The New York Herald Newspaper, November 22, 1867, Page 4

4 THE CORPORATION COUNSEL. Mr. 0’Gorman’s Reply to the Manifesto of the Citizens’ Association. A Defence Against the Poter Cooper Indictment. Law DerartMeyr, Orrice oF Counsrr To THE CORPORATION, More Information as to How the Public Money is Disbursed. New York, Nov, 20, iss | Paren Coorzr, Esq., Chairman, &. :— S1e—I am desirous to dea! with your letter of Novem- Der 12, rece:ved by mo on November ¥, and published Dy you in the morning papers on November 19, and the Obarges agaiust me made thoreia, with as much clearness ‘and distinctness as possible, and stopping as little as pos- sible to resont such bints, inuendoes and suggestions as are scaitered over the document, | should like to beable to believe that you, in good faith and good earnest, wanted to know why certain things had been done or left un- @one by me, which you had been induced to believe were wrong to do or to leave endone, and that you really desired to do n0 injustice to any one, All this I would bave beea inchined to believe, because I had re- epected your character and eniertained no doubt of the sincerity of your motives, I regret to say that the per- ‘Wistent and extraordinary misstatoments of fact and ‘must: prepresen: at, 0: law io your lower have shaken My couidcuce [he potnis ip my official couduct which yeu seem to thiuk require explanation, as I tiad them ‘@numerated 1p your lewer, are as follows:— Firat—Neglect m refraining from. taki als to higher eourte “ron doubtful ae, 5 reoderes, “Sains ated Seonud—vermisug a vans be corded. Third -. ragganice Fourth—Paron'ae, of friends by retaining them mens. ‘aud paying the » enormous fe-s. — 1/th—iesistaace to pro eee.s\..g8 taken 3 vual offleiais to 9 proper sense of “ther duty. pixth—! ring scuemes of the gover ‘arthe: ment) which were caloulniw.: to da uage the city and citize and enrich only the protectors and thelr friends, ~evevt! Overcharging tur the services | pertormed in violation of the law. sig ith—Advising xgainst obedience to law a public official of the ion, xinth—Attending upon the re at albany to enlarge the appropriatious for my and myeelf, and (bus suc ease the taxes, I proceed to answer thexe charges seriatim, for the @ake of tue greater cleararss, somewhat reversing the order in which they are placed. Firt ‘aroutting & vest number of judgments to be gecorded.”” The tirst alleyation which 1 flud to support ‘ebia charge is that the sum of $194,000 was recovered i@arinz my term of office by judgments against the city ‘for advertising in ceriaia local papers. * Pols Vast sum was recovere:,’’ you say, in open vio- lation of law. 1 answer—Every one of these suits was defended by mo. Im every une au answer was put in, setting up ibe ‘Statutes o which you ref rin your leter, Inevery one of them counsel tor the iff moved for jadgment in his favor, in ewer, arguing that the said ‘Jaws were uncon-utational, in every one of them be ‘Was op osed on such arguments either by my-elf er my assistants, and the court dec.ded that the «aid acts were, in |Shisr-pec, unconstitutional, Judmen‘s were recorded, yand there was no posaib: ity ot preventing tuem from bein, &» recorded. If the iaw was vioiaied it was a wioiated by me, but by the Superior Court and the Com- Pieas, who decided agaiust the Jaw and declared it } patitutional, 1 did emiurce jfaws as far could i they ‘mnd delied,’”’ as yor fend detiea by th facts iu thove cases, and the views of law applied to ‘hem. hese newspapsrs, of which yon gave a list, bv pos herpes by the Oommen ge Med priat reports cert notices, proceedin. hhese proceedin; ‘Were required by iw to be pusdsbed. - “The charter requires the pubiication of the following city.” cur) Aub Pdinances «ni amendments of ordinances “which Darsed, and ulsn tn p-occeding. 1a he Dewspapers 7.be_empwsed Uy ths goryoratian,"" and the vote By ayes and noes upon aif ordinune x welsh contemplate improvement, oF ira.ve the we, diapos tion of BpPro; a erty, auy ansess- Beat which ta to be publlahed ws pert of the ings. Aipotion 5.0/ the Carver.) 1 Pe me Notices tivis -ruposals wk er sul jem to oe asinced Yor wan aye feacli o1 the dally Sewepapecs om ‘Corporation lor that purpose. SNot.ce of salen ot sat ing =} ce of ta and franchises, I Of drat Ans ore coqetreees’ te’ potlonea. enter aircon Seaihe, sotten hind anata ooheh ter dole eooare tien, aud tor thiry days ta the ‘20 Ceiployet’ (section oh Oberien.) The provision of the act of May 4, 1! to which ‘de found in sections vine po hn Shieh ore * And neither said corporation, acr any board, or thereo:, shall (nour any Tapiiy? eparime Or waxe pr cout M8. OF contracts, or permit or vo.e for, or putuorize a Of lndirecuy auy expendiure or exjendt- @aee for an: vt the ob; avd pu specitied, the Segrogate of w ures and'of the lavint es oder mieh ox @uea contr.cts, snail the sum appropriated for the sud purpose, ar for may other purpose of object than 1a 8) 5x0. 10, oes And no ju ut in actions upon con. race, sual be entered. by wef at or otherwise, in any 0! againss sald corporation except uy Provfs, ti ‘@pen court, that Wee amonue s/ught to be recovered ia said ok ell Fem UueXpedved in Lhe ciy irene to yee ‘apprver auon so tae specie abject or pure " Ee ve bee 1» Whiou she Cluin aurd for is fouaded; aad In Cie Buy depsriment ousrd incmiver. ollcer oF agent therso u sim, sued upo exceed tue sum app.o} tuis act for the purpose, i= Beton. appear by ‘ue defendant’s proof that other liabili niivourred by or work doe for raid at ‘Bader any contract expressed or 4 Which liabilities togetha: wich the el ‘bal end advut whieh said claim fA Labilit.es ato.e, no judg- Meat shail be reauered in the plainull’s favor in su adopted by the ‘The interpretations of these sections eouris referred to differ matenaliy trum the statement Of thetr sega: effvet -ontained im your letter, The pubti- Cations for which these news were abo ciaimed pay went by the sections of the charter of 1557, aad were iu most cases absolutely rected t , yy in order to make valls the action of the <om, Coupes, Indeed, full puciication of such Procecdings was necessary fer tno protection of tne Ow.ers of property inverested. Many of those Glaiue bad accrued before toc passage of the act ‘of 1960; ad nh seemed tw the Judges before whom Abe Question Was raised uncoNstiiutioual to deny judg- ment to a 6u tor who bed in fact done work for the Cor. Poravon be.or: 1865, Unless be first proved there was Mmovey io the corporae treasury to pay bis cia:m, in