(dissenting).
The Court today strikes down as violative of the Constitution of Pennsylvania the recall provisions of Phila*57delphia’s Home Rule Charter. As an alternative ground of decision, three members of the Court would hold that the court of common pleas erred in directing that the Board of Election of Philadelphia [hereinafter “the Board”] should accept for filing the recall petition tendered to it by the “Citizen’s Committee to Recall Rizzo” [hereinafter “The Citizen’s Committee”] relative to the incumbent mayor of Philadelphia, the Hon. Frank L. Rizzo, and should place the recall question before the electors at the next regular election (November, 1976). Being convinced that both of these conclusions are erroneous, I must respectfully dissent.
I
The first and basic question is that of constitutionality, for if the recall provision were indeed invalid on this score, there would be no need to consider the other challenges to the correctness of the action of the court of common pleas.
In its approach to this question, the initial premises of the opinion announcing the decision of the Court1 are correct, but they are overlooked in the final conclusion that is reached. Mr. Chief Justice JONES acknowledges that the Home Rule Charter of Philadelphia has the force and status of a legislative enactment, and that its constitutionality is to be judged in this light.2 He also *58accepts the well established principle that statutes are presumed to be constitutional and are not to be declared unconstitutional unless “clearly, palpably and plainly” violative of our fundamental law. Singer v. Sheppard, 464 Pa. 387, 393, 346 A.2d 897, 900 (1975); Daly v. Hemphill, 411 Pa. 263, 271, 191 A.2d 835, 840 (1963). The Court, however, construes Article VI, Sec. 7 of the Constitution of Pennsylvania to prohibit removal of any elected civil officer except for cause. This, in my judgment, is a distortion of the constitutional provision.
Section 7 of Article VI stipulates that civil officers hold office on condition that they “behave themselves well while in office” and provides that, if they should be convicted “of misbehavior in office or of any infamous crime,” they shall be removed. With respect to civil officers who are elected,3 Section 7 provides that removal shall be by the Governor “for reasonable cause”, on the address of two-thirds of the Senate.4 This section is not, *59however, a guarantee that officers may be removed only in the case of a conviction or pursuant to the Senatorial address procedure; it merely makes mandatory that they shall be removed in either of those eventualities. The idea that conviction of an office-holder of a crime by a court or of some other misbehavior by the Senate, is a sine qua non of removal is nowhere to be found in the Constitution; rather it is altogether a creation of the majority of the Court in this case.
It is to be kept in mind, and the majority does not dispute, that the office of mayor is not a constitutional position;5 it exists only by virtue of legislative action, and in the case of Philadelphia, is created by the Home Rule Charter, Section 1-102. At least since 1927,6 the Court has repeatedly held that an officer whose office is created by the legislature may be removed as the legislature may provide. Weiss v. Ziegler, 327 Pa. 100, 193 A. 642 (1937); Commonwealth v. Beattie, 364 Pa. 572, 73 *60A.2d 664 (1950); Milford Township Supervisors’ Removal, 291 Pa. 46, 189 A. 628 (1927). In Milford Township the Court squarely ruled that “although article VI, section 4 [of the Constitution; now Art. VI, Sec. 7] is not limited to what are frequently termed constitutional officers, it is not applicable where the legislature, having the right to fix the length of a term of office, has made it determinable by judicial proceedings, on other contingencies than the mere passage of time.” 291 Pa. at 52, 139 A. at 625. At another point the Court held that “if a fair construction of the statute, providing for [the election of public officers], results in the conclusion that, under it, they were only intended to be conditionally elected for a specified term, that effect must be given to the legislative intent, notwithstanding the provisions of article VI, section 4 [now Sec. 7] . .” Ibid, at 50, 139 A. at 624 (my emphasis).7 In Marshall Impeachment Case, 360 Pa. 304, 62 A.2d 30 (1948) a case involving the Receiver of Taxes of Philadelphia,8 the Court held that the office involved was not a constitutional one, and the incumbent was subject to the removal procedures of the statutes creating the office, viz., impeachment by City Council. Adhering to what had been held in Milford Township, supra, the Court declared that “if an office is the creature of the Legislature, the latter can establish a method for the incumbent’s removal.” 360 Pa. at 310, 62 *61A.2d at 33.9 See also Commonwealth ex rel. Kelly v. Sanderson, 11 Pa.County Ct. 593 (C.P.Lack.1891).
The law on this subject was succinctly summarized by Mr. Justice (later Chief Justice) Charles Alvin Jones, writing for the Court, in Watson v. Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission, 386 Pa. 117, 125 A.2d 354 (1956):
“It is therefore established in this State beyond respectable controversy that, where the legislature creates a public office, it may impose such terms and limitations with reference to the tenure or removal of an incumbent as it sees fit. There is nothing in the Constitution prohibiting such action while, on the other hand, Article XII, Section 1 [of the Constitution], expressly admits of it.” 386 Pa. at 123, 125 A.2d at 356.10
While not purporting to overrule Milford Township, supra, and its progeny, the opinion announcing the decision of the Court attempts to explain away these cases by stating that although they allow different methods of removal from those prescribed by the Constitution, “the method chosen must always be premised upon cause” and that this cause must be established “after notice and hearing” and be sufficient to permit removal under the Constitution (opinion of the Chief Justice, ante at 245). The cases simply do not say this; the Chief Justice has chosen to read such requirements into them.
