which do not attach to a mere reieree to as- ceriain aud report the facts, with his opinion. ‘The Mayor is the executive head of tne local | | | the admiurstration. He has the power of appoint- | Ment Of te beads of departments and of many | olner olficers, which in some cases 18 exercised the Board of Aldermen. It 18 made hia duty to keep himself iniormed of the doings of the gev- eral departments of the local goverument, and to be vigilant and active in causing the ordinances of the city and laws of the State to be executed and eniorced. For that purpose he may call to- gether for consuitation abd co-operation all heads Ol departments, und, after a “nearing” allowed Lo any head oj department or other person holding ofiice under the city government by appointment, the Mayor may remove him for @ cause, of the existence and sufliciency of which the Mayor is bimeeif, tu the first insiance, the judge, ‘Tue statute containing those provisions is what is known as the ‘City Charter,” und the sectton ba ica that power of rewovasi is in tuese wor “The heads of all departments, including those retatped as above, and ali other persons whose Qppointment is In this section proviced for, may be removed by tne Mayor tor cause ani after op- such removal shall take effect, to the approval of the Governor, expressed tm writing. ‘ihe Mayor Shall, in all cases, communicate to the Governor, in writing, his reasons ior such removal. When- ever @ removal ts 80 effected the Mayor snall, upon the demand of the officer removed, make, in | writing, a public statement of the reasons there- for.’ (Section 25, chapter 335, Laws ot 1873.) Those provisions ure, | am told, all new in the legisiation of this State, and some of them | anomalous. But it is to be observed that the re- moval is to be made, not by the Governor, but by | the Mayor, and taat the partic pauon of the former isnot eyeu by Concurrence m or veto of a pro- ceeding wiuch’ is their joint act, but is merely by Approval or disspprovul oi what bas already been done by the latter, In the cases contemplate? there need be no par- | ties before the Mayor; the statute does not require case of removal by whe Governor of an officer | elected by the people. No accuser is necessary. The cause Of removal may grow out of a inatter | aciually known only to the mayor himself aud to the official concerned, unti! communication to the Governor of the Mayor's reasons Jor the remoyal when it 1s made, And until the Mayor's statement | to tne Governor o: those reasons for what nas been done, tt is not required thai any part of tne pro- ceeuings shouid ve reduced to writing, Verbal | powce may be given of what isregarded by the | Mayor personaliy a8 an ovjection to the oficer or | to his conduct; and what the officer ts thereupon | entitled to 13 @ “hearing,” whieh, as I am advised, may be merely anexpianation or justification orally stated. Tue Mayor has no power to refuse to give the oiicer a “hearing,” or to exact o} bim any statement in writing upon the subject, It is not required that the Mayor shail file, preserve or | Make @ny record or Memorandum of the matter, | OF 0: any prvceedings he may have taken in it, other than by aiterward communicating to the | Governor bts reasons for the removal. | _ With regard to the several cases now awaiting | Your action, my course was not tn all respects the | Same. My own direct communications to sume of the persons removed were verbal. All oi them hau oetore me hearings, in the literal and every | Sense of the word as to some matters, their attempted explanation or defences were oral only (as some Of the expressions in your letter indicate | that yon ve supposed them to have been), | though, as to certain things, they bave severaliy made statements to me in writing, {have made | ho transcript of those verbal communications, and such Writings as have reached me in these matters 1 are regarded as communications mtended ior my own iniormation ouly. Having thus periormed my own functions in the | premises, | am advised (und, in stating that ade | vice, I mast again observe that 1 do so with ult proper deierence to your Own conclusions) that the powers and duty of the Governor are iimitet | to Sporoval OF disapproval of the aot of removel, | of the reasonabieness of the cause assigned by me for tf, and oi the sufficiency of the reasons 1 have staved to show the existence of that cause | aod which | may be reauired to paviish, | In considering the constitutional aspect of the | quesuion 0 provision can ve found winch ears airectly upon it; but, reierring to the debates in | the conventions which framed the constitutions | Of 1821 and 1546, (and im one Of which you were | yourses! @ conspicuous figure), It will be seen that | where power Was there coulerred to remove an oMcer, lor a cuuse required to be published by the autoority empowered to make the removal, it was considered that the respousibiiity to the peopie | would be a suficient guarantee against an im- | proper or unreasonable exercise of that power. It | does not appear to have been contemplated that any review of exercise shouid be had by any other autnority, in the absence Of any Constitutional nrovisions 19, {875.