Accordance with a statute pas-ed long ufier the claim had accracd, suppo-e, ample, thar you had sold & bill to a customer In If ja 1806 a law was passed tha: you could nut Ubtan judgment for the unpaid debt “Uhiers you first gave proof 'n open court that he bad Money io ls pocket to meet your demand; it might @re.u ty You toat such law was unconstitatioual. It ald Berm to the judg -¢, and 1 cannot hgntiy come to the conclusion that they all were wroog. notwithstanding Four opinich vo she contrary, é i Ta this cooneciioa it becomes my painful direct your attention 10 @ dowsaright misrepresentation in your letter, of Inw passed April 28, 1867; and w con- ‘Viet you of this grave charge, without the responsibility Of excaje | proverd to quote t act @ you em- proy. You say that by the act the sum of 000 was appropria «dt: ‘and thet it was declared Ro ex; for such pur- joruap groomer tan cpieen pol bay oat bo Judgment shou! De eutered avatns: the city for any + es Tee ecld porees after said $.0,000 hed been o: "The sums,"’ you eontin “so appropriated in 1366 and 1867 have ae, n pended pomptrol 4 tne ter, edvertutog Getng "ibe sue’ earn Sa the amount, $194,' Sn ae to ot Sl ye Buco disingenuous ; erversion of the act of the Legirla- ture, even auder the cover of your repetetion, was as an it was a the simple exposure i i it i: i Hi 8 i i 4 3 H 3f i t 1 | i | | | @® were, Under these circumstances, EW YORK -HERALD) FRIDAY NOVEMBER 2%) 1867-—TRIPLE SHERT. fore the cours, who wo obtain a second judgment on these rrr 10 ol It never was atte te To interpose particu larg had been auypiied me by the plaintiffs would have been mere potiifogging, unt able lawyer, The fact that in by me were not verified in po case and in no degree city. No objection was ever any piaintill; no advantage was of it, aad, tn fact, ao advaat is a question raised 19 @ pleading does not, of itaelf, amount toa sufficient veri- fHcation, Ithink itdoes, However that counsel for the plaintiff in any case where av unvert- fied answer was made by me made no objection, treated it as verified and took noaction on it that would not have been open if it had been veritied. The question raisea by the answers was one of law, and not of fact, aud could probably have been raised without any answer, to the ji it obtained by E Jones for Printing, books, &c,, I received with the complaints in these ca-es letvers from the late Comptrol~ ler that the plaintiff’sciaim was in fact just; that his bills had been audited aud found to be correct, and that there was no reason for withholding payment, except the fact that there were no funds in the Treasury out of whieh to bim, When the complaints were sent to this office I was in Washington engaged in the argu- ment of the bank tax cases. On my return, notwith- standing the instructions received ‘rom the Finance mance partment, I deiermined to contest these ciaims, 1 did coutest them. I argued the chief case betore Judge Jones, the Superior Court, who decid inst the city and delivered a long aud elaborate opinion, of which I should bo fappy to fur. nish. you witn A cty if could believe that it would afford you any light From that Judgment I took an appeal, Lge | which the judgments were piaced in the budget and funds for the satisfaction thereof were provided by the Legisiature in the Tax Levy. Toe funds having been ao provided the ground of the defencs failed, and continued litigation would have been absurd, The judgments were entered, nos with my permissinn or consent, bat in spite of my opposition and by the orders of the cours. You “there is another iaw constituting a bar to these with winch I am bound to be familiar.’ I pres that vou refer to section 8 of the charter of 1857. miliar witn 1; but I don’t think tt doe: conert- bar io these actions, or in any manner applies to Of the $93,060 31, judement« obtained by E. es & '0., $71538 15 were ™printing,”” which your letier admits “ls excopted from the operation of the provision.” 1 remainder of those judgments, $21,522 24, was for stationery furnished to the Common Couneli, for which experience bas proven that it is im- Practicable to make a contract, and, therefore, op»n the principle decided by the Court of Appeals ip the Harlem Guslhgot case the plaintiffs were entitled to recover s quantum merint for the supplies actually furnished. As to the adverrising cla ms, the law, as I have shown above, has required certain advertisements io be pub- Heted vy the Common Council or officers of the Corpora tun, The Jaw has authorized the employment of papers in Which to publish, and the papers publishing by due anthority are eoti‘ie1 to recover from the city therefor, at the same rates that they charge to their advertising patrons. In complaining of the entry of these jndements our complaint should have been directed a; st the jaw —acainst the courts which have interpreted the law— and not against the Corporation Coaasel, who has dcne all that was proper and possible to pro-ure the enforce- ment of the law. But 6 one reading your letter may say, ‘Why so meny ju ents against the city?’ For this mmple reason:—The city of New York does not ree ceive from the Legisiatare authority to raise enough of ny year to pay for its necessary expenses ear, [his w one of the “penoy wise and economies of Albany legislation. Take for ins'ance these newspaper expenses which the city is by law compelled to contract. The yearly appro- jation aliowed by the Legisiature on the tax is always too small to meet them. Thus, when the bills are presented to the Comp- troiler, he is without funda. The city ts so far insolvent. It owes the money, but it cannot pay it. The Creator is obliged to sue; and what you compiain of is, that the counsel to the city, and the courts, and the law, don’t conspire to dofeat these just claims You want the city, to fact, to swindle iis creditors, and you regret that its law officer, by some legal machinery or devi don’t compass the fraud. Has this been your style ol conducting your mercantile transactions? or, bas this theory of civic morality been taught the Citizens’ Association by aay one who has himscif, in his own mercanti'e career, ite advaptages? But, as I < have before siated, the Legisiature of 1867 re- moved all que-tion: as to the oovstitationallty of the clauses in the laws of 1866 and 1867, to which you refer in the case of news re’ by the simple act of excepting that class of claims from its effect, But there {+ another element of inconsistency and con- fusion which tue public should be made aware of In vix gentlemen are consti- tuted legal and equitable and just claims against the city or county of New York, outstanding pric’ to Jai . 