The New York Herald Newspaper, August 7, 1874, Page 9

| a pe -_ NEW YORK HERALD, FRIDAY, AUGUST 7, 1874.—WITH SUPPLEMENT. THE MAYOR'S DEFENCE [OONTINUED PROM EIGHTH PAGE) does not, of oon, prove that the Commissioners ere innocent ; but 1t does tend to abow that their hed no confidence in their accusations, ‘and their purpose was not to convict the Commis- ‘eioners of offences of which they believed them to ity, but to drive them trom office waetner or not, When the question is what notice yor ought to have taken of complaints it public officers, the objects and motives of hose making the complaints are most Ot to be considered. PARTIALITY OF THE ACCUSERS, One thing further touching this first charge it me, that 1 did not institute an investiga- jelon into tue conduct of the Police Board in rela- ‘don to street cleaning, and the motives of my ac- users will recetve additional illustration. No-~ where 1p all the voluminous papers which have een placed before you is any matter to be found tend! in” apy way to tincalpate *he Police joara = in_—s espe: wo its ‘operations in the business of street cleaning, ‘which does nos equally inculpate at the members * the The Asse! ot Board, The mbly Committee potnted dts soanding and empty criticism inst the whole without distinciion. The Aldermen followed example. But what lam accused of ts not of fang or refusing to investigate the conduct of the Police Commissioners generally, but of two of bem—namely, Oliver Charluck and Hugh Gardner. Hig in the ince 0! the proois which my accusers eciare 80 plainly convict the Commissioners of ross misconduct, and which, if they convict one, Srey convict all, they agopt and sanction as & art of their “specifications” the letter of one of heir namber, Hon. Jonn Kelly, which, speak- Ing of two of the Commussioners, declares ‘John R, Russel an opr and conscientious republican and Abrabam Duryee an equally uprighs and conscientious democrat. The characters of these latter gentlemen stand in need of no eulogy at my hands among their fellow citizens of New York, where they have lived universally honored and respected throughout their lives.” It would eto no purpose for my accusers to attempt to escape from the self-condemnation they thus in- Mict upon themselves, for insincerity and partisan and personal hostility, under the pretence that | Commisstoners Russel and Duryee were ina mi- Bority and not responsible for the action of the Board in relation to street cleaning. Neither is such the fact, nor is there any pretence to that effect anywhere in the papers before you. Bat, even were they in sucha minority, and had they been overruled in their desires and wishes, vet, if what is alleged against the in relation to street cleanin; be true, they must have known its truth, and were bound by every consideration of official duty to declare it to me or such other public autnority as might afford a remedy. Had they known of the existence of these pretended abuses by their tel- low Commissioners, and fatied to reveal their knowledge, but remained like dummies in their otfice, receiving its emoluments and uttering no note of public remonstrance, they would have do- #erved not simply removal, but worse punish men' ~~ But enough—inasmuch as I myself discovered nothing in the evidence hefore the Assembly com- waittee nor tn the report of that committee calling q me to make an investigation of the conduct of either of the Police Commissioners, and that committee could-find nothing capable of statement anculpating their conduct in any particular; when the,Assembly which ordered the inquiry uw noth- ang in the results of it calling for aby actton on its parc; when the Board of Aldermen were invited to ing out any particular in which the conduct of the Commissioners, in relation to street cleaning, demanded scrutiny, conieased by silence their in- ability; when the Board of Health, whose special province it was to exercise a close observation ‘upon the manner in which this branch of the duties of the Police Board were performed, had ‘uttered no word of public complaint, but, on the contrary, had, from time to time, induiged in ex- premnans of warm approval; when my accusers jtow the most fulsome eulogy upon two of the Commissioners, who, if their colleagues were guilty of any neglect, were guilty with them; and ‘when no individual or body ot individuals has ever even called upon me to remove the Commisstoners or investigate their conduct in these resieees: except the Board of Aldermen, and they, when chaliengea to specify their causes of complaint, coniessed by theirsilence the groundiessness of their accusations, | leave it to your judgment to pronounce whether I have been guilty of any Degieot in the premises, meriting removal from ple or any. other form of condemnation or tiolem. Ifyou ehould find, as Ithink you must, that the positive assertions ol my accusers in respect to the Matters thus far considered are destitute even of any color of foundation, your confidence in any other representations made by them for the pur- pose Of supporting their present appeal to your @uthority will certainly not be increased, “GROSS MISCONDUCT IN OFFICE.” ‘The-other charge made against me, and to which Iam now to direct my answer, is, “Gross miscou- duct in office and abuse of the appointing power.” cl is based upon my action in irl ne hay ing Olver Uharlick and Hugh Gardner as Police Commissioners after their conviction for @ misde- meanor and while other charges were pending t them. I suppose two questions may be considered as here raised; one a purely legal one, a8 to whether such reappointment was in viola- ‘tion of some law so well settled and clear that I should be charged with knowledge of it; and the ther @ moral question, as to whether such reap- intment was, under the circumstances, such an ft exercise of the appointing power as to ‘amount to gross abuse of it. Touching the legal jestion, it seems to be necessary to but litte. Thave not had tne advantage of a legal education, ‘and certainly but little value can be avtached to any Opinion of mine u any disputed point in the law; but surely all must agree that Messra, Charlick and Garduer were not ineligtbie w rea| pointment after their conviction and resignation, ‘unless they Were made so by the provisions ofsome statute, There is nO such statute, as 1 have been and am still advised. In the petitions tor my re- moval, signed by Messrs. Watrous, Crosby and others, and which are endorsed like ordinary Jaw papers, with the name of Henry L, Clinton, Esq., gs counsel, and which I may therefore inter were drawn by that gentleman, it 1s set forth that after the conviction of Messrs. Charlick and Gardner for 4 misdemeanor | received a note from Your Excellency that thetr offices had become va- Cant by reason of their conviction of a crime in- volving a violation of their oaths of office, ana that the duty thereupon devolved upon me to "a) point two suitable and fit persons (other than the said Charlick and Gardner) Police Commissioners for the city of New York ;”’ but that “in gross and outrageous violation of his (my) duty as such Mayor, and in defiance of law and public di cency,” £ reappointed Messrs. Charlick and Gard- mer. It t not anywhere suggested by these petitioners that the persons 80 appointed by ame were, in any way, unworthy of the trust ‘thus bestowed upon them, unless it so appeared from the tacts of the conviction above mentioned and the receipt of the subsequent notice from Your £xcellency ; ana the respectable gentlemen sign- ing these petitions, and more,especially the pro- fessional counsellor wno seems to have guided them, mighc well have borne in mind that, if there be any chasm between these facts and the con- clusion sought to be drawn irom them, the use of violent epithets, such as “gross and outrageous,” and “in defiance of law and public decency,” will haraiy serve to bridge it over. Waivingfor the moment the question whether the convictions did involve the violation of the oaths o1 office, and ad- mitting for the purpose of the argument, but ior no other purpose (because I have never jor an tn- stant delieved it), that sucn was its effect, 1 am yet to be instructed in what way or by force of what