—-TRIPLY SHEL, ply | '$ Of 1873, section | rs, Ule receipt of which is herein ac. | ol the propriety Of submission by him to you of | performing the duty in the premises imposed upon | goverpment of the city, and is accoantabie sor | porvunity to ve beard, subject, nowever, beiore | 2° | that coarges be prelerrea againat a person go re- | movaole by the Mayov, us 18 by law exacted In the | to tne contrary, It IX satd-to-pe a well established principle Of law tual where a paricular dicot uon or power of a judicial nature has been con- lerred by statute upon an officer of goverument, the exereise or that authority wall not be «in any | respect reviewed, but tla: the judgment by such onicer rende: 6d 18 conclusive and fiual, unless ® right ol appeal or review bas been expressly reserved by the law; and Lam advised that, for that precise reason, @nd because cise of the power of removal for cause 18 | of a discretionary or judicial mature ait | has been repeated! fod umiormiy by ty the courts of this State held that a removal for cause, made in the exercise of suci a statutory | Power, is not, in the a@usence of an express pro- | vision of jaw to the contrary, the sudject ol ex- amination or review by the courts, or by any otaer wibunal or authority, in respect etther to the existence or to the suticiency of the cause. It may be remembered ‘that a power of appointment by one, comferred py law in general terms, without restriction .ag to the approval or concurrence of another, and for the purpose ot effecting an object o1 which appointment 1s only & pack, usualy implies an unrestricted power of removal, Tuis new and singular provision of the law of 1873, requiring that @ removal by tie for of BD ofticer appointed af him can take effect only upon the approval of the Governor, in writing ex- |, and alter communication to the Governor Mayor of big reasons for the removal, 1s derogation of the polic: and of the tet res be of the constitation, of the ta: of the decisions of the courrs, as they existed at the time these provisions were enacted; and as be to bavo tne exer: | | GAO WOOle system reste Is, that a removal lo such Cases must be for @ suvstaniial, reasonabie and Just causé, | The Nature [oi tuet nfies 6 » now negessary to dschss, It is aoe i rately argued by you, that the jadgment fo such a case of the officers vested with tne power of , as to the cause anileged, is mot sudject to review by we courts for jthe of reversing that Judgment or reinstatiug the person Tomovede The power, tuoresore, CXL, tO Bive legal effect to Temoval without obeying phe rule whien ke-bind- ing on the conscience of the functionary making it But @ disregard of that rule would be none jens A VIOLATION OF RIGHT AND DUTY, It would be the immoral power to do wrong be- cause the Jaw had not disabled the officer n the discretion, In the case of the Goyerno B Violation, if committed In by a gross abuse implying baa oss Fender him ay f) ‘ rexiies In the case of ti ayor, it would oxpose him to removal in \tue manner provided. by ‘the But inasmuch asin many instances re- ‘Mmovals might be wrong without involving proois leading to such consequences, @ check on the re- moving power has been frequently establish2d by mn suck evident bad raitn or ith, would doupt- iby impeachment, requil the concurrence of some other inde- ndent body or functionary. in many casesthe concurrent action of the Governor and Senate ta required; in others the concurrent action of the Senate and Assembly. fe heen thus explicit in stating my views on this suuject in order to illus- trate the grounds of my dissent from a constrac- (ion of my powers ,and yours, which would prac- tically convert removal for cause inte ‘removal at arbitrary will, These conclusions, the reasons for the Legislature must presul ( izant of that sact and “been to have enacted tae innovation in view of if, I am advised tnat the powers by it con- Jerred and duttes imposed upon the Governor, are to be strictly construed; that the Governor muss approve or disapprove the removal made by the Mayor; that there ils no power anywhere to control or review the exercise of the ‘nor’s discretion in that. respect; that, as @ basis of his tion, he 18 en‘itled to receive trom the Mayor & atement in writing of the reasons which