The indictment of Mayor Adams seems like a quintessentially five borough story, but Hizzoner’s political fate could be decided in the hinterlands upstate. That’s because New York City’s charter ordains that “the mayor may be removed from office by the governor upon charges and after service upon him of a copy of the charges and an opportunity to be heard in his defense.” No trial, let alone a conviction, would be required. 

Let us just say that we’re against it. We understand that there are calls for Governor Hochul to “consider removing” Mr. Adams, as a city council member, Lincoln Restler, suggests, “if he fails to take the responsible course of action by resigning.” Better for Mrs. Hochul to stay her hand. Mr. Adams asserts his innocence and his intention to fight the charges. The record of federal prosecutors pursuing state officials is riddled with overreach and acquittals. 

We appreciate that the charges against Mr. Adams are serious. Prosecutors allege bribery and fraud, mostly relating to quae pro quibus with Turkey. The G-men assert that Mr. Adams “sought and accepted improper valuable benefits” and point to “corrupt relationships.” By our lights, though, to depose the duly elected mayor on the basis of allegations is to trample the presumption of innocence. And to ignore the hard put-upon voters.

The last time a governor was called upon to sack a mayor of New York City, in 2019, Andrew Cuomo was presiding at Albany while a feckless Bill de Blasio had his eye on the White House. When a blackout struck, Hizzoner was giving a stump speech in the corn fields of Iowa, sparking calls for Mr. Cuomo to oust the absentee Mayor. “I’m not prepared to do that,” the governor said, conceding, though, that he understood the aggrieved New Yorkers’ concerns.

A more serious challenge arose in 1932 under the scandal-tinged mayoralty of Jimmy “Beau James” Walker, a product of the Democrats’ Tammany Hall machine. “Dapper and urbane,” Walker was “the symbol of New York’s sophistication, of the speakeasy era, of night-club tan, of free-and-easy political philosophy,” as the Times put it. Yet he ran afoul of a legislative investigation that uncovered allegations of serious corruption.

The charges led to removal proceedings in 1932 under Governor Franklin Roosevelt. “The power of removal is an executive power,” Roosevelt rumbled, “and in this State it has been vested in the Governor.” He pointed to the precedent of Governor Hughes removing the Manhattan borough president. Walker resigned, and fled to Europe “in disgrace,” Time said, “unwilling to face out removal charges.”

Were Mr. Adams cashiered, the public advocate, Jumaane Williams, would become the 111th mayor. Columnist Liz Peek has warned in our pages that Mr. Williams is an “anti-cop Democratic socialist who is a big fan of Bernie Sanders and who describes himself on social media as an ‘Activist elected official fighting for justice & equity.’” He also is a fierce foe of Israel, and would drag the city even farther to the left. He couldn’t have won the mayoralty.

Mr. Adams’s troubles could even open the way for — gaw — a Republican. LaGuardia, who followed Walker, was a Republican. Mr. Adams himself beat the Guardian Angel Curtis Sliwa handily three years ago, but the time could be ripe for a challenger to make a more robust bid. Such a run might find traction with a focus on the issues that matter to New Yorkers. Crime, education, the migrant issues.  All that abides as Mr. Adams readies his defense.

Which brings us back to Mrs. Hochul — herself a beneficiary of the resignation of, in Governor Andrew Cuomo, a scandal-tinged predecessor. Her office will say only that she is “aware of these concerning news reports and is monitoring the situation.” Could she ever simply announce a stand on principle, that every person charged in America with serious crimes is guaranteed constitutional due process and a fair trial with a jury. Does she trust New Yorkers?