In separate concurring opinions, Mr. Justice O’BRIEN and Mr. Justice NIX hold recall unconstitutional on grounds which go beyond those of the opinion announc*62ing the decision of the Court. Mr. Justice O’BRIEN would hold that any removal procedure relating to civil officers not specifically mentioned in the Constitution is prohibited. He bases this conclusion on his belief (1) that Art. VI, Sections 6 and 7 specifically enumerate the exclusive reasons and methods for removal of all civil officers, and (2) that for purposes of removal there is no distinction between constitutional and non-constitutional officials.10a Mr. Justice NIX would hold that clause 3 of Art. VI, Sec. 7 is the exclusive method, other than impeachment, of removing all elected civil officers, whether or not the office is provided for in the Constitution. Thus both concurring opinions would flatly overrule this Court’s holdings in Milford Toivnship, supra, and Marshall Impeachment Case, 360 Pa. 304, 62 A.2d 30 (1948). Not even the appellants in this case argued for a result so drastic. I can find no justification for either reading of the Constitution. Not only would both opinions overrule long-established precedent holding to the contrary, but both Justices construe the relevant provisions of the Constitution in a fashion which, in my view, is overly restrictive and unwarranted.
There is nothing in the language or scheme of Art. VI, Sec. 6 (impeachment) or Art. VI, Sec. 7 (address) which in any way indicates that the modes of removal specified are exclusive of all others.10b Nor do the concurring *63opinions point to anything in the relevant provisions which require the conclusion of exclusivity. While I agree that the language of Art. VI, Sections 6 and 7 (excluding Art. VI, Section 7, clause 2) is mandatory, I fail to see how this factor leads inexorably to the conclusion that the methods of removal provided for are exclusive. Art. VI, Section 6 merely states that in the event a civil officer misbehaves while in office he “shall be liable to impeachment. . . . ” This clearly does not mean that a civil officer may be removed only by impeachment. Similarly, clause 3 of Art. VI, Sec. 7 provides that with respect to civil officers who are elected, removal shall be by the Governor “for reasonable cause” on the address of two-thirds of the Senate. Once again, as discussed supra, there is nothing in this section which states that officers may be removed only pursuant to the Senatorial address procedure.
If, as I believe, there is nothing in the Constitution which states that the specified modes of removal are exclusive, then the argument of the concurring Justices that the general provisions of Art. VI, Sec. 1 10c must give way to the specific provisions of Art. VI, Sections 6 and 7, is inapplicable. The rule that specific provisions prevail over inconsistent general provisions applies only when two sections of the same instrument are in conflict. Since Art. VI, Sections 6 and 7 are not exclusive, however, it is clear that these provisions in no way conflict with Art. VI, Sec. 1 as interpreted in Milford Township, supra.10d
*64For my part, I cannot square today’s holding with what until today has been the law: “Where the legislature [here the people of Philadelphia through the adoption of the Home Rule Charter] creates a public office, it may impose such terms and limitations with reference to the tenure or removal of an incumbent as it sees fit.” Watson v. Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission, supra, 386 Pa. at 123, 125 A.2d at 360.11
Enough has been said to demonstrate that the Court, while paying lip-service to the rule that a legislative enactment must be upheld unless it “clearly, palpably and plainly” violates the Constitution, nevertheless disregards that admonition in striking down the recall provisions of Philadelphia’s charter. Thus discussion of the constitutional challenge might well end at this point. But more, I think, should be said. For one of the reasons that the Court has, as I think gone astray in the decision of this case is its total obliviousness to the history and purpose of Philadelphia’s home rule charter and of the recall provision which is a part of it. A brief recital of these factors of history and purpose may serve to point up the wrongness of the Court’s approach to the constitutional question, discussed above, and also its ap*65proach to the specific rulings of the trial court on the challenges to the sufficiency of the recall petition, discussed below in part IV of this opinion.12
II
The touchstone for consideration of the constitutionality and legal effect of the Charter is Article I, Section 2 of the Pennsylvania Constitution:
“All power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority and instituted for their peace, safety and happiness. For the advancement of these ends they have at all times an inalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think proper.”
In 1922, the people of Pennsylvania amended the Constitution to provide for adoption by a city of a home rule charter whereby it could exercise the powers and authority of local self-government. Art. 15, Sec. I.13 This constitutional right to home rule remained unavailed of for *66twenty-seven years, until the General Assembly adopted the First Class City Home Rule Act, Act of April 21, 1949, P.L. 665, 53 P.S. § 13101 et seq. The Philadelphia City Council promptly took advantage of the enabling act by appointing a charter commission. The commission prepared a charter which was presented to and adopted by the electors of Philadelphia on April 17, 1951, to be generally effective on January 7,1952.14
The recall provision of the Charter, Article IX, Section 9-100 et seq., flatly declares that “[a]ny person holding an elective office of the City . . . shall be subject to removal from office at a recall election . . . .” Charter, Sec. 9-100.15 The commission’s statement of purposes set forth in the annotation to this section is instructive, and is reproduced in full in the margin.16 *67With a view, however, of protecting against vexatious use of the recall, the Charter prohibits the filing of a petition against any incumbent within the first year or the last six months of the term of his office or within six months after an unsuccessful recall election against him. Sec. 9-105.17
As long ago as 1909 the Supreme Court of Washington was confronted with a challenge to the recall provision contained in the home rule charter of the City of Everett, Washington. Hilzinger v. Gillman, 56 Wash. 228, 105 P. 471 (1909).18 Because of the similarity of the is*68sues there considered to those presented by the case at bar I deem it worthwhile to set forth the holdings of the Hilzinger case at some length.
The claim was made by the city councilman of Everett against whom a recall petition had been filed that the petition was invalid because the recall provision of the charter (Sec. 281) was in conflict with another section of the charter (Sec. 25) which provided for removal by the city council for enumerated causes.19 To this the Washington Supreme Court, speaking through Mr. Justice Gose, answered:
“Section 25 provides for a summary removal of an elective officer for certain specified causes; whereas, section 281 [the recall provision] contemplates a recall of the officer at any time that his official conduct is not responsive to the wish or will of a majority of the electors . . . . Whilst this section provides that the reason for the recall shall be stated in the petition, the charter does not provide that any specific reason shall be necessary or controlling. The whole scheme or system of the charter makes it apparent that the right of recall of elective officers was reserved to the people, to be exercised at any time the public interest was thought to require it.” 105 P. at 473.