law Messrs. Charlick and Gardner were ineligible to reappointwent. I willingly agree that had the offence of which they were convicted Teally involved a violation of their oatns of office, and that fact, 1t would have been a very questionable exercise of the discretion reposed in me to have reappointed them; but such considerations are not pertinent to the charge that 1 have committed ap illegal act. Our system or civil administration, assuming, what is quite true in my case, that pub- lic OMicers caliea upon to discharge responsible be imperfectly acqnainted with legat ay principles and rules, usually provides them | ‘with professional counsellors, whom they may and ougnt to resort when in. doubt legal question. Upon this pial ge | any occasion thought it prudent to avail myself of this provision for my better instruction, and before taking any action in the rs Lappliea to my legal adviser, the Counsel to the Corpora- ticn, for bis opinion on all the legal questions in- volved. In the absence of that officer irom the city, MMs very competent assistant, George P. An- drews, Esq., jurnished me with bis opinion, which ‘was undoubtedly to tne effect that there was no legal impediment to the reappointment of the | above named persons as Commissioners, I enclose with this communication 4 printed copy of the opinion of Mr. Andrews, which | commend to your attention, If there be anything more which [ ought to have done or could have done lam at a loss to. perceive what it is. If, aiter forming the best opinion as to the law which my ab! alter resorting to means of enlightenment which the law has assigned to me, I have fallen or been led into error, and must suffer condemnation therefor, my case would seem to be somewhat ex- ceptional, and the office I hold carries with 1t haz- ards, which any man capable 1 wortbily filling tt, ‘would carefully shun. ‘THR MORAL QUESTION. I.pass to what I have termed the moral question, namely whether I have rendered myséif ovnoxious to the charge of having abused the power ol ap- Pointment, by bestowing office ae sons pal- Pably and flagrantly unworthy. id here let me Soswer that part of this charge, which raises & legal and technical question, which J have thus Teserved, Thue is, that Messrs. Charlick and Gardner had been convicted of an offence involving @ violation af their oaths of office, and that the immediate re-appointment of pares thus gouvicted to the very trusts they had betrayed, ‘a8, ON its very front, an abuse of the power be- stowed upon me. But did the offence of which they were convicted involve a violation of their omctal oaths? This is a question which I did not pass without deliberate consideration, more ¢s- pects jor the reason that 1 received a notice rom Your Excellency, after the conviction, appris- ing me that, in your view, they did oarry with them this consequence. You will not juire from me any avowal of the high respect | entertain, and fox Rew aa. Sarena, Police Board | was properly charged with knowledge of | ities and education permitted, and | those option or suggestion which proceed from-you relative cl my official “usies. ke the same tine, 1 must be allowed tO observe that the whether the offence of which Mesars, ana Gardner were convicted involved a viola- tion of their oaths of office, is @ faticaat question, the duty of deciding which, apy urpose or action by me, is not cast upon Your Excellency; #d, in the abgence of any judg- ment thereon by & competent tribunal, I must de- cide, so far a8 the purposes of my I must all other such questions, upon pty ig Sie oe feet wid of ntenment as points out and furnishes in for my instruction. What was the oath of office taken by Messrs. Uharlick and Gardner t 1 was the oath similar to that which every public officer takes—that they would support the Consti- tution of the United States, the Constitution of the State of New York and discharge the duties or Police Commissioner according “to the dest ability.” Were the persons just named convicted ef not having performed their oMcial duties according “to the their ability?” Certainly not; neither directly or imaereoty. They might have been guilty of the ofence for which they were convicted, and yet | Bave exhibited an efficiency and rightness throughout their official conduct, which should render them conspicuous examples to all public officers. Neither their integrity, their their eMoiency or the motives, elther in the act in respect of which ee other part of their offictal conduct, were in any manner drawn in question by the trial, or passed upon by the jury, What then was the precise ontence of which they were convicted? To deter- mine this we must have recourse to the proceed- ings upon the trial; but first allow me to briefly notice the circumstances out of which the trial arose, LEGAL RIGHT. The Sopa open of inspectors of election ana poll clerks is vested by law in the Board of Police, and a general authority is given to that.Board to re- move any of these officers tor want 01 the requisite ualifications or other cause. As the discharge of this duty requires the Board to make some 4,000 or more appointments, and they cannot well be per- sonally acquainted with but comparatively a few of the number, frequent occasions must arise tor making removals. It would be of course imprac- tcabie to give hearings on such occasions, and the law does not require {t; but tt does require that “such removal, unless made while the inspector 1s actually on duty, on the day of registration or election, and for improper conduct. as an election officer, shall only be made after notice in writing to the officer sought to be removed, which notice ’sball set forth clearly and distinctly the reasons for bis removal.” — Precisely what useful purpose is supposed to be accomplished by this provision lam unable to perceive. The notice gives no right toa hearing, and it may be given one moment and the removal be made the next. Bat we are not to criticise, It is enough that suca ig the law. It appears that on the $4 of November, 1873, the day before the election, affidavits were presented to the Commissioners, showing an in- | spector named Jonn Sheridan to be a man grossly unfit for the office, and thereupon he was promptly dismissed, but no previous notice was given to him, although he was not actually on duty at the time. Messrs. Charitck and Gardner had excited the Siem of the politicians of Tammany Hall, and after the election the latter went indusiri- ously at work to institute legal proceedings against them. To this end they pitched upon the case of John Sheridan and procured the Grand Jury to find an indictment against them, in which they were charged with having removed Sheridan “un- lawfully and ly.” Upon the trial of the indictment the deiendants at once admitted that tuéy appointed a man named John Shertdan ae inspector, and that they removed him without notice. (Chere was some question made as to the identity of the man, not material here.) As to the commission of the act, therefore, no question was made. Whether it was done seloniousty, as charged in the indictment, or with evil or corrupt intent, ‘was another question, and, as it seems to me, the main question when we are dealing with the moral quality of the act; but upon this point the prosecutors effered no evidence tending ‘o Impeach the motives of the defendants, The @efendants themselves desired to prove, and offered to prove. that complaint was made to them that the character of Sheridan was bad; that he ‘was in the habi:ual practice of frauds at elections, and that he designed to practice iraud at the then impending election; that they declined to act on these complaints unless something in the shape of proof should be presented to them; that proof was Presented of the most direct and explicit charac- ter, in the shape of aMdavits. Copies of these affidavits have been shown to me, and certainly no one oocupying the place of these Commissioners could properly have failed to act upon them fortn- with and remove inspector. But this proof thus the prosecutors objected to, upon the ground that it would Involve an inquiry into the truth the matters charged in the aMdavits, thus declining the issue as to whether the inspector