1867; and are even empowered to rec nsider oqses where ciatms have deen rejected by courts of law, because of the absence of @n appropria ion to meet the claim, ‘aot the aciion of the Legisiature confirm the views taken by the -upe- rior Court and Conmos Pleas, as to the unc. nsti:ut on. ality of the appro; riation clause in the act of 1866 and 1867, and show how unavailing would bare been any fariher effort og mv part to contest euch claims? Re- member that unavailing litigation only adda to tho bur- den ‘he city must bear by the addition of costs and ex- . Piste the Board of Audit, it w proper for remark that I was eat in Commitiee when the ciause of the act establishing it was read ani copsidered. I did thea remark on the manifest incou- sistency of legislation which raised apa @ here to the Senat Protest against the only one there to utter against. it, hough ove of the counsel who usually appears on bebalf of the Citi- gens’ Association was present. So far aa to the charge that I permitted judgments to be recorded agemst the city—tne cnarge is simply untrue, | The jadgments were entered by courts of competent ju- fisd’ction, en bilis farnisnea to mo by the Finsace De- partment, certified and audited ascorrect both as to ex- tent of services rendered and the prices charged. I was instructed in all theac cases that the debts had been con- tracted by the city and were jusily due, Such defences to the city were set upand fa ly and fairly argued. The courts decided against the cit, ordered judgments to bo entered, and the subsequeat action of the Legisiature of 1857 in effect firms and approves of the action of these courts ‘This charge against me is, therefore, in ali respects eon nil unjust, and, Ideoply regret to believe it, malicious, Second—The charge on your |tst ts “ neglect in refrain- ine from taking appeals to higher courts from doubifal nst the cliy.” My answer to the ast ct, applies to this, ' The objection of «a0 ” made iu the superior Court aad Common iy as YOu remark, save tho city from judg- ment against It. There waa no roasonabie probabilli? of ver al of ths decirion by appeal to the Genera! Term Of these Courts, three of the judges having decided that the defence was not good, and further litigauon there seemed usele-s, and, Ii vselese, improper; because it would increase costs agaimat the city. T ape poet. ail these cases decided agal me, as it woald seem you would have desired, how could the city have been bene! for ail the-e claims could have been transferred to the Board of Audit, where the defence set up by me would have had no effect. ) oreever, 19 Most of tuese casos ip which jadg- ment had oven recorded, provision was soon afior Ln by ho Legisiature for the payment of the judgments, thus removing he eaty objection which the Fi 30 De. ey, orgivally had to the sevtlement of f 1 did not ap ta Cases where, in my best nt, BO good would have been attained by ap +. The people of this city, im electing me to the e bola, confided ese. m only detenco tbat ‘was purety tech: or the value thereof, uestion could have been raised by me ‘BO ques 100 0 the bili ha been duly examined and auaited by the proper depart- ment, In every could ascertain, the claim wasa jost claim, and tne only ob- ion you urre, and watruty urge against me m, that I did not vse every part tha geste hs 2 i: ? tn = ee es Se Re Se SR Peet SE ea Se ek Se Se BS ke ee SRE ADSe 8S eee Sa ae al fit; i against of extravagaces in rent ‘unfair, enfounded and shameful as Dave ever read or heard of. i o you give items, 1 am Pe ee | Si ee Te the Common of HIG Pie ijty it r i therefor, The moneys necessary of " Sot drava oat by ise from the = nothing about hands, but are the at 1 tients of the Breet Comaienouer to sappy you cite of expenditure and the amonat thereof, < whe cos from whom the sapplies recei: intel Troly yourg meat were purchased, or what RICHARD O’GO8MAN. Power to charge the city with that letter I retract mot one word; 1 ts all trae, [esate My this office, This : forth ought to be-uadersiood by of tho Street Department. When, therefore, you to mandate of the court therein co! disobedience ta ‘was an order to that effect a Com} of the power @ city for supplies to my department the which was obtained, and before the | of chapler 676, Laws of 1860, under the law. I did not advise him mentioned in your letter, you would have public | Bosrd of Counciimea &n opportunity of answer- | opinion. any question could have arisen im any but to adjust and setile such as in believe what 1s simply and you mus: have | ing the charge or defonding themselves against | *4 cases are sections % 9 and 10, which are ae follows ut to be adjusted sod settled, which Known that it was. un investigated the | i, Bus it was at ence set aside upon an appl'cation om | ne orn aad Seneerer yet he sank are here wards of Audiy with larger powers and mattor as you snould to the charge of | their bebalf, The matter was then reguiariy beard, and | appropriated and neliuer said corporation, Dor any ‘was ied authorized to do and are now $8,330 35, contingent for which you | the Court decided that they nad not been guilty of con- | ber or officer therevf, nor any department, head a gay I give no items, there ty another misrepresentation 1 shall incur apy liability fc Ninth, ainth and last charge is as follows:— on your part. In explanation of this, as well as the bjects and purposes specified, to an amogme be ‘Attending npon the Legislature at Albany to enlarge other item of $13.334 31, Mr, A. T. Campbell, for many A — 7 opined om the appropriation for your office snd yourself, and thus years Chief Clerk of this department, to whom I havo Hort Sars. se teeod criucreasing the | iactease the taxes,” Tattended.at Aibany last year im appiled for a writien statement, me as fol- bay Obedience to the following resolution of my clients, the lows ;— . coat, The auid several sume Fay! bea elioe _cealy to se Common Couneil, viz. :— It in this offlce for the last ten years au fending jects and purnoses for w! @ same a Resolved, ‘Counsel to the jon end &. Corporation to from his own | selves against litigations which nad no foundation, as | Priaied: and nelther said corporati poMity or } Lawrence, 'Esq., be and they are hersby authorized pock: the severalamall gums requived | the several iustances apove cited show. Partment, officer or agent thereof, shall Incurany