The incumbent officer next urged that there was neither constitutional nor legislative authority for the recall provision. The court held that the enabling act authorizing cities of the first class to adopt a charter was broad enough to include recall. The act provided that “the mayor and members of the city council shall have the powers, shall be elected at the times, in the manner, and for the terms prescribed in the charter.” Addressing the *69question of the length of the term of office to which the councilman had been elected, the court stated:
“ [¶] e was elected to hold office until the first Tuesday after the first Monday in January, 1910, unless removed for cause or recalled in the manner provided [in the Charter]. His term, while in a measure fixed, was subsequent to the condition that 25 per cent of the electorate . . . could by petition express their disapproval of his official action upon one or more measures of local policy, and demand that he be sustained by a vote of confidence or retire. Both the constitution and the general law recognize that large growing cities should be empowered to determine for themselves, and in their own way, the many important and complex questions of local policy which arise, and it is only when some act in the execution of that policy conflicts with the general law or contravenes the constitution that the act can be questioned.” Id. at 474.
It was finally argued, as in the case at bar, that the Everett charter recall violated the constitutional provision for removal of officers “for misconduct or malfeasance in office.” This contention also was found to be without merit. Said the Court: “The people of the City of Everett in framing the charter intended that their representatives should be held strictly amenable to both existing and changing public sentiment on all local measures, and that if the official conduct of any elective officer failed at any time to so respond, he was subject to recall if the majority of the electorate in his district so determined. The appellant accepted the trust subject to this power in his constituency, and the duration of his term is dependent upon the wish of the majority as expressed at the polls. The removal sought is not of the character provided in the Constitution. Whether the interests of the City will be better subserved by a ready obedience to public sentiment than by a courageous ad*70herence to the views of the individual officer on questions of public concern is a political and not a legal, question.” Id. at 474. In my view, the Washington court’s decision and reasoning are sound and should be persuasive authority as this Court, sixty-five years later, confronts the same problem.
In the states where recall has been introduced, it is frequently provided that petitions shall contain a statement of the reasons for which removal is sought. Depending on the particular statutory provisions, these reasons may be purely political or may relate to specific grounds such as malfeasance in office. As stated by the Wisconsin Supreme Court in In re Recall of Certain Officials of City of Delafield, 63 Wis.2d 362, 372, 217 N.W. 2d 277, 282 (1974): “[T]he grounds for recall in the various jurisdictions range from any reason to malfeasance.” Thus in Colorado, for example (where recall is constitutionally recognized), “the dissatisfaction, whatever the reason, of the electorate is sufficient to set thé recall procedures in motion.” Bernzen v. City of Boulder v. Wells, 525 P.2d 416 (Colo.1974). The Court observed in that case that “the framers, by requiring that a recall petition contain the signatures of at least 25% of all votes cast in the last election . . . assured that a recall election will not be held in response to the wishes of a small and unrepresentative minority. However, once at least 25% of the electorate have expressed their dissatisfaction, the constitution reserves the recall power to the will of the electorate. Courts of law are not to intercede into the reasons expressed by the majority.” 525 P.2d at 419. But even where, as in Wisconsin, “good cause” must be alleged in a recall petition, the courts generally will not inquire into its sufficiency. As the court stated in City of Delafield, supra : “Generally, statutory provisions relating to recall are liberally interpreted in favor of the electorate. The power granted to an electorate to remove certain elected officials through *71recall procedure is political in nature and it is for the people and not the courts to decide the merits of the reasons stated in the petition.” 217 N.W.2d at 283. See also In re Recall Petition of Miles Beckstrom, Mayor of Montreal, etc., 63 Wis.2d 375, 217 N.W.2d 283 (1974).
These and other decisions from outside of Pennsylvania are not, of course, controlling here. But they indicate that, whether or not recall has been recognized in a state constitution and whether or not a petition must assert reasons for the proposed removal, the decision to seek and obtain recall of an officer is essentially a political one, and not a matter of judicial intervention. As one writer puts it, “The popular recall [in contradistinction to impeachment] is designed to be used even in cases where the officer has simply got out of line with public opinion and has taken official action to which citizens object. It is political in its nature. It is intended to help voters keep their officers constantly amenable to popular control, and ‘to aid the officeholder in retaining a candidate’s state of mind.’ ” W. Anderson and E. Weidner, American City Government 333 (Rev.Ed., 1950). (Footnote omitted).20 See also Ibid, at 334.
What has been said indicates that there is no constitutional need to justify the use of recall in terms of cause and a due process hearing. Recall is simply not within the ambit of the impeachment or address sections of the *72Pennsylvania Constitution. But if we are to speak those terms, it is difficult to imagine a better “cause” in a democratic republic than the will of the people, in whom, as our constitution declares, inheres all power ;■ and difficult to conceive of a process more “due” than an election by the people in the manner provided by law. The Court’s failure to recognize that the right of the people of Philadelphia, whether or not wisely bestowed, to recall their elected official, was within the grant of power to the City by the General Assembly, as permitted by the 1922 home rule amendment to the Constitution, unhappily reduces chapter 1 of article IX of the Charter “to a mere scrap of paper” and makes that portion of “the much heralded grant of Philadelphia home rule an illusion and a nullity.” See Addison Case, 385 Pa. 48, 55, 122 A.2d 272, 275 (1956); Lennox v. Clark, 372 Pa. 355, 379, 93 A.2d 834, 845 (1953).
