580 



NEW YORK (STATE). 



in that district, and the power of the Senate to 

 commit for contempt was sustained. The As- 

 sembly special committee made a searching in- 

 vestigation, and submitted a report on the 14th 

 of March. Abuses were discovered in the 

 offices of the county clerk, register, surrogate, 

 and sheriff in the collection and retention of 

 unlawful and extravagant fees. Several bills 

 were submitted for the reform of these abuses. 

 Two of these affected the couuty clerk's office. 

 One provided for a salary of $15,000 a year 

 for that official after the expiration of the term 

 of the existing incumbent, and required all fees 

 to be strictly accounted for, and turned into 

 the treasury of the city. The other required 

 estimates to be submitted to the Board of Ap- 

 portionment for the expenses of the office, for 

 the employment of clerks, etc., and allowances 

 to be made by the board as in the case of other 

 municipal departments. One bill was submit- 

 ted affecting the register's office. It provided 

 for a salary of $12,000 a year, and required all 

 fees to be accounted for, and the appointment 

 and compensation of clerks and subordinates 

 was made subject to the approval of the Board 

 of Estimate and Apportionment. Another bill 

 was intended to prevent the exaction in the 

 surrogate's office of fees not authorized by law, 

 and the employment there of persons not 

 legally connected with the office; and took 

 from the Board of Aldermen all control over 

 the employment and compensation of subor- 

 dinates. The latter was provided for as in 

 other cases, the surrogate submitting estimates 

 for the expenses of his office to the Board of 

 Estimate and Apportionment. It was not 

 deemed expedient to supersede the fee system 

 in the sheriff's office, but the power to make 

 allowances for service in conveying and car- 

 ing for prisoners, in which extravagant over- 

 charges had been discovered, was taken from 

 the Board of Aldermen, and lodged in the 

 Board of Estimate and Apportionment. A bill 

 was also submitted abolishing imprisonment 

 for debt, except in certain specified cases, and 

 another repealing the act that permitted the 

 transfer of prisoners from the city prison to 

 the charge of the sheriff in the connty jail. 

 The special committee continued its investiga- 

 tion by the permission of the Assembly, and 

 made a supplementary report on the Police 

 Department on the 15th of May, too late in 

 the season for any practical action. Much 

 evidence of abuse in the appointment of mem- 

 bers to the force, and of inefficiency, especially 

 in the suppression of gambling, was found, and 

 the committee recommended the substitution 

 of a single police commissioner for the existing 

 four-headed commission. In closing the report 

 the committee said : 



In handing in this, our last report, we feel obliged 

 to sav that, judging from information received by 

 us, there are several other departments in the city 

 government (notably the Board of Excise, the Comp- 

 troller's office, and the Department of Docks) which 

 stand in need of a thorough overhauling. And as a 

 result of our observations of the general workings of 



municipal politics, we would urge that several changes 

 be made in the charter of the city ; in especial, that 

 the municipal election be held in the spring, that the 

 mayor's term be made to last for three years, that all 

 departments be made single-headed, and that all 

 appointees of the mayor go out of office with him. 



lets affecting Municipal Administration. Legisla- 

 tion for the reform of the municipal adminis- 

 tration of the city of New York had been ini- 

 tiated before the report of the Assembly com- 

 mittee was submitted. Mr. Eoosevelt had in- 

 troduced a bill abolishing the power of the 

 Board of Aldermen to confirm the appoint- 

 ments of the mayor, leaving the latter untram- 

 meled in his choice of heads of departments 

 and other officers, of whom the appointment 

 was by law placed in his hands. This was to 

 go into effect with the year 1885. A public 

 meeting was held in New York, and a com- 

 mittee of fifty -three citizens was appointed to 

 promote this and other measures of municipal 

 reform. The bill passed the Assembly Febru- 

 ary 20 by a vote of 70 to 51, twelve of the 

 affirmative votes being cast by Democrats, and 

 seven of the negative votes by Republicans. It 

 passed the Senate March 5 by a vote of 24 to 

 7, five of the affirmative and all the negative 

 votes being cast by Democrats. In signing the 

 bill, on the 17th of March, the Governor filed a 

 memorandum answering the objections that 

 had been urged before him, and giving his un- 

 qualified approval of the principle involved. 



The power of removal was in no way modi- 

 fied, and a bill giving to the Mayor of Brook- 

 lyn the power to remove his own appointee* 

 at pleasure was defeated. A bill was intro- 

 duced in the Senate by Mr. Gibbs, providing 

 that the terms of such officers as were to be 

 appointed by the Mayor of New York before 

 the close of his term of office, should end on the 

 1st of February, 1885, so that their successors 

 might be selected by the newly elected mayor, 

 under the law freeing him from the necessity 

 of securing the approval of the Board of Alder- 

 men. In the Assembly an amendment was 

 adopted, providing that such successors should 

 go out of office with the mayor appointing them, 

 but neglecting to make permanent provision 

 for the tenure of those holding the offices to 

 be affected, while retaining in force the gen- 

 eral provisions of existing law on the subject. 

 This act as amended passed both houses near 

 the end of the session, but, when considered 

 by the Governor after the adjournment, failed 

 to receive his approval. In giving his objec- 

 tions he said : 



One of these defects is that it actually makes no 

 provision in the tenure of office act for the appoint- 

 ment of any officer or head of departments after the 

 immediate successors to those in office. The bill, as 

 it stands now, fixes and regulates the terms of offici 

 of only such officers as shall be appointed during the 

 remainder of the term of the present mayor. Under 

 it the next mayor can only appoint successors to such 

 officers as shall be appointed by the present mayor 

 during the remainder of his term. The present mayor 

 could defeat the evident intention of the bill by allow- 

 ing the present incumbents to hold over till the ex- 

 piration of his term. I say could, I do not suppose 