really was a person who ought to have been removed. The defendants offered further to show that in making tue re- moval without notice they acted unaer legal advice and in @ manner, as they supposed, in ac- cordance with the law; and this proof also was objected to by the prosecutors, ‘The Juage ruled | out ali the evidence thus objected to, on the require, a3 iny own respol were convicted, or in any Under these rulings a verdict of guilty seems to have been a necessary consequence. Indeed, there was Dothing practically left for tne jury to pass upon, Assuming as I suppose I ought, and I have no opinion to the contrary, that the rulings of the learned Jud, p were, in all things correct, 1t fouows | that the convittion of thé defendants proves, and only proves that they removed from office an in- spector of Election, who, irom aught that appears or was permitted to be proved, richly deservea removal, and whom they could not have retained in Office ap hour, without a violation of their duty; but that in doing this they omitted to give the written notice prescribed by law, although they in good faith supposed and were advised that their mode of action was in conformity with the law. I heve the honor to say to Your Exceliency that I cannot believe, until so instructed by some judi- cial tribunal of last resort, that an offence oi this mere technical character, which the dest man mignt commit without a shadow of moral guilt, involves @ Viouation of that oath which an officer takes to perform the duties of his office ‘‘to the dest or his ability.” There are few public officers, even of the best, called upon to perform administrative visions, who have not, at some time or other, through an oversight, misapprehension or occa- sional neglect, violated or failed to comply. with some requirement of the law. Such offences may involve some legal penalty, and when this is the case, and & conviction 1s pressed for and had, the penalty must, of course, be paid; but the characters and reputations of the men who have HointeaHOnaly thus subjected themselves do not, and should not in the judg- ment of all right thinking persons, be made to suffer, The learned Judge who presided at the trial of this indictment seems to have been of this opinion, for, in pronouncing the sentence, be observed, ir he 19 correctly reported:—‘The cir- cumstances disclosed ment, do not justify me in inflicting any more than ‘a fine, because it was not insisted on the there was any proof of wicked or wiiful intent to do wrong.” The States, near the beginning of his first verm of office, appointed a distinguished merchant of New York to the place of Secretary of the Treasury. This was in distinct violation of an express sta- tute; buat no sensible man allowed his estimate of the character of General Grant to be diminished | in consequence of that wre rie or thought him deserving of impeachment. I cannot think that it would be just to say that he thereby molated his oath or office, and yet the oath taken by him corre- sponded, in all matertal respects, with that teken under the laws of this State by Messrs. Charlick and Gardner. The statute in which offences tn vio- lation of au oMcial oath are spoken of ts that which specifies the cases in which Offices shail become vacant; and the provision bearing Qpon the pres- ent discussion declares that every office shall be- come vacant “on the conviction of an incumbent of an intamous crime, or of an offence violaung his oath of office.” What an infamous crime is, we are clearly taught by the Revised Statutes. They declare that ‘the term ‘infamous crime’ shall be construed as imcluding every offence pun- ishable with death or imprisonment in a State prison and no other.” But there is nowhere in our written law any definition of what constitutes &n offence involving @ violation of an official oath. We are left to determine this, as best we may, by foe reagon of tie thing and the analogies of the We ARGUMENT. I believe, and am _ advised, that an offense involving @ violation of such oath,must be one committed by an oficer in nis oficial charac- ter, and with ious or corrupt intent, and 1 think the following reasons sufficiently support the interpretation thus indicated :— Firat—The penalty of the forreiture of office Is a severe | one, Involving personal disgrace, and it ts a cardinal rule, in the interpretation of statutes, to construe pro- visions inflicting such penalties strictly, #0 as not to bring any case within, thelr operation, unless such ap- | pears with eortainty to have been the legislative intent. Secon?—The phrase “offence in violation of his oath: of office,” is placed in the statutory provision above cited, in the same clause and together with the term “infamous ee to describe a class of offences of grave character, the commission of which should oaray, with it the liability of forfeiture of oMcial poston. [t suppose, ink, that PRESIDENTIAL EXAMPLE. 4g reason: I think, that the Legisiawre did not f to, associate together in this way with “infamous crime” any offences except those commiued with evil or corrupt intent, Third—But what satisfies me more clearly than an: other consideration is that no policy more unwive coul be imagined than to make the commission of every offictul Regio, arsounttt 0 a technical misdemeanor, subject to the diszrace of the torfeiture of office, no mat: ter how rrivial the offence, or that 1t was committed in excess of zeal or through a misap eee ate. which the best of men will occasionally fall. ee ae of character would accept the burdens of public office when he knows that @ fearless discharge of his duties ‘will inevitably create around him @ harde of enemies, watching and laboring, not to aid him in his endeavors, ‘ut to catch him in some slip or o1 ‘which may be made tho f ‘ound of & prosecution for the py oo be ‘A policy can- rendering is place vo I, Bae Unless its language leaves me no iven to & more Dllant instrument fot impate to the law, room to avoid i. FIRM IN HIS BRLIEF. Do not understand me as endeavoring to exten- uate or apologize fer ny! neglect or violation of law, however slight. All thas 1 am inetsting upon 18 that there are d: ces in the magnitude of offen and that a wide gulf separates ors “which involve wickedness and corruption o those into which mon fall from excess. ry heart from a : elity, | ground that neither the fitness of the man Sheri- | duties which are regulated by specific legal pro- | im this case, in my judg- | part of the prosecution that in this particular case | present Chiet Magistrate of the United | ppesh once anoying t this dity s personel and power ana influence, xampled before Fr RCS, Was indicted and con’ for offictal in the saditing of accounts, and justly sentenced to # long term he is now because the evidence couciu- his offence was committed with ‘evil intent, and m the prosecution of redecessor in this office was, in a like manner, indicted for uke neglect in the auditing of the same accounts; and the same motive and intent deen proved, as in the case of hia colleague, Would, doubtless, have met with the same late, end be now gerry Byer same penalty. But though it could hardly was guuty Of no neglect, yet as tbe corrapt motive was not shown to exist in his case, he was acquitted of all. gee. Men in the exercise of extreme zeal some- e8 Dass beyond the boundaries of the law, and their conduct, if animated by a good motive ‘and fruitful 1 good resulta, instead of bel reproved is sometimes applauded. [ might of tmprisonment, whi you oer! are familiar, where, in @ great exigenooy, though not in time of war, and without any overruling tag ge hign public officer issued to a subordinate the command, “If »@ny man hauis down the American flag shoot him on the spot!” Had occasion called for the execu- tion of this order, and the character of the act been drawn in question before & judicial tribunal, | She task of deiending ts might not have been easy; but the motive was high and pure, and the ap- plause which followed the order has not yet } Ceased to reverberate. I do not hold up such ex- ; amples for imitation. I am simply poinsing out the broad and ineffaceable distinctions between technical legal offences and those accompanied witn conscious