actu- ated the jatter to make the removal, but that itis no part of the Governor's duty to entertain or refer to anything else than that statement, 1am advised that the Governor is not here sit- ting a8 a court of review; tnat he is not here pass- ing upon questions as an + ppellate tribunal; that he must act in every case, whether the officer re- moved Calis upon him to do so.or not; and that it is no part of the Governur’s functions either to investigate the facts further tvan by perusal of them as set forth in the Mayor's statement of Li reasons, or to receive or listen to counsel in behalf | of, OF COMMuUNICAaLiONS Made direct by, the oficer | removed, {am informed that the expression ‘‘reasons” in this connection, is 1tself new in our statute book, | and that it was borrowed tor us from an old law | of Pennsylvanta, where the word ts said to nave | received judicial construction in several well | known Cases, aud that it bas always been by the courts held to indicate (which 1 understand to be the usual acceptation the expression), not the | evidence upon which, or the record of ‘the pro- | ceediugs in which a decision has been reached, | but only the several logical steps themselves or | processes of reasoning by which that decision has been attained, 1am also intormed as @ part of the history of | this section of the city charter, that when, tn 1873, the provision as it now stands was under discus- sion before the committee oO! the Senate it was there objected by a member of the committee that the bill did not require the evideuce and therecord | Of the proceedings before the Mayor to be sent to the Governor, and did not afford the officer re- moved any appeal to the Governor ag to the facts |-o1 the case upon which the Mayor had acted, but thaiit was then replied that it was not the inten- Uon to impose upon the Governor the ‘burden of investivation of the facts in such cases or to give him the power of requiring trom the Mayor or of entertaining anything more than o summary statement in writing of the Mayor's own reasons for Sue removal. And so the bill became a taw. 1 have not discussed ‘the propriety of restriction of the power of tue Governor tn lnoterventiun, in these cases, to at least the mits by this provis- jou of the law assigned to it. Nor have I thougat it nec: to suggest how unreasonable it would have been to accord to every subordinate | officer o1 the city government two trials (first by the Mayor and again by the Governor) upon we merits beiore his removal from oMce could be effected—while the Mayor himself is entitied to bat one trial 10 the case of charges preferred look- ing to his own removal by the Governor. | nd | have gone into ihe discussion, even so far as I have, with the sole object of explaining to you the advice aud opimions which ba\e weighed wita me in adopting the course I bave myself taken, and of suggesting to your own mind considera- tlons Which may Dot Nave occurred to you in writ- i ing your letter o/ the St» inst, ave no desire jor controversy or to tax you With @ continued discussion; having said go much, L have said ail that 1 intend to say. 1. 1s bow jor you to determine upon your own course, suvject to your own sense of oficial! duty and of executive responsibility to tne people, whose Governor you are. 1 do not doubt what that dctermination must be, and | have no appre- hegsions that you and | will ever be found in ap- tagonism. As 1 am reminded by the reference in your letter | to information received from me, and not con- | tuined in my oficial communicat.ons of the 3d inst, | have in conversation conferred ireely with |. you concerping these cases, and the reimovais | nade were partiy in delerence to your own views | with regard to the occasion for them, € a es which are now explained, have ‘ween stated to you on several recent occasions. APPROVAL BY THK, GOVERNOR, The charter of the city of New York provides that the removal of the heads of departments ch e Mayor shail be for cause, aflor oppor- tunity to be hear mh: removal shall and sudject, however, before take effect, to the approval of ‘the Governor, expressed in writing, Tne Mayor shall in all cases communicate to the Governor, in writing, bis reasons for such removal. It also prescribes that after the removal bas been effected the Mayor shall, on the demand of the oiticial, removed make in writing a public state- ment of the reasons therefor, 0 lar as the pow- ers and duties of the Governor are concerned, nu- man lapguage cannot well be more simpie or lain. lt 1s the act of removal which is to be judged of by the Governor, ‘That act is to be “ap. roved” or “not approved.” ‘The approval is 40 be expressed ‘in writivg.’” @ Mayor ia to contribute whatever means of forming @ judgment by the Governor may be co lained in hi reasons,” expressed Writing.” But there is pbotone word limiting in any manner the Governor’s means or methad of arriving at @ conclusion whether or not he ought to approve & particuiar removal. He is free to in- form himself anda to Judge as when he writes “approved” on @ bill sent him by the Benate and Assemoly, That bis duty 1s to collect from some source the materials tor a judgment, #O that waere he writes “approved” it may be the truth and not @ falsehood is quite clear. Tne theory, which is supported by tne long and elabo- rate argumentation of Four letter, is that in. form- ing his judgment the Governor is limited to such iniormation as the Mayor may choose to ere hin; that be is shut out from all other knowledge; that he must take every statement of fact made to him by the Mayor as established and indisputable truth; that nis own function is confined to the marrow act of deciding whether the thing assuming all the alleged facts 5 & sufficient cause of removal. The Governor, it 1 understand this doctrine aright, is‘acheck upon the || rocesses of the Mayer, aud upon’ nothing else. 1t would ree sult, then, that if the Mayor alleged a fact which the ‘Governor happened to personally know to be untrue—as, for instance, that an officer committetl an act known to be done in the city of New York atatime when that oficer was before the: Gover. ‘nor in the Executive Chamber at Albany—it would ‘be the duty of the Governor, if the act alleged would have been suMicient cause of removal, to certily his approval of the removal, which he did not in fact approve, and when he knew the ac- cused to be Wholly innoceat. It may often happen that accusatory alieyations are so compounded of fact and tnierence that no analysis can separate the elements without extrancous gid, THE PRECEDENTS. But it ts sala that this novel theory, which ‘has no support in law, reason and common sense, and ig coniuted by the words oi the statute of which it is @ construction, 18 establishea by a precedent set by Mayors Havemeyer and Vance and by Gov- ernor Dix. You state that the procedure which you insist on is a practice now estabilshed by. preequent; that thé practice was adopted by your predecessors under advice of counsel and assented to by Governor Dix alter mature consid. eration, My recoliection ol the case to which you ailude—the removal of Messrs, Bowea an¢ Stern as Commissioners of Chartties—dtd no! accord with your views. have ceived jrom New York papers. those Papers, suMcient to determine their effect as a precedent, Goveroor Ux initiated the charges in a letter to Mayor Havemeyer, dated November 27, 1874. ‘In that-leiter he stated tnat he had ascer- tained the facts in regara to tne treatment of Tweed, which were alleged as tho cause of re- moval. He then said that the facts so alleged were disgraceiul to the State, a criminal violation of duty on the part of those who have granted the inuduigences reierred to, in utter contempt of the law and the de- termination of jumes and courts, and can- not {ail to bring lasting discred.t on ail Our relations are such, and for a long time have been, that misunderstandings are not likely Lo occur between us, But | conceive at to be my | duty to protect the dignity and the rights of my successors tn office against encroachments which )might well be made upon them by tuture Gouv- ernors were I now. by assenting 40 the request of your letter, to submit to what 4 Cannot but regard 4s @ dangerous innovation upon what has become the established practice in this matter of the | very important power of removals by the Mayor Of tS BubOruinates in toe loval government. your aciiou; and, meantime, the interests of good | government in the eivy of New York suffer aetri- | ment. If you suppose that I have acted in either of those'cases capriciously, or if you are of tie oprnion that the cause of removal stated by me is frivoluus or ‘unreasonable, or that tue reasons Ihave communicated to you for the step I have taken are inadequate, of Course you will, in the | exercise of your own sound judgment, disapprove Ot the removal, and so render 1t operative. but ) Lf, recognizing the fact that | nave been elected by | the people of this city to be their local Cnicf | Magistraie, aud have vecome accountable to them | foranemMecient administration of ther local gov- | ernment, you appreciate my official responsibility | for the accuracy of my findings of facts, and tor | the soundness of my conclusions us to the nature of the canses and the adequacy of the reasons for | | the removals, J shail consider myse.f entitied to a | prompt expression ol your approval of wuatl Lave ne. | Lhe responsibility for whatever depends upon these