III
Appellant Rizzo argues that Philadelphia’s recall provision violates not only the Constitution of Pennsylvania, but also the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.21 This challenge also I find to be meritless. As Judge Savitt correctly observed in his opinion below, “ [challenges to the constitutionality of recall have been uniformly rejected in the courts of other states, see State ex rel. Topping v. Houston, 94 Neb. 445, 143 N.W. 796 (1913); Roberts v. Brown, 43 Tenn.App. 567, 310 S.W.2d 197 (1957); Stone v. Wyckoff, 102 N.J.Super. 26, 245 A.2d 215 (1968).” (Opinion of Savitt, J., at 126a-7 Record).
In response to a claim that a recall provision containing no requirement of cause violated the due process *73clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, a unanimous Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held:
“What is provided by the Dade County provisions is a political system in which commissioners are to serve at the will of the people. There is nothing inherently unconstitutional in such a system, and no court has so held.” Gordon v. Leatherman, 450 F.2d 562, 566 (5th Cir. 1971).
The appellant also asserts that recall, because it might result in reversing the majority vote at the preceding mayoralty election in which the incumbent was chosen for office, somehow impairs the right to vote and therefore violates the voters’ rights to equal protection of the laws. This too is without merit. As the trial court succinctly observed:
“Clearly, a minority of voters cannot oust an incumbent at a recall election under the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter, Section 9-103(3). In a society which for so long has recognized the right to vote as paramount, it is difficult to see how an additional election, scheduled upon the petition of the electorate, creates an unconstitutional burden on that right.” (Opinion of Savitt, J., at 126a-9 Record).
Constitutional questions aside, the Mayor further contends that recall is in conflict with the First Class City Home Rule Enabling Act, Act of April 21, 1949, P.L. 665, §§ 17, 18, 53 P.S. §§ 13131, 13133, and the Pennsylvania Election Code, Act of June 3, 1937, P.L. 1333, 25 P.S. §§ 2600 et seq., and therefore must give way to these statutes of general applicability. His argument runs as follows: (1) § 17 of the Home Rule Enabling Act requires that elective city officials “shall be nominated and elected only in the manner provided by, and in accordance with, the provisions of the Pennsylvania Election Code . . . ”, Act of April 21, 1949, P.L. 665, § 17, 53 P.S. § 13131; (2) the Pennsylvania Election Code is a comprehensive statute which preempts the area of *74nomination and election of public officers; (3) recall is legislation governing the exercise of the political process through the electoral machinery; therefore, (4) recall is invalid.22
The fatal flaw in this reasoning, however, is that the Election Code does not deal in any way with the removal of elected officials from office; it deals solely with the nomination and election of such officials. In contrast, the recall provision of the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter, like the removal provisions in the various statutes relative to the governance of municipalities in this State, is a method of removing an elected officer and has nothing whatever to do with nominating or electing someone to office.23
IV
Having concluded that the trial court was correct in holding that the recall provisions of the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter are contrary to neither the federal nor state constitutions, or Acts of Assembly, it is now necessary to determine whether or not the court was also on sound ground in issuing a writ of mandamus to compel the filing of the recall petition.
It is well settled that mandamus is an extraordinary writ which will issue to compel the performance of a ministerial act or mandatory duty when there exists a *75clear legal right in the plaintiff, a corresponding duty in the defendant, and a want of any other appropriate and adequate legal remedy. Valley Forge Racing Association v. State Horse Racing Commission, 449 Pa. 292, 295, 297 A.2d 823, 824-25 (1972); Philadelphia Presbytery Homes v. Abington Board of Commissioners, 440 Pa. 299, 303, 269 A.2d 871, 873 (1970); Unger v. Hampton Township, 437 Pa. 399, 401-02, 263 A.2d 385, 387 (1970). The opinion of Mr. Chief Justice JONES announcing the decision of the Court23a does not dispute this. Nor does it dispute the equally well-established principle that although mandamus will not issue to compel the performance of a discretionary act, the writ will issue when the exercise of such discretion is arbitrary, fraudulent, or based upon an erroneous view of the law. See Valley Forge, supra; Commonwealth v. Caplan, 411 Pa. 563, 568-69, 192 A.2d 894, 896 (1963); Garratt v. Philadelphia, 387 Pa. 442, 448, 127 A.2d 738, 741 (1956); Hotel Casey Co. v. Ross, 343 Pa. 573, 583-85, 23 A.2d 737, 742-43 (1942).
Despite its agreement with these basic principles, however, the opinion announcing the decision of the Court holds that with respect to the categories of signatures la-belled by the Board of Elections “irregular affidavits” and “illegal notarizations”, the lower court improperly substituted its judgment for that of the Board, and thereby fell into error in issuing the writ of mandamus compelling the filing of the recall petition.24 I cannot *76agree with this conclusion. In my view, Judge Savitt was correct in ruling that the Board acted arbitrarily and contrary to law when it rejected in toto the signatures in the above two categories.
A.
According to the Board’s staff report, 905 affidavits affecting 57,494 signatures were placed in a group designated “irregular affidavits”.25 Of the total number of *77affidavits deemed “irregular”, those affecting at least 20,304 signatures were determined by the Board to be “patently false” because of “gross irregularities” on the sheets to which they were attached.26 The appellant Board contends, and the opinion of Mr. Chief Justice JONES agrees, that it acted properly in reaching this conclusion because (1) the large number of irregular signatures created an inference that the affidavits were false, and (2) a negative inference arose from the failure of the affiants to the questioned affidavits to respond to subpoenaes issued by the Board. I submit that this reasoning is untenable.
