The Mayor Fired Him; He Says the Charter Says Otherwise
Ex-Police Commissioner E. C. Cheasty asks a judge to overturn Mayor Phelps’s removal, arguing City Hall ignored the charter and punished him for a political vote.
The story, cleaned up
A cleaned-up reading of the newspaper page: spelling and layout repaired, one story lifted off a crowded page. It follows the original closely but it is not a transcription. The original page is below; read it if a detail matters.
Ex-Police Commissioner E. C. Cheasty has gone into court to test the legality of his removal by Mayor Phelps. Judge Langley yesterday made an order against Mayor Phelps and City Clerk E. F. Stewart for a writ of certiorari, returnable at 1:30 p.m. Friday.
The order was made on an affidavit filed yesterday by E. C. Cheasty, in which he sets forth that he was appointed police commissioner March 30, 1892, and confirmed by the house of delegates April 4, 1892; that on September 6, 1894, Mayor Phelps “assumed to remove” him by sending him a letter and filing with City Clerk Stewart the findings and charges published in the Post-Intelligencer at the time.
Cheasty alleges that Mayor Phelps acted judicially without proper jurisdiction over the deponent, and that no matter was pending before him; that no charges had ever been preferred against him, nor had any investigation been held; that no action had yet been taken by anyone looking toward removal; that by virtue of the charter the mayor has no power to remove any appointed officer unless for cause; that no cause existed, nor had he received any notice of any cause existing other than the notice served on him by the mayor.
Cheasty cites section 10, article VII, of the city charter, which provides that “the police commission shall appoint the chief of police and all subordinate police officers and regular and special policemen, etc., and may from time to time remove the chief of police or any of such regular or special policemen, etc., for such cause as to them shall seem just and proper.” He believes and is satisfied that the sole reason the mayor had for removing him was that he had exercised his privilege in voting for the nomination of Rogers. Cheasty further alleges that by reason of his removal his reputation has been injured, and that he has no remedy by appeal or otherwise save the writ of certiorari for which he prays.
“By virtue of the charter the mayor has no power to remove any appointed officer unless for cause.”
A police commissioner removed by the mayor, then fighting in court over whether the charter allowed it, reads like a modern police-oversight dispute with older language. Cheasty’s argument turned on whether removal power belonged to the mayor or the police commission—a question of political control that still shapes city government. The writ of certiorari was his only remaining route.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.