liability. oF } smpowared to at Albany, in behalf of the Commis, to pay for clerks, witnesses, atenographers’ fees. copies of ‘The ¢use of Pullman ve.the Mayor, &c, Thin was | 2k Sy contractorcentracis. or permit or vole for. oF a- | sioners of the Sinking Fund, aad to o} the passag- of recor and the numerous other ineldontal expenses of ie | g Qyga negease of Fuliman vs. tne Mayor, ke. This was | shorice,direc{y or indineeiy, any exoenditure or, expend! Tections of the bil 0 create a Metropolitan Bota ef office; Once a month a detailed statement of these diaburss- a - tures of any of the objects and pu. Specified the asecn | Public W * reluting to the ‘revenues which have bees ments is presented to the Comptroller, who draws his war- | Fesl the Common Council disousaing or con- | gate of which ‘and the liabilities under suct Rleared iby the laws of ‘tale and the ordinances of the rant forthe amount, It is utterly untrue, as stated by Mr. | sidering the quesiton as to whether there should bea | contracts shall excoed the sum «ppropriated Peeper. layor, &c., of the city of New York, tor the payment of the Cooper, that “no items whitever’’ are ful ed for the | contract for sapplying the city with gas, The rigot and | oF for any other purpose or object than that b spect ‘of interest of the city di any and all othes for contingent expenses of offloe, I file o det tied | power of the Supreme Court tuus to control the icxisia- | 2d ; acts Interfering with the sinking tund oF its ,eveouse, and statement with the Compiroller every mon\ ‘amt | tive action of the Common Council wasa question of vital Buc. 10. The , Aldermen anddgpmmonaly of the elty | that the Jouns<el to the ration be and hereby is autho flo to copia how any one, magting an eumlnsict | importance, apd it wax my duty as counsel tose Corpo. | o°Mng ror shallot be lsbe upomae rcontract made oF | raed Wf employ euch addiuonal counsel aa be may dew accounts, with a ait n a illty weurred by a: ° % Statoment, could have mage” such “a ufos mis.ake, | Fation toteseit. On the part of Mr. Pulluan several | 20crment or oilosr of ald Corporation, for auy object OF ee ‘The other {teins drawn against the cont'agent account, viz. $13,334, includes the same class of bills, but being of a larger amount, you hi instead of advancing the money from your own pocket, cerofied the amount as correct, «nd the Comptroller has then drawa his warrant in favor of the arties entitled thereto, and charged the warrant to your contingent account, It may be proper to explain that all the priating for thie office, consiaiing of bianks and cases, briefs and opinions required by the ‘and all the foes of reterees in cases decided in favor of the city, and the law books from time to time required for the oilic from your contingent account, As to the articles set out at length In the communication referred to, T can only say ae yas invari Phen precise’ during your term Of ofc, and as o prices een juring you Charged we have uo suowledge or responaiblilty, Tne matter is wholly under the control of another department, to the amoudt paid by me to exira counsel to defend the city. The necessity of empiov- ing euch extra counsel haa always been conceded. by predecessors have received appropriations of sometimes $25,000, some'imes $30,000 a year for that purnoss, Judge Bronson in 1860 bad an appropriation of $25,000, At that time there wore about two hundred and nine! seven cases in this office, and other business in pro} tion, Now there are abont nine hupdred cases in tis office, and other business in proportion. This is in addition to nine bundred and thirty-four cases before the Board of Audit. At that time the ordinary rate of lawyers’ fees was less tban naif it %8 pow. I have received appropriations for 1! $30,000, and for 1867, $30,000, and I have applied these monoys to that purpose, according to my best discretion in the em- ployment of such counsel as I thougnt it was best for the interests of the city to retain. brings me naiu- raily to your fourth charge, which is as toliows:— ‘ Patronage of friends by retaining them as counsel on behalf of the city on every possibié occasion, and pay- ing them enormous fees,”’ Since my entry into oflice I bave retained various lawyera on bebaif of the city in various cases, and I have in each case endeavored to secure such legal ability as seemed to me best for the interesta of the city, with- out specially considering whether such lawyers wero my friends or not, You take special umbrage at the amount of fees paid to two gentlemen, one Mr. Trull and the other Mr John K. Hackett, now Recorder of this city, When I came into office I found that 3'r. Hackett had been employed by my immed cessor as counsel in a number of cases of v: groes of importanc> pending io the office, ospecially in numerous cases in which damages were claimed ‘in account of the riots of 1863, with the tucts and law of which cases Mr) Hackets was iamillar, 1 did not withdraw tbe employment so given; I did not think {t was for the interests of the city that I should do 0. I nad then but little personal acquaintaace with Mr. Hackett, but I bad *cem bim ip coart trying cases in be- half of the city, and was satisHed of his competency. It eomed to me for the good of the city that he should bo | still retained by me; and, certainly, i was consistent with my ideas of professional courtesy and propriety to do so. ‘In no case have I withdrawn a retainer to coun- vel given by my predecessor, Some time after I came into office Mr. Hackett wa: elected to the position of Re- corder, but be still continued to try the cases in which he had been originally employed, and othors more or less connected with themn. Ihave no r-ason to believe that he ‘bas estimated his professional services beyond their true value, or has demanded excessive fees, to Mr. irall, Tretained him for the same reason, and because { thought bim com; and better trained im tne kiud of law involved cases than apy other counsel as acceptable to me. I had never peeteni se this gentleman when J became Coutsel to the ‘pore. tion, 1 only know his professional character and ability. [therefore rotained him at firet in some cases with which he had become, av assistant coontel to my pre- decessor, peculiarly famthar, and since then in other onses where I deemed it would serve the laterests of tne city to retain him, am sure that in doing so I have acted rightly, and I am sure that the amount of fees id him me is a moderate compensation for the professional services he