Seattle's Mayor Overreached: Judge Langley Voids the Police Commission Firings
The mayor's summary removal of Police Commissioners Niggle and Cheasty was null and void, the court ruled, leaving Chief Rogers in charge and the city's police leadership in limbo.
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.
In the certiorari case of Police Commissioners Niggle and Cheasty against Mayor Phelps, Judge Langley held that the mayor's attempt at summary removal of the commissioners was without authority of law, and his proceedings were null and void. The mayor's return showed only two papers signed by himself. The real issue was whether the mayor had jurisdiction to proceed in the manner stated. If his power of removal were discretionary, his return would be a complete defense; but his subsequent ex parte adjudication of charges suggested he doubted that power and gave his action the form of a judgment of ouster. The judge found no force in the supposed investigation. Relator Cheasty was an officer of the city, appointed and qualified for a four-year term from February 27, 1891. By the charter the mayor could remove appointed officers 'for cause.' The phrase 'for cause' means a reason personal to the individual that law and sound public opinion recognize as good cause, and the power can be exerted only for cause after an opportunity to defend. Authorities were uniform that where one officer may remove another 'for cause,' the power can only be exercised on notice, charges, hearing and final determination. The proceeding is judicial in character. The mayor's attempt at summary removal was therefore without authority of law and absolutely null and void, and the proceedings were quashed. The mayor could appeal to the supreme court, or file charges and after a hearing remove the commissioners if the charges were sustained. Mayor Phelps said he would either take the case at once to the supreme court or comply with the decision as to the form of removing the commissioners. Corporation Counsel Scott said the two commissioners were entitled to their seats; as to Rogers, he was chief de facto because no other person had qualified as chief; Capt. Hogle had not filed a bond or taken oath, so he was not chief. Cheasty said he presumed the mayor would call the commission together and take up business where it was left off. Chief Rogers said, 'I am still in charge of the police department.'
“The mayor's attempt at summary removal... was without authority of law and the proceedings had by him in that behalf are absolutely null and void.”
The case reads like a Gilded Age version of the checks-and-balances fights that still flare when mayors try to fire officials without due process. It also shows how a single court ruling can leave a city's chain of command—and public confidence—unsettled.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.