There is no dispute whatever that the affidavits affecting 20,304 rejected signatures were valid on their face. No evidence was presented that the 20,304 signatures themselves were not genuine. Nor was there any evidence before the Board that, although some signatures were defective, the affiants acted fraudulently in any respect.27 No effort was made to enforce the subpoenaes *78directed to the affiants, either at the Board level or at trial. In fact, the only evidence before the Board was that some of the signatures on certain sheets of the petition did not meet the Charter requirements as interpreted by the Board. Despite this total absence of direct evidence that the affidavits were in fact false, however, the opinion announcing the decision of the Court declares that the Board could legitimately reach this conclusion on the basis of the two inferences above stated. In my view mere conjecture is, as a matter of law, an insufficient basis for rejecting facially valid affidavits and thereby nullifying otherwise genuine signatures. See In re Bower, 41 Ill.2d 277, 242 N.E.2d 252 (1968); Petition of Smith, 114 N.J.Super. 421, 276 A.2d 868 (1971); Lefkowitz v. Cohen, 262 App.Div. 452, 29 N.Y.S.2d 817, aff’d. 286 N.Y. 449, 36 N.E.2d 680 (1941). Thus, I would hold that the evidence before the Board regarding the affidavits affecting 20,304 signatures was insufficient as a matter of law to support its finding of falsity. I would therefore affirm the lower court’s ruling that the Board acted arbitrarily and not in accordance with the law when it rejected these signatures.
B.
It was stipulated between the parties to this suit that 16 persons (the lawyer for the Citizens Committee and 15 circulators) notarized affidavits attached to sheets *79containing 115,818 signatures.28 These signatures were placed by the Board of Elections in an independent category labeled “illegal notarizations.” Based upon its interpretation of the Notary Public Law,29 the Board ruled that these 16 persons had a direct interest in the success of the recall movement and therefore that they had illegally notarized the affidavits appended to the 115,818 signatures. As a result, the Board concluded that the affidavits so notarized were void and refused to count the signatures to which they pertained. In upholding this determination, the opinion announcing the decision of the Court adopts the Board’s reasoning and holds:
“Section 19(e) of the Notary Public Law barred these [16] people from acting as notaries in this case. Since this section is a limitation upon the power of the notaries to act, their acts were nullities and the affidavits were void.” (Opinion of the Chief Justice, ante at 243).
In my judgment, this holding is erroneous.
1 seriously doubt that the attorney for the Citizens Committee or the circulators were “interested” persons within the meaning of the Notary Public Law.30 See *80American Bleacher Corp. v. Fried and Gerber, Inc., 35 Pa.D. & C.2d 729 (C.P. Bucks 1965); Geiswet v. Marden, 1 Pa.D. & C.2d 697 (C.P. Lycoming 1954); Educators Mutual Insurance Co. v. Serosky, 73 Pa.D. & C. 337 (C.P. Luzerne 1950); Gallipolis v. State, 36 Ohio App. 258, 173 N.E. 36 (1930); 66 C.J.S. Notaries § 6 at 618. There was no showing of pecuniary interest, and their general interest as citizens in the recall undertaking is hardly a “direct” interest in a “transaction” such as the Act proscribes. Nor do I equate the question of “interest” of the circulator under the Notary Public Law with the question of interest of the Citizens Committee for purposes of standing. But even assuming that the notaries in question were “directly interested” and so acted improperly,31 I agree with the trial court that the affected signatures should not have been rejected in toto. Except for one section-not here relevant,32 the Notary Public Law prescribes no remedy should a violation of its provisions occur, and does not provide that an unauthorized act of a notary shall be void. Furthermore, it is to be kept in mind that there was no evidence before the Board that all of the rejected affidavits in the “illegal notarizations” category were falsely sworn, cf. Cianfrani, supra, or that all of the signatures attached to these affidavits were invalid or improper. Nor was there any evidence that the affiants acted fraudulently in any respect. Under these circumstances, to penalize scores of thousands of electors merely because certain notaries may have acted improperly is unconscionably harsh. If, in spite of the silence of the Notary Public Law, anyone is to be punished for the delinquency here found, it should be those who mistakenly perpetrated the violation.
*81Thus, like Judge Savitt, I would hold that under the circumstances of this case the Board acted arbitrarily and not in accordance with the law in refusing to count the 115,818 signatures because of “illegal notarizations.”
For all of the above reasons, therefore, I would affirm the trial court’s order directing the Board to place the recall question on the ballot.
. Mr. Justice O’BRIEN and Mr. Justice NIX, in separate concurring opinions, hold recall unconstitutional under the Pennsylvania Constitution on grounds which go beyond those enunciated by the Chief Justice in his opinion announcing the decision of the Court. Both concurring opinions, however, agree with the conclusion of the Chief Justice that removal must be premised upon cause. Thus any references in this part of the dissenting opinion to the opinion of the Chief Justice should be read as applying with equal force to those parts of the separate concurring opinions of Mr. Justice O’BRIEN and Mr. Justice NIX which hold that removal must be based upon cause.
. Under Article IX, Sec. 2 of the Constitution of Pennsylvania, a municipality which adopts a home rule charter “may exercise any power or perform any function not denied by the Constitution, by its home rule charter or by the General Assembly at any time.” *58The Home Rule Charter Act, Act of April 21, 1949, P.L. 665, § 17, 53 P.S. § 13131, provides that the city taking advantage of the Act “shall have complete powers of legislation and administration in relation to its municipal functions, including the power and authority to prescribe the elective city officers . . .” See Addison Case, 385 Pa. 48, 122 A.2d 272 (1956).
. Appointed officers, as distinguished from elected officers, may, except for judges, be removed by the power which appoints them. Pennsylvania Constitution, Art. VI, Sec. 7.
. The full text of Art. VI, Sec. 7 is as follows:
“All civil officers shall hold their offices on the condition that they behave themselves well while in office, and shall be removed on conviction of misbehavior in office or of any infamous crime. Appointed civil officers, other than judges of the courts of record, may be removed at the pleasure of the power by which they shall have been appointed. All civil officers elected by the people, except the Governor, the Lieutenant Governor, members of the General Assembly and judges of the courts of record, shall be removed by the Governor for reasonable cause, after due notice and full hearing, on the address of two-thirds of the Senate.”