removals ts now Pee and 1 am sure that you will meet it, and all just expectations, in a | Manner to satisly all good citizens, Wita great respect, your ob dient servant, WILLIAM H. WICKHAM, THE GOVERNOG'S REPLY. DIATE OF NEW YORK, EXECUTIVE CHAMBER, ALBANY, Feb, 17, 1875. | To the Hon, WILLIAM U, Wicki#AM, Mayor of the city of New York :— | Sm—Your messenger delivered to me the papers | In tne removal cases at my house at about six o'clock in the evening Of Februsry 4, As he io- formed me he stouid return by tie 2:40 tram of the next afternoon I told himif he would call | at the Executive Chamber at twelve M. the an- | swer would be ready. Meantime I looked over the papers and saw that other ipformation might probably be necessary, and at the time appointed gave him my etter of Feoruary 5. On the Lita inst. I rece ved a com- munication irom you setting up the novei theory { therein contained as to my duties, Desiring to reply to it at as curly a aay as my Current oficial | engagements would allow, and was consistent With the necessity o! my sending to New York for some papers invoived in the discussion, which were yesterday received, 1 will now state my | conciusion: | The questions are two;—First, the nature of the Temoval Jor cause us tt exists under the constitu. | Uo0R and Jaws Of this State, Secoud, the nature of the duty Of the Goveraor tn giving or withholding | bis approval of a removal under section 35 of Chapier 335 of the Laws of 1873. CAUSES OF REMOVAL. Removals for cause are distinguishable from re- | Movals which are in the arbitrary Will of the of- | ficer vested with tue powers and which have eraliy followed the —— of removing pow Of party ascendency,. he system Was aevised tn | the Convention of 1821 by Daniel D, Tom, kins, | Kutus King and otners, the foremost statesmen of the mes, spectilly ior the case Of sherits and | Was applied also to county clerks. The consutu- | trom of 1846 extended if to aistrict attorneys and coroners, It bas been applied by constitutional provision and by stacute to many Other cases. Its Original object, doubuess, Was to reconcile the | Decessary accountability to the State with a dis- ton of the appoin\ ing power to the localities, | dentally it gave the minority @ representation In public trusts and exempted the miss of tmpor- tant local olives trom the change of their incum- bents before the expiration of their terms on every fuciuation of party majority in the State, ‘he Council of Av portionment under the coustitus | tion Of 1777, consistung of the Governor and tour | | Senators, had the appointment and removal at will of nearly all the local officers in the State, | numbering nearly 15,000, when our population | Was but one-thirg of its present magnitude, This | couoct became & public opprobrium aud waa aboiisied by universal consent, Today the 180 sherifs, county clerks and district attorneys within the State, and at least 250 other officers, | Are removable by the Governor, subject to no re- | Btrictions, but ‘giving to such officer @ copy of the Charges against him and an opportunity of Detng heard in tis derence, For hn a | years this system has operated successfully in this State. These important oficers have eit safe in the periormance of their duties and in the tenure Ol their offices, When the power of remov' io the bands of a political adversary whom they were waging an active political war- | Jure they have been tree to exercise #8 tully a8 other citizens their rights im ali party con- troversics, The rule which binds the con. science of the Governor in the exercise of ths vast power has veen hitherto respected. 40 NOt intend to imp: its anthority, or in any | other respect to lower ure standard of omc The cases reierred to im my Communications of | With, and in otuers without, the concurrence of | the 3d inst. have now been tor @ weck awaiting | by whose official inierposition this abuse may be permitted. On the 18tn of November Mayor Have- lueyer addressed a letver to Mr. Bowen, the Prest- dent 0. the Commission, containing the substance of Governor Dix’s communication; but it does not appear whether the letter was ever delivered. On the sd of December Mayor Vance sent ® note to the Commussioners with @ copy of Governor Dix's letter. Mayor Vance’s note contained no indepen- dent charge. It simply offered the Commissioners an opportunity to be heard on the charges con tained in tie letter of Governor Dix and expressed Une opinion that the matter stated therein, it true in tact, was suilicient for their removal from office, The deiences of Messrs. Lowen and Stern were forwarded to Governor Dix with the charges, Such 18 the precedent which you cite as authority Jor the 4heory that the Governor can Jawiully ob- tain