bas rendered the city since I came into office, Ver- ‘mit me to say that the Legisiature, in placing at my Gieposal $30 000 to meet expenses of my », coun. to my discretion the pene. ot exercised this dlacretion; vo spent this money just as it is provided by law that & Ty be spent aud at {apd iat is cerned 1 con- sider mygels at Teast as well abie to Judge of the pro- prety Of my cours: as you or any other member of the “juzena’ Association’? As to both of those genile- men it is duo to them to say that the fees pa'd them have covered various other proiessionat services ‘or which no special charge has been mate vy them. For instance, one of them rendered valuable service to the city by attendance upon the vari- ous commitiegs of the (ee inturo last year, before whom questions affeciing the intereate of the city were pevaii The other, iu the eame and various ovher ways, given bie time and services. Let Cu sensi. De lawyer iancy himeelf euddouly «i at the head ‘of a law office full of important and pressing business, ‘m when some case or other is every int'ant requiring immediate activn, and he will readiiy under the necessity under which I found myself obliged to secure tor the city the aid of gentlemen who for three years had educa‘ed this business and ac- mine that intiwate knowiedge of its complicoted letails which no labor on the part of the incomii official wouid enadle him to obtain Of this knowl. edge, 80 possessed by tuese gentiemen, I have availed myself iu @ thousand Ways adyaniage of tue civ, for which no fee has been as! y them. Forthe same reason I retained in my office three of the clerks who bau been empioyed by my predecessor, simply beause they had possesion of knowledge which could not be obrained elsewhere. As to the insinuation in your letter of. Mr. Truli’s being a member of the rin of Devlin, Mitler & frail, who, bringing suits against the ci'y, should not be retained by me on bebaif the I I did not retain that aod you surely ougut to ve aware that the fact of counsel ac ing for a Corporation in one Case does not prevent treat counsel | from acting against it in another I have no recollection | of having retaiued Mr. Miller, and tne amount to which | you refer as having been paid him by me was, I pre- | Same, one of the arrears due by my predecessor, and paid by me, O the dozen more counsel retained by me in verious suiis on bebaif of the eny there js scarcely one that has not also suite pend) city. That the firm of which Mr, Trull Occupy rooms on the same floor as this office 1 my misiortune and not my fault. I should hke to wave had tho *hoie floor for the business of this Department. An increase of room would have added much to my per- sonal comfort But there were two jous. Quo was that essere, Deviin, Miller & Truitt occupied the Too! pe one 5 years betere I became ( or- poration Counsel, and still do ocoupy them; apd the fecond, that, im order to save the city expense, | desired to occupy only just as many rooms -as were siric:ly and ately neediul in order to carry ou the bus ves of the department. If I xpcupied the whole floor 1¢ would cost the city $5,000 a year. Fy Tyee nay oo py only cost the city $3,260 a year.2 So m tor fourth cbarge. I bave employed ouly such counsel as seemed to me most suitable ior the inierest of the city, and the fece they have been paid are not epormous, a8 ea. truly aver, bot just and byron Bay bave exercised a discretion confided to me by the people who elected me and by the Legislature who pieced funds 1a bande for the pu: ania ¥ are si i = Hi 15d & £ ; 52 fey = i i i i t Hy | i ie | f = i | i itl le & Ph i i i Ht il fs ; ti a eminent counsel appeared. It seemed proper thal com- Petent counsel shouid also appar ou Dehall of the city. The first person retainea by me in that case was arespected member of the Law ( ommitee of thy Citiz ne? Assvciation. On consultation with him, he th me as v0 tne It of We quest.on pro- prioty of testing it, He subsequently retired from the case, because, as L understood um, the Ciuzens’ cia:ion was substantially on the other side, the loss of bis experience and skill, aud and retained in his place Judge Allen, to whom I auch fees as seemed to him and myself proper for ser- vices rendered in the case, I don’t know bow you are in the habit of setting with your counsel when you em- ploy them. Buitl, a mere iawyer, dealing witu a pro- fessional brotuer of bonor and repute, cavuot velp treat- ing with him as I would wiso him to trea: me, viz. :— Pay bim suon fees as in bis opinion isa tar compensa- services the aon for the rel and labor undergone. 4, instead of assisting @ suit, commenced in 1466, by Mr, Patlmano ido Wood aud the Vump- srolier, aud the suvject of tbe leases for Nos 115 and 117 Nassaa you say that I juterposed a demurrer to ihe complaint aad employed counsel w check it That true 1 ¢ air, J, T. Williams as counsel to advise with me as to the test mode of dealing win the question of the leases, of which so much bas by 2 wriken and aod hv is now acting as counsel 1 4 suis now pending, brought by me in the name of the Mayor, Aldermen and Loumonaty agaiue, Mr, Wood, by meaus of whicn suit the ciiy bas b-ea Provected, the suti or Mr. Pulimun baving turaed out, as 1 thougut it would turn ou:, unte: and abortive. The fact ts, T consider the Pullman sut a mere matter of “buncomb”’ and dispiay. I distrusted us ebject and feared 1.8 resulta, I was no: saustied to commit the m- teresis of the city into the bands of the atiorneys of Mr. Vullwaa in that suit, and I therefore d clined to Bave anytuing to do with them; and io order to keep towards it a position of “armed neu- trality," so w @ I pat im a demurrer, which was never argued, the case baving died betore any opportunity for doing sv bad arrived, ivese uo- Worious a-e8 have ir been delivereu; no rent has been paid on tuem. Tuo city nas been protected aga.nsi (bat loss, aod not by Palimann, but by me; fur the suit py. means of Wiico it Las becn so proiecied wai instituted not by him, but by moe, and 18 still pead~ ing. If he bad wever meudied in tue matter | think it would wave been all the beter, But ibet is mot a question to be discussed nere And now, in this case, im which | nave wit peculiar care, energy, watchiulness and succe:s dose wy duty to tue city, eveu to ibe disregard of al! poiitical Cumsequences OF enmities arisiug tuere.rom, you tind cause of Comp.aint. ine charge iw ull faise, and Yeu Koow or ougut to know it isiaine, The cas» last Teierced to by you im support o: (bis charge