guilt, siderations 1 have urged will satisfy you that tne offence o1 which the Comtnissioners were convictea involved no viviation of their official oaths. But were thts otherwise, I think it must be conceded that they were still legally eligible to the oftice; end when it 18 considered how whoily technical thelr offence was, and how entirely free from malt- cious or corraps intent, their conviction should constitute no impediment toreappointment, ‘The only remaining ground upon which my acousers may urge that the reappointment of Messrs. Charlick and Gardner was an abuse of the power confided to me is that such reappointment was made al a time when other charges were pending against them, and other in- dictments also which had not been tricd; and without any investigation upon my part as to the trath of the charges. What I bave already said ren- ders it unnecessary for me to answer this charge to much further detail, The Aldermen bad, in- deed, in the vague and general way I have hereto- fore pointed out, called upon me to remeve ati the Commisstoners, without trial or investigation, on account of the supposed disclosures betore the Assembly Committee, implicating their conauct eoncerning the cleaning of the streets. I have, | truss, safficiently exposed the groundlessness of this proceeding. When called upon by me to put THEIZ ACCUSATION OF THE COMMISSIONERS in this tangible form, they confessed their inability by their gilence, and, in effect, abandoned this closures of misconduct developed by an examina- tion before a judge of the Supreme Court of the proceedings of the Police Board in relation to the rior general election, which occurred in Novem- yr, 1873. This departure from their original gronnd was not calculated to impress me in the ness ‘of the motives which actuated them. received from them by meon the 20th of June examination above alluded to and pointed out Parts of it supposed to contain matter showing that gulartties or misconduct. They did not, however, call upon me to direct any investigation, or offer to substantiate any allegations o1 misconduct; but called upon me as before, to suspend and remove the Commissioners, without reference to any in- vestigation. Although my confidence in the ty faith of those engaged in hostile proceedings against the Commuastoners was not complete; and I saw many evidences that mere partisan Motives were at the bottom of such proceed- ings; and the communication from the Alder- men’ was accompanied with @ copy of the Teport of @ committee not very respectfui in its li towards me, yet I determined to institute an investigation. response, theretore, to this action on the part of tne Aldermen, | ad- Gressed to them, on the 4th of June last, a commu- nication reminding them of their failure to make any offer to substantiate their charges and of the impropriety of any removal of the Commissioners by me without tnvestigation, and closing with this rT :—"My entire duty in che premises I snall perform; and as you have failed take ad- vantage of tne invitation extended to you by me, and prefer charges which you were prepared to however highly you may think of it, is not the Opinion by which my final action must be deter- Mined, but by facts verified before me, I shall di- rect that A THOROUGH INVESTIGATION be forthwith proceeded with under my personal supervision, and will take care that you are duly apprised thereof, ao that all the facts within your knowledge, if any, may be produced and my final judgment obtained.” ‘The investigation thus con- dan for his office nor the good faith.of the Commis. | templated by me would have been instituted im- sioners were drawn in nestion on the trial, and | mediately, but my duties, at all times keepmg me that in his opinion the offence was technically com- | mcessantly Cele were made unexpectedly Mitted by the admitted fallure to give tue notice, | burdensome in the month of June, and immedi- ately following the sending of the last communica: ution by the necessity of attending to the revision of the annual estimate and apportionment of ex penditares, necessary to be completed before the 1st of July. Notwithstanding this, however, I | should have probably endeavored to find some time to devote to Buch investigation, but for these reasons, These charges related whoily to the ac- tion of the Commissioners’ in respect to the prev- dous general election which bad taken place more than seven months before. The investigation of charges so long delayed, and in no way involving the then present duties or conduct offtue Commis- sioners, Was not, in my judgment, the first, in | point of urgency, among my duties. Moreover, | was informed that one or more indictments nad been procured agains! Messrs. Chariick and Gard- ner, the two Commissioners against whom the charges were particularly aimed; that these indictments were within & very short period (sooner than I could prosecute | an investigation to its completion), to be | Drought to trial; that the leaders of Tammany | Hatt haa been engaged in an industrious search for evidence to produce upon such trials, and that everything which couid be proved and that conld be Coglte gttrid the accused parties would be | proved said. Itseemea to me that 1 should | probably be better enlightened by the develop- ments thus likely to be made 1n a legal foram before | @ court and jury than by any investigation con. | ducted by myself, and that, under the ctrcum- | stances, as the delay involved was but short, it | | would be every way more expedient to await the | results of these trials. I think that you wiil agree | with me that this was a prudent determination. | A trial of one of the indictments—the one already | referred to—was had and completed on the 26th of | June last, with the result which I nave already Mentioned, The qnestion was immediately made | in the public journals and otherwise 98 to THE EFFECT OF THE CONVICTION | of the Commissioners upon the offices they: held. it was alleged tn some quarters that it was to create vacancies in them. The point, indeed, had been made upon the trial,and the deiendant’s | counsel had requested the Court to charge the | jary that the offence proved did not have that effect. The Judge declined to so charge, saying that this question was one which he had nothing to do with; taat it must be decided by some other tribuna! having the power to investigate it; he would not undertake to say what tribunal had | this power, and he added that he did not know there was any such. [received a notice from you indicating that, in your judgment, the conviction did create vacancies, My own opinion was clearly in the other direction, and I was s0 advised upon the grounds hereinbefore tully get forth. still | l.was under some embarrassment, as you will | easily understand. It was, as I suppose, to relieve me irom this that the Commissioners resigned their offices, and vacancies were at all events then ‘ existing. The question then arose, what course J should take in filling the vacancies, and to this 1 | gave as deliberate a consideration as I am capable | Of My impulse was to reappoint the same Com- } missioners, but I was not to yield to this unless 1 was Satisfied that they were fit and worthy, and every way capable of an efficient discharge of the duties thus to be reimposed upon them. Upon this my conviction was firm. I appointed them originally because I believed them to be fit, and especially Oliver Charlick, whose unsurpassed energy ‘and capacity in affairs, known to me from an acquaintance of thirty years, | wished vo put in the service of the public. I bad seen nothing to change that opinion, much to confirm it. er administration of me, cocees in two particulars—frst, 1n relation to the clean: to their functions in respect to elections, How ut- terly aniounded the first complaint was I tnink I have shown. As to the second, the case stood thus:—The Commiisioners were required by law to appoint the inspectors of election, and to | make thelr selections from the two great political parties, as they were divided in State issues. A committee of two of their number, ove to whom this business was reterred. This was in accordance, as I am informed, with precedent, and seems to