and can lawtully consider no iacts except such as are communicated py the Mayor. very one of the facts contuined in the cnarges of Mayor Vance originated with Goveruer Dix, and were asvertained by him to exist, Equally bad is the precedent in respect to Withholding the answer of the accused parties, which J request. Those answers were sent to Governor Dix a8 @ matter of course, and were beiore bim when ne acted. His approval may, indeed, in One sense, have been o& Mere jorw. He had found the facts on his own iniormation, acquired in bis own way, and under his devuctions from them, that | they were sufficient cause for removal belore the Mayor had touched the subject. Thereiore, it ap- pears that the case Waich you cite is in direct con- tradiction and condemnation of your tucory and my duties. PROCEDURE. You are quite correct in saying that the Mayor is something more than a Commissioner to take testimony for the consideration of the Governor. He is, doubtless, an independent power whose Cc nourrence 16 neccasary to effect a removal. He ia no more, The Governor appoints with the consent of the Senate in certain lustances and on the recommendation of the Governor the Senate re- moves. it makes no difference. In the one case the act is nominally that of the Governor, and in the other of the senate. In both cases the act ts ineffectual antil it has received the concurrence of each authority. jn removals by the Mayor it ts expre-sly provided by the law that the act shall not take effect until approved by the Governor; tll then it is inchoate und inoperative. In removals by the Sen- ale and Assembly either House may originate them. There may be two investigations, and under the exisung practice the tavestigations amount almost to two trials. In removals by the Governor and Senate tue initiative is by the Gov- ernor, and there may be two investigations. So Jar as 1 have ovserved the practice is tor the func- onary Who initiates a proceeding for a removal to communicate to (he body which must concur in ihe act all the information he possesses. That ts What my predecessors have jdune, toat is what I should do, a8 a matter of course. It 18 my opin- jon that the functionary who iuitiates a removal in such @ Case should take care that ail important acts and proofs are in writing and of record. L dv not now discuss the question whether tne rea- sobs which the law requnes to be communicated Includes the material acts and the proois of their existence, the contession of the accused pert, nis denial, bis excuse or justification, It is quite clear that every cunsideration of justice and of public policy favors the more en- Jarged and liberal consiruction of the obigation to present all intormation tenalng to elicit the truth, Even where the duty of tmiuating the pro- ceedings lor removal is not imposed by law upon One o1 the functionaries or bodies, who must cun- cur in the act, and where their relations are of Indepenaent and equal power, comity is exercised between them, and the request of one for informa. tion or evidence in the possession of anotner 18 always respected, In seeking jor the in- formation necessary for me to discharge the duly imposed upon me by statute, courtesy to you requires that hould first apply to you for such facta as were in your possession, and I re. gret that your novons of octal dignity and duty Ovlige you to withhold from me the most #atisiac- tory evidence upon the subject in respect to which Iam called upon to act, In expressing my opinions 1 desire to abstain from all criucism of: yours, 1 certainly do not wish to de- tract from the dignity, irom the great trust I bold, to encroach upon 18 just powers, or to cOnsiTuc precedents, especially where precedents have ho binding force. To do what is according to law and right in each single case is all iseek, You must do what you tiink Is proper to protect your oflice and yoursell, If your view ot duty operates to embarrass and delay my action, I shall, nevertheiess, as soon ay tne cur- rent oMfcial basiness, which gives me abundant occupa ion, allows the leisure, take up the cased for mdependent consideration. THE GOVERNOK'S DECISION, My decision is that the Governor ts not limited by law to the consideration of such facts as ma: be communicated to him py the Mayor, but tnat, on the contrary, it is bis right and bis duty to ac- cept, ) W needed, to seek all iniormation necessary to enable him to decide whether he | ought to give or withhold his approvai of an act | of removal initiated by the Mayor under the law which detings tueir respective powers and obiiga- LT have the honor Lo be, with great respect, your honor or puoli¢ morauty, The princiole on which tions in such cases. T obedient servant, SAMUEL J. TILDEN,