wuicn is, I presume, the case of “ Daly vs Supervisors,’ ts, in ihe Questions invoived, similar to that wenuoned in tho paragraph preceding marked first. In bvtu of these Cases wy llores was DOt to deprive the public of their undoubted rgbt, but to protect toe public vtfcers Irom beiwg uuressonubly interrupted in the discuarge of tueir Teguiar duties, Suth—Tne sixth charg “Furthering schemes of the local gov: raments waicn Were caicul wo vamage whe city and tue ciuzens, and eurich only tue projectors and their trends” Lu support of this charge you reter to my officia: action in We matters of the widening of Ann s.revt and the oxteasion of Gurren street, Ai to soe first—Ann street—I have no recoilection of having imverfered lu any manoer, for or agaist the project. The proceedings had orinated before I bad entwred cd though (be Cowmirsiuners were eppotn' the Supreme Cour. on the Sth Apt, 1866, the Commun Couns on the Bist day may following revoked the recviutiun directing the widening, andl never had any commuicatiou with ibe Commissioners on the subject of tueir duties The Loodiy avowed my tuiewuon” to juve ouice; ted jain, prepare discuss guy such propy- sition at Albany or ei ewhere. As to the extension of Tad i A La and obvious ay as transaction also lind been fuiti wy entry la the pertormauce of iy official auty Geveral term for we coulirwavon ‘Commissivness. dozen avle Counsel were opposed to me, representing varie ens — An assoc.avon Lad beou organized to manuiac- ture what is cailed “public opiniva.”’ Large p.stors vad been put up wWrougd tae ity 5 every means vad been adop-ed to inflame tue passivus of oueeps gy the project, aud yet it turned out oa tue hearing majoriiy in seca of ‘ng parties in.cresied in the as- S¢s-iwelt aud award couid nut be got wo jum the objec tivus, 1 was assisted in tha: argumeat by Mr. Fuller tou, who was <peciaily reiined om the part of tus Commissioners, Tue odjection as tO assessmouts and awards inised by the various able counsei wee, ove by one, atep ved ot in cour, I think i, was clear vo oe ope evan ad Lang x bad hey) Hone: da tae ri toe Commissioners, why w gaily authorized to decide va the area oF ascwmbak ludeyd, By. iyppreve- ment cz: @ mase ip the aucient portigih cy, however .udixpuasible to meet the growing require Meuls vf Duvluess, ualess the vausule iaud taken i ped for by an oded a-sessmeni, sinve tue pro- perty immodiaiely aijacent aud prmcipally beue- Biled woud 08 imadequate to susain the bur. den, Tuero was, on the ~hearing, no * whisper of ‘raud, aod the presiding judge expressed his astonicumenut that afver so much of public rumors of fraud, ne proof, or even suggestion «f fraud, had been made vy tue opposing Couusel. Your invective as to the ensiva of Church street dues not, in my jadg- meni, corrcelly express existing pub.ic opinion, wach seems to be about equally divided se tar as i can as- cermim You forges, I think, tbat 1 am counsel to tu Poravion, not to the Citizens’ Assuciatioa, or 10 aby Otber asvc diva or fractiwn Of tbe chizeus If 7 had re‘used to appear in tis matter, oF coldly con. ducted wy Casv, 1 shoud have -rossly fajed in my duy. sao ousts im that mater, 1 ver saw bbe bill, of was cousalted about it, or kuew its cone tenis, un il long aver it bad veen paton fle. These Diil> Of CONS La wirect Upenlog cases are Not prepared oF me, but by tue Commissioners No part of th so cons ont & | betong or come w we, in this case my oa'7 conoec- tiua Wich toe bili was to reduce it by requestine the Commis-iou-rs w suwike out @ cuarge of §: which see ued to bave been meant for ms, a: whieh L was not by iaw encitied, and $7,000 bog / ot y for & twe report, wuich I did not deem required ‘The-e ews aud some othe.s I objected to oa the bill, aad ber he obj to Judge ipgraham, who, after examina’ and Qrsumevt Oy Cuuncil fur (he vbjectiona, and by Mr. Fuliertoa op bebail of the Commuissiouors, gave airec- ton. as 10 toe taxing of we lists by the County Cierk, Your crivicusm on tue wet May not be correct, 1 wal ton aud te Court, res.log Cousve! & oppustion, aud our adie Jadge os the Ro egal charge could be a wwed, Seventi.—Yo rf event. charge ta:—"Overcharging violative oF ny of the jaw,’ Specitication is that I took $10,000 from tue treasury sO man; iy able benca, for my services ta tue Dank tax eases, Tiere were tweive of tuese canes, oi by some of the hese cases were in many eo abirst counsel in the c.ty. dissimilar, and reqaired se; Tue amecat Ject was :@li aud epredy det rm nation of the matter, 80 toa: te ta: 867 accorumace qT sual euergy red to ine Co. States Suprene Voor, woere they were argued ae a ed on the pari of swe Saper- and by myself, Wo wom the cases, and Feault was that we asury was richer for the mext year by nearly $2,000,000. The counsel for the Bu; oe et jing er, Waldo yen Juage er, of Albany, and ", recely: labors and success $35,000, 0 wien I rceetvet $10,000, bevor was @ ligation so impor ant cunduc.ed With greater success and al tor legal urpose which ig not expressly authorized, or liability in- Barred py ani Gedtmasies ue clmae ‘0h anid cactecs: tion, for any object or purpove named in this act beyond the amount priated to such specific ob ject oF 7 and Ee tt rye ne to ba ered 84! at the recov stil remains anexpended in the City Treasury to f! of the » of. to the snecific obj which the claim aned ar, by defendant's: f, that oth curred by oF work dono for partment, Board, member, olicer or agent thereof any cont act. expressed or implied the amount of wi bilities, together with the aiaiva suad upon, shall exseed ropriated by this act for the purpose in and about claim xnd Itabilities arose, no judgment shall be rendered in the plaintiff's favor in «uch action, ‘There are certain cases in the list furnished me, not aris ing on contracts, but on the liabtlitr of the city for injuri to the person, which the act of 1867 referred to 1 a8 ave, in my opinion, no reference These I have enumerated inthe sch-dule herennio rnnexed, mirked schedule “A.” In Schedule B are enumerated judemonts entered before May § 100m and'ae te chase Teannet ace tat the provisions charter —) Ww! became a law on that can In Schedule O are enumarated certain jud :ments o tained in actions on contract, ia which the only defense Anterponed by the city, or the only objection to jndgmant was that the sim appropriated to the object for which the ded. Hind a warranted be scc.ion & chapter en is de'ence was warran! ¥ section la 76, Laws of 186. In those cases, either by the direction of the Court