be advisable for the despatch of basiness. It is in this way that the different branches of the rest of their tunctions are distr! uted, and taupnone the case is the srme in most otoer like bodies. It 18 alleged that there was a combination on the part of three Commissioners ainst the other two to effect this, always a combination when in @ body of five three vote one way and two the other. It so uappened atthe last election that the democratic party tn this city was divided into two factions, eaoh claiming superiority in pomt of strength; one known as the Apoilo Hall democracy, and the otifer under the control of Tammany jai, On the State ticket! they were united, but they had made rivai local nommations. each faction claimed a majority of the inspectors, and it was likely that one or the other and perhaps both, would be dissatis#ed. off, and I have never known @ more orderly and peaceful one in this city. The pretence that any combination, HOSTILE TO TAMMANY HALL had been made wonld seem to be Intolerably well retuted by the general success of that or- fauization. Nevertheless gomo of ita oonspicuons leaders, not finding their demands, prior. to LD » Charlick, were far, to the res- the election, acceded th ”, Mr, irritated, and came, it would ap; 4 olution 10 make nim pat) weight of their dis- 1 cannot close without the hope that the con- | ground of complaint and resorted to supposed dis- | Teality of their complaints or in the disinterested- | The Aldermea did, however, in a communication | last, reier me to the testimony taken upon the | the Commissioners had been gutity of some irre- | substantiate, not by your mere opinion, which, | & committee was appointed by Tammany |! rupt or wicked motive in and provided with counsel, to hunt up | action to which exception naa been eh ar faon ave boett bustt ie work apm that cime up to the | iy position by ausworing in weer cue uamities wertn, rei € present. Henos the investigation before & Judge ue :j rena” ene ames. of the Supreme Court, the indictments, and all the | accusations in relation to the conduct of the lice cencerning the election. The question with | I might claim; but for the office itsel: me was, how ‘nach of substance ts there to allthis | those who succeed me, | muat be mnderetaed ob demonstration against these Police Commiassion- uy asserting it, erst [ read carefully the evidence developed MAYOR'S MAGNANIMITY. THR Notwithstanding the length of this co) | tion, Ihave studied to confine myseif roa | those matters which my accusers have brought , forwara io support of their charges. I have called trative business, when much has to be doue with | your attention to but little in the way of proof or promptitade ana haste, I discovered not { Tlustration which is not contained in the docu- inconsistent with the honest discharge of duty | ments presented to you by them, or to which they and an honest desire and endeavor to secure a | have referred. My effort has been to leave tne fair election. In tne next place, the Commission- | case upon the record as they have chosen to make | ers had, alter a great note of preparation, been | it up; aud while pointing out to you the evidences brought to trial by their pursuers. It was rea- | showing the probable motives of my assailants, so on the examination beiore a justice: of the Su- ee Sets, nod, tongs duinbers of aoe reg appeared, such as are vei so exhibit themselves In the conduct of adininis- arpa | reler Your Excellency to rig case with which | sonable to suppose that the latter had selected | far as these are iurnished by the papers they | of | ther strongest case; and that il they were able to | have themselves latd betore you, have show guilt, they would avai! themselves of the op- | carefully refrained trom any general attack portunity, Wiiat was the result? The-prosecu- upen their motives or from tptroducing to your cation did not attempt to show view the names and purposés of those THE PRESENCR OF AN EVIL MOTIVE } not appearing among the uumbver of my | on the a ol the defendants, They would not | accusers, who, wevertheless, stand behind allow the defendants to show affirmatively the and hope to profit by their success. sence of honest and praiseworthy motives, and | This task has imposed upon me a constraint which, ‘hus the trial ended in merely proving a technical | at some not very distant day, I may think it suit- | must, however, before closing, be | indulged tn a few observations, general, itis true, | misdemeanor of a claracter yuarty trivial 80 far | able to break. | as tt aifected the question whether the defendants | Were honest and taituful officers, in proving that | but which seem to me pertinent. When, ip the | that they had removed a man from office whom | summer of 1871, public attention becanie riveted they ought to have removed, but did not doit in | upon our municipal affairs, mainly in consequence | she precise Way pointed out by the law. This | fatlure affected no right of the man bimseif, nor | any other individual or party or the Babs | of the courageous utterances of a public journal, which its gross subsequent abuse Of mysel! shall not prevent me from acknowledging, I was made And then the defendants, demanding an imme- | aware ol the perilous condition of the municipal diate (rial on every otner indictment against them, | finances, A defection among the leaders o! the | their prosecutors dectined and postponed the con- | Feed i | cabal which had iong heid supreme con- | test. And, circumstance which had from the | trot of the political power in this city opened to | fret adected me, with the exception of the | mie the opportunity of suddenly rescuing the | charges of the Board of Aldermen, who, when | treasury ‘rom tneir hands, an opportunity waich, | Unable to meet the call made upon them to frame | with the aid of others, was. well improved, \ res relative to street cleaning, borrowed ior | circumstance led, as 1 Suppose, to the assignment | thé emergency, the clamors of Tammany Hall, no | to me of a prominent place in the Committee of delegate or tember of Taminany Hall, or any other | Seventy, then rapidiy becoming the nucleus | Political party or faction, no defeated candidate, | around whict ali the elements of reform were | and no {ndividual in aay capacity, irom the time | eyeing. T continued in the performance of my | Of the election to the time of tne trial, hadever duties tu thas body until the next municipal said betore me any of these Tammany charges con- | election, when the same classes who cerning the conduct of the Comunisssoners, rela- | sustained the action of that committee proposed , tive to the election, or called upon me to make any | to 1 laeesvareen into such conduct. The Hon, Jonn | Kelly claims that to his knowledge, Messrs. Char- | had twice beiore held it, and was no stranger to | lick and Gardner were guilty of gross misconduct, | its cares and vexations; butl did not feel at lib- nd asks your Excellency \o remove me from ofice | erty at such a time, and against the wishes of such for gross neglect of duty, in not finding out this | men, to decline the post. Alter my election, and before, To this hour that’gentieman has not laid | when contidence in the municipal admuaistration ‘ ANY COMPLAINT BEFORE ME, had become re-established, or, at all events, the or calied on me in any way to exercise any func- | further prosecution o! tion of my office in relation to any of the Police | SCHEMES OF PLUNDER ARRESTED, Commissioners. Finally, Messrs. Russell and Dur- | the mass of those who had theretofore stood by yee, agamst whom Tammany has pointed no | my side in the municipal warelare quitted the ,charge, and who are made by the specifications | feld. I am not the one, perhaps, to declare before you to possess every public and private | the reasons of this apparent desertion, and per- virtue, and whose sworn duty if was to speak out | haps the principal ove was_the weariness which ,if they were aware of any unfair and dishonest com- | follows any unusual effort. From the manner of bination by which they were rendered pawartess, | My nomination and clection I was not per- had never, in any manner, intimated to me that | mitted to administer my oitice in the Interest