Address by the Senate as provided in this section is one of two traditional methods of removing public officers. The other method is impeachment. Article VI, Sec. 6 provides that “The Governor and all other civil officers shall be liable to impeachment for any misbehavior in office.” The power of impeachment lies sole*59ly in the House of Representatives (Sec. 4), and all impeachments are tried by the Senate, concurrence of two-thirds of the members present being required (Sec. 5). The difference in scope of the grounds for removal by means of impeachment and address, respectively, is unclear. See the discussion of these provisions in Reference Manual No. 5, The Judiciary, of the Pennsylvania Constitutional Convention of 1967-1968, part V, 157 et seq.
. A public officer whose office is established by the Constitution may be removed only as provided in the Constitution; the legislature has no power to provide a method for his removal. Bowman Case, 225 Pa. 364, 74 A. 203 (1909). See Marshall Impeachment Case, 360 Pa. 304, 62 A.2d 30 (1948). See generally, Note, Removal of Public Officers in Pennsylvania: The Constitutional Provisions, 99 U.Pa.Rev. 829 (1951).
. The power of the legislature to regulate and control the incidents of an office created by it was forcibly enunciated by the Court more than a century ago:
“Not having been mentioned by the Constitution, the legislature was left with unrestricted power to prescribe what the duties of the office should be, what the length of its tenure, what its emoluments, and how it should be filled. Having the power to create, they also have the power to regulate, and even destroy.” Commonwealth v. McCombs, 56 Pa. 436, 439 (1867).
See also, Commonwealth ex rel. Braughler v. Weir, 165 Pa. 284, 289, 30 A. 835 (1895).
. In Weiss v. Ziegler, supra, the rule of Milford Township and its antecedents was extended to legislative provisions for removal of appointed officers.
. For a later stage of the litigation surrounding the attempt to remove Mr. Marshall as Receiver of Taxes, see Marshall Impeachment Case, 363 Pa. 326, 69 A.2d 619 (1949). There is evidence that the draftsmen of the Philadelphia Home Rule had the tortuous Marshall litigation in mind when they sought through the recall provision “a quicker and better procedure” whereby to deal with the problem of an unsatisfactory public servant. See Charlton F. Chute and Edgar B. Cale, “The Charter Commission and Its Work”, 13 The Shingle 102 (May, 1950). See also paragraph 1 of the Annotation to Sec. 9-100 of the Philadelphia Charter which refers to “the impeachment procedure under the Act of June 25, 1919, P.L. 531, Art. IV, Sec. 9, and the experience thereunder.”
. If no provision for removal of an officer is made in a statute creating the office, the appropriate constitutional method of removal must be followed. Watson v. Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission, 386 Pa. 117, 123, 125 A.2d 354, 356-57 (1956).
. Art. XII, Sec. 1 of the Constitution provided that “All officers, whose selection is not provided for in this Constitution, shall be elected or appointed as provided by law. . . This clause is now Article VI, Sec. 1 of the Constitution of Pennsylvania.
. As our cases demonstrate, the distinction between constitutional and non-constitutional officers pre-dates the 1874 Constitution, Commonwealth v. McCombs, 56 Pa. 436 (1867), and was repeatedly recognized prior to Milford Township, supra. See, e. g., Commonwealth ex rel. Braughler v. Weir, 165 Pa. 284, 30 A. 835 (1895); Richie v. Philadelphia, 225 Pa. 511, 74 A. 430 (1909); Commonwealth ex rel. Vesneski v. Reid, 265 Pa. 328, 108 A. 829 (1919); Georges Township School Directors, 286 Pa. 129, 133 A. 233 (1926).
. It is worthwhile to note that our cases holding that an officer whose office is created by the legislature may be removed as the legislature may provide were decided before May 17, 1966. On this date Articles VI, VII and XII of the 1874 Constitution were consolidated and renumbered in Art. VI, and minor changes were made. No further changes were made at the 1968 Constitutional *63Convention. If the delegates to the Convention were dissatisfied with this Court’s prior construction of Art. VI, Sections 6 and 7, they easily could have rewritten those sections to require a different result. That they did not do so suggests strongly an acceptance of our interpretation of those sections.
. See note 10 supra.
. Mr. Justice NIX’s statement that “[t]he fallacy of the Milford Court’s reasoning becomes more apparent in view of its concession that Article VI, Section 7 ‘is not limited to what are frequently termed constitutional officers . . .’” [Concur *64ring opinion of Mr. Justice NIX, ante at 253] is misleading. This was not a “concession” but merely a recognition of prior law which stated that when the legislature creates an office, but does not provide for a method of removal, the methods specified in the constitution control. See Georges Township, supra, at 134, 133 A. 233. For a subsequent statement of this rule, see Watson v. Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission, 386 Pa. 117, 123, 125 A.2d 354, 356-57 (1956).
. Mr. Chief Justice JONES’S reliance on Foltz Appeal, 370 Pa. 567, 88 A.2d 871 (1952) is misplaced. The holding in that case was that there was insufficient evidence to warrant removal for cause of a township supervisor by judicial, proceedings. Recall was in no way involved and the passage quoted by the majority (Opinion of the Chief Justice, ante at 246) from Mr. Justice Musmanno’s opinion in Foltz is dictum. It may be that the public should not hold “a sword of Damocles” over the head of a public office holder in the form of possible removal from office for less than constitutional cause, but that is an argument going to the wisdom of the removal provision in question, not to its legality.