on motions, or by report of a referee, the city was bound to be Hable to the plitntiff in the amount claimed, a motion on the part of the inteff for judg- ment, the plaintiff was duly required by this dep irtment to the arnount sought to be recovered ment remained unexpen ied in th City freasury je credit of the appropriation, to the #e upon which the claim sued for rdiug to the prorisions of seo. of ‘said act: and after hearing jing the said Fequirement as unconstitutional, udgmen’ in favor of the plaintiff. These cases decided in the Superior Court and Court of ommon, The Si Court has taken a different view of the question. Ttherefore enclose n copy of the opinion of the Suprome Court in the case of The Tribune As- scet tion va, The Mayor, c..in which # motioa for judg- ment was dented, and a's0 scopy of the opinion of Judze Mct}unn, tn the case of Wood va, The Mayor, &c.. 1 which judgment was allowed with costs and al owance. fn the case Of Hd, Jones vs, The Mayor, &.. you Lave alreidy been fur- nished with « the opinion of Judge Jones. Tt would manifestly indelicate and me to offer an to decisions 18 right or either of contravention of the law of 1468 referred to, or whether the sdgmente entered apon euch d-cistons were o'tained tn contravention of aaid faw, ft 1s no part of the duty of the Counsel to the Corporation to pass upon the denisions ofthe couris in cases argued by him. The Avpellnte Court alone is competent to settle the quostion whether auy error has been committed. ‘Corinsel to th ion believes The that he hes done his dut; ate atcention of the cou: when he to the statutes in founded on iyn of chapter 876 laws of 18%, or any oihor law, J of ihe Buitrere Court had Mupor oe Court, und Court ot Common Pica differ ot ibjett. The decision ofa n sul court com etent to djndicate tha difference can alone t perly answer your toex ‘ol ims from the restricion jut nothing in this act contained shall be construed tm afr oraffect any clim for under the provisions and authority of ex ating laws, when such ela'm has been duly certified and audited. Schedule & conta‘ns a list of judgments not incluted in the ey shedules. and to the p yment of which there appears not forbear, before express my sevtiments of dissatisfac- justand deerading atutude pe by reason Jegial tion of 1868 and 1867, tis muni pau has Leen evnpelled te assume towards Ite creditors, ri of these creditors have been. as it seems to ine, com- let ignored, [ E deen able to ner. York of rf and re.utitton, habit ov advising thelr clients wo hare ne wh contracting party the fulfllneat of whove obligations is at bert so dilatory. and ao iikely to need the compulsionof ex- Ponsive and 1 . Take as an instance the cave of A. T. Stewart M e. In thin case. gots wars farninned. Wy ‘mn accordance with »” resolution of the Common te the amount of $754 BU, in 1°64 1885, and hyd ‘agent of plicatin » to the Comptroller, the fnanetal fale to swor bela a 4 ts "the dentor is insolvent, “Wr. Stewart there: upon brings suit. The © Gonneel is ta. thst ibe nude were delivered a4 claimed, in areortanen ec us Monbyaporotated or purmank os Che clits,The ‘Laws of 1854 is ‘That ia, its Mads a ae livered, that Pon of acoordin, section debtor has Re ed for jadgme: auawer, and the case having | Doen brougnt in ‘Superior Court, judgment is ordered in | IAvor. Here is met thar difflculty, vis:—In gecord- th the pet inde Br 10, phy ay of ae a condition of obtaining judgment, that | jedgment ult remaine unexpends tn e eredit of ie appropriation to the 4 5, wi ia no | fs to Seton, and is duly for vat in spite OF ints he is boun tid prove in recovered in C! Cm id favor." tad rule dgmeat could preme Vourt ono jr been enter and the plainti would have Leen wholly without relief, ‘This elaim having now acqu red authority of a judgment. is among those for which the egivlature has inade provision in the oity tax levy crodsiee may perhaps indulge the hope that all ty be P The Legis it. ‘The court has adjudged that the money in due. lature hes provided funds wherewith to pai it's troubles are vot yet ended. The J have te) sh ll xpen! in contravention of 876 4 the Laws of " (Seottyn 1, chapter Laws 197) You ask me, in your letter of April 2 that restriction has on the paymentof Mr. Stew- what eifeot art's judamont, and if my answor does ant seem to ou ito wa rant the payment, Mr. stewart may be such further measures aa to his counsel may seem ert to deat, fauna just byt ntiemant His goods were fur- miahed to the corpyration, the debt is dae, the hae money 10 his wade wherewith to pay it. vot ik ie aulll a Jura! whether this clause ia the (ax lev 1807 does not forbid the iebtor to pay the debi. This almost absard and vicious condivien of affairs having been brought about by the Legisiature, the ure proceeds to erect a most Par omney. tozethor ward of Audit to adjustand seitie heir main duty will probably as that of Mr. Stewart. and ‘by Isaue nf counts Court of Record, the hig Seretor on yo! a ined by a of Audit, wl fands Ge eabecy whorecttn to pup tt neti fund Fancy w mor" bamenchote-cwse of fe + Inmentauie cue 0} ive folly. The case of the Tribune ‘Aecoviation aguiast The M above referred to, in which the Fight of the pinintitf to recover fatare of plalatir! 1 p-ove, te Ne 1 Font heck, at first. sight’ ereditor, may turn ont, in the end, iw. Af this sure : i #3 i should fe Was a0 uppropriation to par been a difficult investigation he done #0, nnd ascertained on deit theve was a supp y of funds, out of which wory of tbe vgaily be made how could be aseuro himeelt tnat such ‘Might por be exhausted woen he came to demand Cot ‘ow could he assure himself (hat wheo he Souserne judgment nga net his devtor, he cvald Gppropration to the @ wrong. he reiati Tesgstastaione te to whone wisdom ment of the State and of Weberedy ot ley coun Sponsivie fur their ow: ra ue then | Ht F procure payment, the answer belng | tty tad to. meet the la | {es While in Albany I found myself opposed to the counsel of the Citizens’ Association, who , wi were, very much to my regret, ing om the ba ofa “Board of Works tor the Government of New York.” Tne pubdlic pretty woll re members its ‘and object. I opposed tt with my bumble sireugth, I opposed the wi Of the Citizens’ tae bul oe ancient place it aod their property, in the bands of a commissiva Politicians to be a| the Goveruor, I argued against a bill for traacterring tue custody of (ue piers aud wharves of this city to another Commiss on, also te be appoimted by the Guveruor. bere agai I found