Messrs. Charlick and Gardner were guilty of any | of either of the political organizations of the city. misconduct. Upon these grounds, as well as my | Thad not suficient confidence in either to do so if own confidence in the general good conduct of | | had wished. Determining to hold an even nand these Vommissioners, I believed that there was | between them, and to be made the instrument of no substance in toese charges against Messrs. | neither, I necessarily excited the hostility of both. Charlick and Gardner. to their conauct | In this Twas not disappointed, as I never counted in the administration of all the other branches of | upon their assistance. Jf I coula not have the con- their responsibie duties, I kuew of no complaint. | stant support of the solid classes of business and ‘The police had steadily improved in discipline and | labor which placed me in office it was jor me to eficiency under their control, There was no lack | do the best | could without them. I did not seek a of industry in repressing crime, or vigor in the | refuge behind the ramparts of another power. but discovery Of it, There had, indeed, been, on one | nave earnestly endeavored to administer the trusts well known occasion, criticism on the conduct of | confided to me on the principle of the platform upon the police to the effect that too great vigor and | which 1 was elected, 1 have no right to compiain severity had been exhibited. In short, 1 saw no | of any desertion. I have lived long enough to learn reason—there was none—why I should not again | the fickleness of popular support, and especially of alty. This place Ineither sought nor desired, ; Hil these ofices with the same incumbents who | that coming from men too busily engaged in their | had already so well administered them; and tn rivate aifairs to give persistent arondon to pub- accordance witn these views 1 acted. Ii, on | lic interests. Nor ao I affect to excuse myself this occasion, | gave some heed to a votce | trom ali r sibility for the indifference 1 have | within me which told me that I might, by | alluded to, 1 do not assert that I have in my ad- | @ renewed expression of confidence, do | ministration escaped ull errors and mistakes; this something to save these men from that appear- | ance of disgrace which they might otherwise wear | in the eyes of the unreflecting crowd, when they | | had done nothing to merit it, | listened toa moni- | gether froitiess, as I believe, in good results; | tor which has hitherto selaom misled me, I | In efforts, together with those associated with | might, indeed, by pursuing @ different course, | me, to make the government of this great city ; have Soe, served my own comiort, silenced | what it ought to be; to increase its revenu ; IMuch hostile denunciation of myself and gratified, | husband its resources, and maintain order an doubtless, some aspirations fur office. But I long | economy in {ts various aepartments; to pro- | agolearned to turn a deaf ear to mere clamor, | cure the restoration of moneys of which it has ; and I should have forever reproached myself had | been plundered, and to resist the enforcement of (ft sought to secure my own ease by turn- | claims continually presenting themselves, arising ing my back upon men who, while engaged in the from tite fraudulent administration which for- | service of the public at my instance, had been | merly prevailed, and to procure the Passage of j; Made the victims of an unjust persecution. | laws necessary to effect a restoration of good gov- | Whatever others might have thought or done | ernment, and to resist the numerous ingenious under sach circumstances, 1 am not the man | schemes set on foot at every Legislature to ad- | ‘mit an officer in any way gubject to my | vance personal ends at the expense or the public. | authority, be he high or low, to suffer for the per- | I make no boasts of the results which have been | formance of an act in itseli commendable and done | achieved; but whoever, comparing the munictpal | in the honest eudeavor to discharge bis duty, | administration as it exists to-day with any which | merely because he has unwittingly committed @ | has preceded it for many years, will say that o | technical Le Mere And now, alter fe spins vast change for the better has not taken place, | { would be making pretensions of superior wisdom and sagacity to which I lay no claim. Bat 1 have found constant and laborious occupation, not alto- for further reflection and calm self-examination, I | shows an utter want of either intelligence or find nothing in my conduct making these reap- | candor. pointments calling either for apology or regret. | | As to the circumstance vhat each was sppointed | to fill the vacancy created by the other, HIS HONOR’S PURPOSE. But my purpose in these concluding observa- {have to | tions was to point outa danger. The disorgauiza- | say that this was done to evade no law, but with | tion I have alluded too! the forces which over- | the view to prevent the making of any question as | threw the corrupt cabal of 1871 has been per- | to the legality of the appointments. I suppose | ceived by the defeated enemy and the machine there would be plenty of cavillers seeking to draw liticlans who are not slow to take advantage of the legality of the act into question, and I in- | fe All the corrupt elements have, as if by in- tended, so lar as I could, to deprive these of their | stimct, struck hands together to render every Weapons and of their occupation. man who Makes an honest endeayor for THE DIGNITY OF AGB, | food «government odious, And the elements FrarE Bow ja before you, by way of explana: | thug arrayed are iormidable. They em- tion, rounds and reasons of my action inall | prace the machine politicians of both po- the particulars in which it has been assailed. It | litical parties; the numerous adherents of This | make me their candidate for the Mayor- | would not be irrelevant here to inquire why my | acousers have not undertaken to complete the | ase they have so laboriously sought to make up against me by pointing ous some supposed corrupt | or unworthy motives which have led me to the comunission of the offences they alfect to deem go | grave, or in some manner to support their allega- tion that great public interests intrusted to my | charge are imperilled. ‘The resources of our | language seem scarcely adequate to the expres- | sion of their sense of the magnitude of the | misconduct of which they charge me with be- | Ing guilty. They say, among other things, “that | the aforesaid action of William F. Havemeyer, as Mayor of the city of New York, was inconsistent with his duties as Mayor of the city of New York. and constituted @ gross violation of his official | duty, which was withoat precedent in the history of the State!’? Surely these gentlemen ought to be able somewhere to find some traces of a deaper- ate design on my part to grasp either plunder or power for myself or others to give some color of robability to this vehemence of accusation. Have created a ring of mercenary cormorants, en- the late corrupt ring agains: whom prosecutions @re pending, and to be brought to compel the restitution of miliions of moneys plundered from the Treasury; the still more numerous ciass hold- mg fraudulent claims against the city to the amount of millions more; the army of contractors, who look Jor subsistence to the prosecution of ex- tended public works and the consequent increase of the pubiic debt; and with these the numerous horde of lobbyists and adventurers accustomed to be fed, directly or indirectly, out of the public crib. All tuese play the same game, which is to foster @ laxity and indifference in the public mind leading to the notion that all | r for reform in public administration | whe abot have merely personal interests there ts no substantial difference between the ofl- cials of the Tweed 7égime and those who have suc- ceeded them; that the Committee of Seventy was itself but a ring of seekers, and, in short, that one man ts as good as another. These mercenary classes and thetr retainers tnstde and outside of the ofices of newspapers make it their occupation to attack the character of every man Who strives | in view; that | gaged in gorging themselves from the public | to render @ public service, so as to make ever; treasury? Have I been pandering for the support U4 oa ‘4 | such effort perilous to what good men most prize. the management of | | oficial duties had never been challenged before | Ing of the streets, and second, 1n relation | from each of the political parties, was appointed, | there | Of course | ‘The election passed | of the multitude, and making the public interests subservient to my own political or personal aggrandizement? If mere popularity has been | my object I have indeed sought § it by unusual methods and with ill-suc- cess, Have I oeen playing into the hands of some political faction? The taction and machi politicians of both parties are making common cause before you to get rid of a magistrate whom neither of them cau control. If {have been en- gaged in serving private and personal ends i stead of those of the pubiic, I must, indeed, have | concealed them with an art more profound than any [ have as yet had the credit of professing, if my assaiiants, with all their industry, can discover | no traces of their existence. 