. As was said by Mr. Justice, later Chief Justice Bell, concurring in Lennox v. Clark, 372 Pa. 355, 93 A.2d 834 (1953);
“. the Charter must be considered and interpreted in the light of the intention of the framers thereof and of the legislature and the voters which in this class of cases are entitled to great weight; [citing cases].” 372 Pa. at 389, 93 A.2d at 850.
. By the turn of the century four states, Missouri, California, Washington and Minnesota, had provided constitutional home rule for cities. Since then at least twenty other states have adopted constitutional provisions granting varying degrees of home rule to cities. See C. Kneier, City Government in the United States 69-92 (3rd ed. 1957).
Under the Pennsylvania Constitution of 1968, home rule is provided for in Article IX, Sec. 2. By that section all municipalities of the State are accorded the right and power to frame and adopt, by referendum, home rule charters. Absent enabling legislation by the General Assembly, the Constitution now provides that a home rule charter, or a procedure for framing and presenting one, may be placed before the electors of a municipality by initiative of the people or by the governing body of a municipality. The terms “initiative” and “referendum” are defined in Sec. 14 of Article IX.
. The work of the City Charter Commission in framing the Charter during 1950-1951 is described in several contemporaneous articles in The Shingle, a publication of the Philadelphia Bar Association, especially volume 14, No. 4, for April, 1951. See, e. g., Abraham L. Freedman’s appreciation of Lewis M. Stevens, Secretary of the Commission, 14 Shingle 79-80; Paul A. Wolkin, “Government for Philadelphians by Philadelphians,” 14 Shingle 82-85. See also C. Chute and E. Cole, “The Charter Commission and Its Work”, 13 Shingle 102 (May, 1950); Thomas Raeburn White, “More Power for the Voters”, 13 Shingle 180 (November, 1950).
The Commission was composed of 15 members, described by Abraham Freedman in his article above cited as “a group of extremely able men.” The drafting committee for the Charter consisted of William A. Schnader, former Attorney-General of Pennsylvania, as chairman, Abraham L. Freedman, who became city solicitor of Philadelphia and later Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, and Robert T. McCracken, Esq. Paul A. Wolkin, Esq. was legislative draftsman.
. As the annotations indicate, the recall provisions of the Charter were drawn from the charters of the City of Los Angeles and the City of St. Louis. The recall in this country was apparently first introduced in 1903 in the City Charter of Los Angeles. C. Kneier, City Government in the United States 398 (3rd ed. 1957). See also Ibid, at 387.
. “1. The power is vested in the electorate to recall officials elected by them so that such officials may be directly responsible for their behavior in office to the electorate. The Charter vests responsibilities of great magnitude in the Mayor, the City Controller and Councilmen. The electorate is entitled to expect the *67proper discharge of those responsibilities and in accordance with promises made when office was sought, barring changes in circumstances which justify other courses of action. The power of the electorate to recall should serve as a spur to elected officials to be faithful to this trust. It is also intended to serve as an expeditious and effective means for removing from office an elected official who has failed to sustain such trust. Cf. the impeachment procedure under the Act of June 25, 1919, P.L. 581, Article IV, Section 9, and the experience thereunder.
“2. While no charges are required to be lodged formally against an elected official to subject him to a recall election, it is anticipated on the basis of experience in other jurisdictions having the recall, that the electorate will exercise its power to recall wisely, for good reasons and in accordance with the purposes and spirit of the recall.
“3. Elected officials subject to recall are the Mayor, the City Controller, the City Treasurer and Councilmen.
“4. Officials holding an elective office are subject to recall regardless of the manner in which they were designated to hold office.”
. The Commission’s annotation to this Section is as follows:
“1. An elected official should be afforded a reasonable period of time after election to office to establish a performance record. Thus no recall petition may be filed during the first year of office. This limitation does not apply to the first year of a term of office to which a person is reelected when the new term immediately follows the preceding one.
“2. A recall election during the last six months of a term of office is a fruitless procedure, for the incumbent, should he wish to remain in office, would within six months or less have to seek reelection in any event.
“3. The recall is not intended as a means for harassing elected officials. Thus if a recall election fails, no petition for recall may be filed until six months have expired since such an election.”
. At the time of this decision the Constitution of Washington authorized the adoption of home rule charters by cities of the first class, but contained no recall provision.
. “[I]nability or wilful failure properly to perform his duties, or the commission of a crime or misdemeanor involving moral turpitude, absence from the city for 20 days without consent, open failure or refusal to discharge his duties, the habitual use of intoxicating liquors to excess, or any permanent disability preventing the proper discharge of his duties.” 105 P. at 473.
. The motivation for recall in the Philadelphia City Charter was described in analogous terms by one closely involved in the drafting of the charter:
“In 1691 the framers of the Charter were gravely concerned that those chosen for office might decline to serve because there were certain personal expenditures involved in being a City official. Any one who refused to take an office was subject to heavy fines and penalties. Today’s Philadelphians do not fear that one chosen to be Mayor or a Councilman will turn the office down. They are concerned that once he is in office he will be difficult to turn out should he prove to be incompetent or unworthy of the office he holds. The new Charter answers this problem through the recall.” P. Wolkin, “Government for Philadelphians by Philadelphians”, 14 the Shingle at 85 (April 1951).
. The majority, holding the recall provision invalid under the Pennsylvania Constitution, does not deal with appellant’s federal claim.
. Appellant Rizzo makes an analogous argument with respect to § 18 of the Home Rule Enabling Act. Act of April 21, 1949, P.L. 665, § 18, 53 P.S. i 13133. Section 18 of the Act declares that “Notwithstanding the grant of powers contained in this act, no city shall exercise powers contrary to, or in limitation or enlargement of, powers granted by acts of the General Assembly which are . . .’(b) Applicable in every part of the Commonwealth. (c) Applicable to all the cities of the Commonwealth.” The appellant argues (1) that the Election Code is such a statute within the meaning of § 18; (2) recall is legislation affecting the exercise of political rights with respect to elective officers; therefore, (3) recall is invalid.