the rey ntatives of toe | itizens’ A sociation Op the otner 2—on the side of the parties wno would sirip this city, my client, of its property, and transier it 0 com- missioners to be appotated partizans foi pariizae pero, T neipad to beat that Dill, and 1t was beutea, ‘he backs strove to: pass a@ bill requiring the cit zens of New Yerk to repay them certuin taxes, which they claim to have paid in their wrong in the years 1831 and 1862, I argued ‘that question, prepared prin‘ed poin The amvu: fovolved in tvat mutter waa very largo, probuoly a few hundred thousaud dvilara. ucoveded; I beat the bauks, aad to that exvent saved the pockets ui che Citizeos, But the counsel of the Cisizens’ Associatiog gave me no aid ja tuatconiest, Wherever toere was aay wrong to be done to the city, wherever its riguts or iran Chises were to be taken away, wuere any iuiecrest of m veyed corporations were tu be subverted, conse By the Cisize..s’ Assvciation were sure to be on haud te help the pr ject; when the city was to bo served, cnccurennpncceancy axannnn t got sce them un my side You have cow s:en what was my business in Al- bany. I went there in ovedience 0 the instructions of wy client aud ia the pageernnen of my vitic.al daty, Iregret to vay that it was part of that duy io Oppose tbe counsel of the Citizen's Association and defeat their eflorts to take this city out of all control O iS Citizens, aud Orect over it a series Of pull.ical “kings,” commoniy called cowwmissiovers, I did ask the Commitice on the Tax Levy to tucrease the ap- ation to my depariueat 4 tue addition of 000 reat. fur my __ ollices, did so openiy, because tue increas) Was justand peceasary. Would tne “*Cytizen’s Association” preter tuat I bad left the cifices ow occupied by me and gons to tuose for whicu Fer- nando Woud is anxious to cuilect rent {rom .he 0.9; oF do you tuiok i rignt tuat I sbould be the only one of the is of the Executive et j this chy, who ie obliged to pay rent ier Lits uilies. @ now dune wits wwe nine charges which you have forsu in your communcstion There ute varous nor falsehouds, ia invations, suppressious of truth, Suggestions of untruta, scatered over your leit r, to whicu I wave no ‘imo or space to reier, 1 reget tbat my answer bas occupied so maou A es Mare ft indictments was elaborate, well, and 20 d.uot ug «prepared, and a suorter reply would have been inauiticion, = 1 trust have me the OCvarges direouy, with c.eurness and tem: your Charges, inuenuus, cag geavons &c., were ali untrue Bus 11; better o wake these ihings clear, Your accowns of what my olticial Tecurd GLOWS is 4 gros Sauder, aD uter perversion ine ea Jom mt jas neshapeh gt : a writing wuch to myself, now cians * tar my Riou “‘recora’ ‘shows a the city, 10 the counsel abo have been vppused to me, or as-ociaed with me. I wave no: iscres. bat dimimiwbed taum by the Successful Conducs Of sarious sul.s and proceedings 1m which they were interested, 1 can poiut to Iltigations conducied by me on benaif of the city, since I came ise Office, 10 wuich the suns thus saved vo thecly treasury, Sr ae: WS fans loon g008. two milous ars. I uave Kops prouise od in my letter to the ‘Citizens’ wo have conta gociauvn,” dated Novemver 12, a of which you pre.ace your jeer T have consented to no ilega: a-08.1t ou tvem frou any quarer, aud to tne utaost of tue means whicd the aw eifoided we, 1 bave fought again + such i. Toe “Cit.zen’s Association,” suroudit 00, its chairwan, bave Adc, What is the ‘it zens Soom is 1t composod? Who are ite working moubers? Whe are us +mpluyés? Are there uct paried on tts Printed papers, on its list of commit +he uames Of reputavie citizeus, who tuke oo part Te tts Sud have ceased to contrivuie 10 im treasury. ‘nicu Of iis memb. rs has beei pry te this auiack on mo? Wao has prepared wo ment ie which you bave aiixed your name? Do you Lold youre Seif aasworabie for the iruch of is coutents, or have you nut, as Charman, merely signed this cocumens Placed 1» your bauds by vthers, apd of wiich you cave Ro pers aul Knowledg? {et me see my true and read as-ai 801-, WUO use You Merely as 2 respectable walking horse, from bevind whica wey shoot puwoaed arro+m, T object to tight fa the dark. Se much tur tne Citizens? Assvciation aud toe r coarges against we, Now, Mr, Peter Cooper, a word or two to yourself, Yoo are « citizen, advanced in years, & man Oi eeath Bud goud repute, You wre cousidered to be an Louead and 8 Cirisiiau man, lam desirous to treat you wita ail due revpect, tut bow can you reconcile it wih your howety aud Chrisiiansy to leud your name to we Slander of & Mau aS bonest but not eo wen es yourseli? lune tun * foro and style of your leuer 1s @ fraud fou direct it as & leer to me In it you ask me for an explanativn of tue cuarges mado tuerelu aguiast me. Your lewer is de- ve me ou the ulteravun of November 18. It ap- ‘@ iu priut o@ tue mora.ng of Novemver 19, Ib mast pe befor. it was delivered to me. Thus eral days siart fur sories et well pre- pared and wnmitiga-ed tianders, You secure the mos efficient means of prejud cing tue pudic mind agains Tk will bave oeen fur days noised around thas Against your vame I set mie—s es sisinicss as your own. Did it never occur to yea tat it would have been fair, and proper to hove stated Po complaints to me, Ww bave asked me invormation on the subjcer, whicn would have been readily and cheeriuly suppited to you before appeariny in the public press beea for moutis in bientiy, sleanwily, with ail tue seoreny of a spy or detective, your a.eate have eeu, at if lemure, accumulating these fase hoods, aad molding thew in a spec ous 1n order to take me at advautage, sad iaunch em at me Gnprepared [ am obliged in « few Naw Youn, Nov, 31, 1067, To ran Eprom ov te Eeraup:— ‘Tne arrival of Mr. Dickens ecems to call for some trifing censure upon the comments of most of our city journals respecting his visit. They admit that twenty- five years ago he had just cause for cauaic criticiem of oar life and manners, but say that the lapse of time has cotrected all oer faatta, and he wiil now find usanem tirely different people, Admitting this to be tras, Would we not get the additional praise of being a very modest people by not prociaiming it in advance to Mr. Dickena, He has some reputation for sagacious insighé way 6f life of those with whom he comes im Then why net tt him judge whether we have im a quarter of « century. true that we bave attained social, polities! ae@ perfection? Does not the very ciaim of & our press that Mr. Dickens will Crt. i loa ure