1 might also point to a career not altogether anknown to the people | of this city. have lived among them and their fathers, and had established a reputation for good | or for evil before most of my accusers were known | among men; but [have never yet been obliged to reier to my character for a detence of my conduct | or motives, and never felt less than to-day the necessity for such an appeal. THE EXBRCISE OF DISCRETION, In closing this general and specific answer to the charges of my accusers, I must put upon the | record @ protest with whioh, perhaps, 1 should | have begun, The most important of the powers confided to the Chief Magistrate of this city, like those intrasted to your Excellency, are reposed | in his discretion, and his exercise of t is not open to review if any quarter, save before the | people tbemselves. This is, in an especial manner, | true of those functions of my office in respect to | which the charges against me have been made, Whom Ijsball appoint to and whom I shall re- | | move from office; whose official conduct I shall investigate, and when, and in what manner, [ | shall conduct the investigation, or whether I shall investigate at all, are ae ie to which I_ am not merely permitted, but by law bound to exer- cise my discretion, and when I have exercised it, I nave discharged my whole duty, and cannot be | challenged to answer to any other authority, no | more than can Your Excellency in respect to the pa of your Sle lag was Atte woe fo | , and they, in their wisgom or folly, secured | | to themselves the beneft or burden of my dis- cretion te ny oficial term. It may be | taken away if I be shown to ve knowingly guilty of any iegat conduct. Otherwise, they cannot ba ther stripped of the benefit or felieved of burden until the term for whicn they | bargained for is completed. The impor- tance of this principle can scarcely be over estimated. Good and stable government can- | not be maintained without an observance of it. \ It is upon & like principle of civil policy that an extravrdinary protection is exvended to judicial officers. spares May be, and not unfrequently are, ignorant and inefficient, Some thirty or | forty in this State are employed & large part of the | time in correcting each other’s errors, and a bait dozen or more are constantly employed in cor: | the enable they to discharge their duties without | fear or tavOr, the law interposes an impenetra- ble shield between them and . all accusations in any quarter, except betore the high court of impeachment. This protection is not more essential to the beneficial exercise of their func- tions than is @ corresponding exemption to any other magistrate or officer in respect to those powers which are confided to his judgment and | discretion, Les me not be understood as claiming | that an officer in @ place like mine can, under the guise of an exercise of discretion, escape respon- | stbility for corrupt and wicked beh it 1s | precisely for the reason that misconduct procecd- fag, from such motives ts not an exercise of dis that ue is for such behavior supject to ac- countability and punishment. It was, there- the outset, a serious question with me er if was not dae two the and usetuiness of the office I have the honor to hold, and to my successors to , in respect to everything except the charge of tlegal conduct, that, Inasmuch aa no evidence nad been abawigg the presepge oj a yor- greta. | allow tuemselves, by the | for the welfare of the city recting the errors of all the rest; but in order to | PI In this way they seck to discourage all resolute | effort to correct the tendencies to demoralization and corruption, to the end that in the indifference of the general masa of citizens the compact and trained bands organized and led by cor- rupt chiefs may make an easy capture of the places of power. lorces, always.ready to combine, however widely divided in their political professions, that this city bas before been brought almost to the verge of bankruptcy, and may, at no distant period, be brought still nearer to tt. It is one of their favorite arts, which they practice with occasional success, to allure to their side, by specious pretenses, men of irreproachable characters and purposes, who failure to exercise sufficient caution, to be misied. It may not be tnexvedient for your Excellency to con- sider whether the present appeal to your authority, under the guise of a concern ot New York, is in the interest of those who have been instra- mental in securing and are still laboring to pre- serve whatever we have of good government or of | those who are seeking to undermine it, Thave now said all which I deem it necessary to say, but in order to meet the tectinically formal part of the accusations made against me it will be | proper for me to add in conclusion that Iam to be understood as interposing the plea of ‘not uilty’”? to each and as. of the charges and speci- Feations to which the foregoing is amore com- plete answer. I am, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant, A. F. HAVEMEYER, IN BAD COMPABY, A few days ago a Southerner who is not beyond the shady side of thirty-five was one of the band of prisoners in the dock of an uptown Police Court, and, on complaint of a young woman of no con- siderable grace, was committed to Blackwell's Island for @ time. The accused, but a few years ago, was one of the brightest intellectual geniuses in the South, a rising politician of note in one of the Carolinas, and served as.an officer tn the army of the Confederacy, The war ended as disas- trously for him as for others and ne sought to better his fortunes in the North, and since the war, a portion of his time, held the position of. drommer for one of our largest mercantile houses, But three years ago, however, he became infatu- ated with a woman of the world, and the twain began to lead a rather suspicious and not alto- ther strictly honorable life. She soon divested fim of money, Foparadoe, (tion and friends, and then deserted her lord his face. Neediess , to add ‘the couple quarrelled, and in default of bail to keep the peace the Southerner was sent to rison, Here he suffered the disgrace of confine- Inent until yesterday, when some kind persona who had befriended him in other days sought and procured his release. ‘ THE ALLEGED REVENUE FRAUDS, Supervisor Lucian Hawley, of the Internal Reve- nue Department, left this city last evening for Washington, to give evidence there before the chief officers of that department with reference to Dis late seiznre. of 1,526 casks of highwines re- cently detained by him in this city in various warehouses, consigned to Messrs. F. A. Boyd, of No, 59 Broad street, irom Meésars. ‘Orenkhir$,. of Morris, M. In addition to the possibility of the internal revenue officer at Morris who gauged the highwines been discharged by the Cg eet gE gauged the casks while 4% can be proved thas he empty, hi ee iadeh ore atte ‘he ea. ington thelr \- ston (a thie Master by DOxt Moudar. Itis from a union among these | THE MAYOR'S PERIL. New Charges of @ Serious Character Against Mr. Havemeyer. Alleged