. The argument that recall conflicts with § 18 of the Home Rule Enabling Act, see note 22 supra, fails for these same reasons. See also Addison Case, 385 Pa. 48, 55, 122 A.2d 272, 275 (1956).
. The opinion of the Chief Justice is the only one of the opinions of the majority which deals at length with the rulings of the trial court relative to whether or not a writ of mandamus should have issued to compel the filing of the recall petition. Thus, this part of this dissenting opinion is necessarily directed primarily to the opinion of the Chief Justice.
. Mr. Chief Justice JONES holds that the trial court was correct in ruling that the Board “acted erroneously under the law” in invalidating the signatures which it placed in the other contested categories, and concludes that these signatures “should have been counted as valid . . . .” [Opinion of the Chief Justice, ante at 243.] I quite agree with him in this respect, although I *76find it completely at variance with the holding of error as to the two categories mentioned in the text.
The following is a summation of the number of signatures in the several categories of claimed defects which are held valid as a result of the opinion announcing the decision of the Court, and with which this dissenting opinion is not concerned:
Initials 21,208
Abbreviations 2,967
Insufficient signatures 3,460
Incorrect Ward 11,285
Forgeries/Alterations 6,429
45,449
(These figures are taken from the Board’s “refined totals”. See Opinion of Savitt, J. at 126a-57).
. Of these 57,494 signatures, 35,335 were also placed by the Board in other categories of deficiencies, and were rejected by the Board for those other reasons as well. Thus, only 22,159 signatures were ultimately placed in the category of “irregular affidavits”. Not all of these 22,159 signatures, however, were rejected for the same kinds of asserted irregularity.
The original category of “irregular affidavits”, which contained 905 affidavits affecting 57,494 signatures was comprised of three sub-categories: (1) “patent falsities”, which included 781 affidavits attached to sheets containing 52,468 signatures; (2) “false address”, which included 66 affidavits attached to sheets containing 3,216 signatures; and (3) “not registered”, which included 58 affidavits attached to sheets containing 1,810 signatures.
The affidavits placed in the “patent falsities” sub-category were deemed to be false because they were attached to sheets of signatures which were found to contain large numbers of “grossly irregular”, signatures. These irregularities included, inter alia, non-registered signers, duplicative signings, and defective addresses, as well as signatures rejected under other categories set up by the Board, such as “initials”, “abbreviations”, “insufficient signatures”, “incorrect ward”, and “forgeries and alterations”. (Record at 1287a-88a). The affidavits placed in the sub-category “false address” were deemed to be false because the stated addresses of the affiants were incorrect. The affidavits placed in *77the “not registered” sub-category were deemed to be false because, contrary to the recitals in the affidavits, the affiants were not registered voters.
It was stipulated between the parties that of the 22,159 signatures ultimately placed in the category of “irregular affidavits”, 20,304 were rejected under sub-category (1) — “patent falsities.” (Record at 1289a). Since, as set forth in the text, I believe the trial court was correct in its validation of these 20,304 signatures, and this number suffices, when added to the number of signatures validated by the trial court in other categories, to reach the required 25% of votes cast for mayor at the last election, I find it unnecessary to consider whether or not the trial court was correct in reversing the Board as to the 1,855 signatures which the Board had rejected under sub-categories (2) and (3) above.
. See note 25 supra.
. At trial the mayor offered to call various of the circulators primarily to impugn their affidavits by a showing of irregularities. The offer asserted a failure of some affiant-circulators to appear in person before the notaries, and insufficient knowledge on the part of circulators as to the signers’ residences and status as registered electors to enable the circulators to make the affidavits. The offers did not go to fraud or forgery, or directly attack the genuineness of signatures, but the conclusion was sought to be drawn that the affidavits which would be proved to be defec*78tive as indicated were therefore false and that the signatures to which they pertained should be disregarded. Cf. In re Nomination of Cianfrani, 467 Pa. 491, 359 A.2d 383 (1975). Whether or not new evidence was appropriate in this mandamus action, where the court was sitting in review of the action of an administrative body, was a matter of discretion with the court. See generally, L. Jaffe, Judicial Control of Administrative Action 176 et seq., esp. 185-87 (abridged Student Ed., 1965). In this case, where the Board had made an extensive and complete investigation, where time was of the essence, and where the offers, even if proved, would not have shown that signatures were not genuine but only that some affidavits were irregular, it cannot be said that the court abused its discretion in refusing the offers.
. The Board found that the lawyer for the Citizens Committee notarized 47 petitions involving 1,532 signatures and that the 15 circulators notarized 2,827 petitions involving 114,286 signatures.
. Act of August 21, 1953, P.L. 1323, § 19(e), 57 P.S. § 165(e) (1964). This subsection provides as follows:
“(e) No notary public may act as such in any transaction in which he is a party directly or pecuniarily interested.”
. The opinion announcing the decision of the Court cites State ex rel. Reed v. Malrick, 165 Ohio St. 483, 137 N.E.2d 560 (1956) and Schirmer v. Myrick, 111 Vt. 255, 20 A.2d 125 (1940) to support its holding that the 16 circulators in this case had a direct interest in the affidavits notarized by them. In both cases cited, however, a candidate for office notarized his own nomination petitions. In such a situation there is a significant danger of fraud since a candidate stands to benefit personally by his own acts and therefore can be said to be directly and pecuniarily interested in the instrument notarized. In contrast, the circulators in this case had nothing to gain personally by having the recall question placed on the ballot.
. It is not contended that the 16 notaries public in question lacked the power to administer oaths in general. It is argued only that they exercised the power wrongfully in this case.
. Act of August 21, 1953, P.L. 1323, i 19(a), 57 P.S. § 165(a) (1964).