Corrupt Use of the Appointing Power. | aa | _ No little excitement was occasioned yesterday im | the vicinity of the City Hall among a favored tew ; Who were made acquainted with the fact \ What additional charges bad been pre- ferred against Mayor Havemeyer and were | forwarded to Albany. ‘Tne allegations are ) Signed by three prominent citizens representing different shades of pontical opimon, and all of them influential busiuess men, ‘The charges hav- | Ing been read by the Governor, were considered j by him of suMcientiy grave importance to induce ; the Executive to send a special messenger to this | city, to serve a copy of the same upon the Mayor and to require AN EARLY REPLY, This service took place yesterday, at the omee | Of the Mayor, in the City flall. it is neediess to | gay that the event caused @ profound sensation among those who were aware of the ob ject of the visit of this special messenger. ; The Mayor,. however, upon reading the | charges, took the utmost pains to conceat | ther purport, even from his own employés. q | Stillenough was communicated to a representa- | tive of the HERALD to warrant the statement that the charges now mace, ana presumably validated | by the signatures of three prominent citizens, | ARRAIGN THE MAYOR | for having correptly used the appointing power | vested in him by law to procure, through bar- | #ains mage with the heads of one of the depart- Meuts of the city government prior to their own appointment, the appointment of one George W. | Matsell to an important position under the said department. it is further alleged that the Mayor corruptly ‘used said appointing power and the influences per- | tatning thereto for the purpose of retaining the said George W. Matsellin the office which had been secured to him by the above means, ¥ THE SPECIFICATIONS recount the pledges required by Mayor Have. meyer in regard to the appointment of the Super- | intendent of Police, from the Commissioners af | Police appointed by him prior to, and as conditions of, such appointments; also the pledges required by him on other occasions ta retain tne said Super- intendent in office, Immediately alter the recetpt of the charges the Mayor, despatched a messenger from his office with instructions to find Judge Nelson J. Water- bury at all hazards, and to request his attendance at the Mayor's office at once, on busiheas of great’ importance. Judge Waterbury promptly re- sponded to the summons, and was closeted with the Mayor for nearly two hours, It is understood that still OTHER CHARGES are already framed, and will be forwarded to the Governor within & lew days. These arraign the Mayor for having, motives of personal interest endeavored to cover oP and conceal alleged malieasances and violations of law by the Commissioners of Charities and Correction. The charges set forth that after the publication in the public journals of the pre- sentment of the Grand Jury in reference to tne jared of supplies by the said department, the ayor, with the object of misdirecting an investi- gation and cloaking the ed = mig- deeds of the Commissioners of Charities and Correction, did hold a miscalled investigation and make a report in conflict with the facts sub- mitted to the Grand Jury. itis asserted that valuable contracts for the fur- nishing of supplies to the said department have been given by the Commissioners won ol the law to near relatives of the Mayor, and that sata contracts are still in existence, or that the purchases of the supplies in question are made from such relatives of Mr. Havemeyer. Up to hali-past jour o’clock he was not even aware of the publication of his answer in the even- ing papers and was informed of the fact by the HERALD representative. He merely smiled at the information and said nothing iturther ou the sub- ject. The Mayor, however, le{t his office earlier | than ts his usual wont, and apparently was not im @ comfortable frame of mind. BUMORED INDIOTMENT OF COMPTEBOLLER GREEN, Whisperings from the Grand Jury Room and the District Attorney’s Office. A batch of indictments were brought into the | Court of General Sessions yesterday, and it soon became evident that somethimg more than ordl- | nary had happened, or was about to happen, forthe } quid nuncs were running here and there, whisper- | ing in the corridors of the City Hall, and Dame | Rumor with her thousand tongues soon dis tributed the intelligence that Comptroller Green had been imdicted by the Grand Jury for some malfeasance relative to the Bureau of | Charities and Correction. Mr, Hall, the depnty | Clerk of the Court, was asked um such | an indictment was handed in among | the papers given him by the foreman, and he em. phaticaily answered “No.” This would seem ta settle the matter; but, as there are a good many wide awake officiais in the neighborhood of the Court House, it was thought well enough to hunt up others, to detect, if possibile, whether there was not some shadow of foundation for the cur- rent rumor of the Comptroller’s indictment, As- | Sistant District Attorney Kussell was founa and | questioned as to the facts, In him the reporter | discovered that he had encountered a sphinx, | almost as silent as the sculptured images of the | old Nile, The Assistant District Attorney | dechned to answer anything. “Was there an indictment?’ queried the reporter, | cline to answer,” replied the omMcialL | “Then there was no indictment?’ again | spoke the newspaper man, in a serpentine manner. | “Decline to answer,’ was the response once more. “Why?” “Criminal offence to give information about the Grand Jury's doings,” replied the ot | law, senteutiously, and so the news gatherer and the Jaw-enforcer parted. Mr, Clark, the chief clerk | of the District Attorney’s office, was visited, and, | although he expressed the A a that the Comp: troller had not been mdicted, Dis lips were sealed | like those of his superior as to the mysterious | doings of the Grand Jury. Last, but not least, the gentleman who shouid be most interested im the matter was waited on. Uomptroller Green Said he knew nothing about the Grand Jury’a doings, and had heard nothing about an indict- ment. To-morrow, it is believed, will shed more light on the present rather mysterious subject, NATIONAL BOARD OF STEAM NAVIGATION. A meeting of the New York members of the Ex- ecutive Committee of the National Board of Steam Navigation was held yesterday at their room in No, 40 Burling slip, and it was resolved that a meeting of the New York Board be convenea for the 18th inst. for the purpose of appointing del- egates to the third annual meeting of tne National Board of Steam Navigation, which is to be held at Buffalo from the 2d to the 6th of September next. News has already been received that delegates wilt come from all the seaboard States in the Union, and it 1s ig eo that business of much impor- tance will transacted concerning the protec- tion of life and property in ships. The correspond. ing nacrotary read the following letter :— W. A. CosmamuESTON Cramaun OF Commnncr, 8, C. . Countexay, Esq. : Vander a rosolution” the Chamber of Commerce at a meeting held the 26th inst. authorizing the President to appoits a delegate and alternate to i: resent the steamship interest of Charleston at vigation, to meet at Buttalo, lopted bi: A. Courtenay, } is will be duly issued, - Ver euluily, ee Hy lenge 5 BARBOT Soneiary. After the reading of this letter considerable dis: cussion ensued 0 the tion Wr. D. D, Smith, ‘ot Nyack, General of Steamships, and ss to ey! successor will be, tor the position cannot be bie 2) Congress again meets, The meeting then adjourned, A DISHONEST OLBRE. Until recently Messrs. Thaimissenger & Co. have hed @ clerk in their employ named Sidney Wiel, whom they discharged a tew days since. Shortly after his discharge he forged the firm's name to a check, payable to cash,” on the Ninth National Bank of New York. The check was taken and ti money paid by the paying teller, who knew W! to be the clerk Of Thalmissenger & Co, Wiel was Traigned at the Tombs Police Court on a charge ot jorgery, to whieh he meee not Buy, the judge fixed the batl at $1,500, in default of wht was locked up to answor at the Court of Gencral Seasious. alleged viola- .