The New York Herald Newspaper, October 1, 1874, Page 3

JOUN KELLY’S REPLY, eee An Elaborate Answer Mayor Havemeyer, ——--—__—_. FACTS, FIGURES AND FRAUDS. ts The Mayor’s Charges Declared Malicious and False. THE LAW AND THE TRUTH. Explanation of the Irish Birth Question. EX-TAMMANY MAGNATES AND KELLY, Reminiscences of Morrissey, Croker, Con- nolly and Watson. ‘The following ia the reply of Mr. Kelly to the charges of Mayor Havemeyer. lv is, as indicated im the HERALD yesterday. a clear and almost bald | Marration of facts and figures, with very little ac- | Companying comment. ‘The latter part of the let- ter, Which deals with the personal history of well known politicians in @ few crisp sentences, Will be read with interest by the generalreader. Mr. Kelly states, with emphasis, that he snail not make any turther statement:— New York, Oct. 1, 1874. To WituiamM F. Havewgyvex, Mayor of the City of New York:— Sin—On the 15th of September last a letter from you Was published in the newspapers of ine city, in which you evaeavor to reieve yourself trom the @evere atid merited censure passed upon you by the Governor for your own improper conduct in oifice by casting Wholesale aspe@Bions upon all who have been in apy way concerned as complaln- aut, counsel or witness 1n the proceedings against yoursell or against the convicted Yolice Commis. | bloners (Which you seem to regard also as directed | Against yoursel!), and assert tuat the whole mat- ter has sprung irom my personal enmity to you, | Bod that | am “a very distonest man,’’ possess- ing “an audacity born of u low beginning,” and having tue “vindictive feelings of men ot your (my) class.” With those wio know me no assertion that you can make, and particularly nothing that you may say in the disgraced position you now occupy belore the public will affect my character. Yet the charges you Make are so grave, particularly when made over the signature of the Mayor of this great city, that I feel unperatively called upon to make a reply for the purpose of vindicating myself before such of the public as May not Kuow me person- ally at an eariier date than the slow progress of the law will allow. Passing by for the present the various personal Innuendoes and aspersions with which your letter is filled, your first grave charge against me is that Ihave defrauded this city and county out v1 large sums of money, and have been guilty of acrime | that is adequately descriped by the term felon- ous.” In proof of this fact you assert that in my reports to the Secretary of State of the number of convictions in the county of New York “during your (my) six years of Oilice you (1) reported 113,090 convictions in this county, white the clerk only repurred 20,886, In | other words, tuat your (my) eyes, keenly directed moneyward, were able to discern 92,204 convic- tions that the records of tne courts did not men- tlon;” and to substantiate this charge you give the following tabie :. ——Sherif?s Report. ———-Clar'e’s Report. — Courts of Courts of Courts of Spertat Courts of spertal Record. Sexsions, Total. ‘Record. Sesion, Total. 189. 6 Be) % TUS 52s 47t aL 678 653, Totals..3,933 109,157 113,090 3,830 17,055—2U,838 ‘Tuls you ussert to be “a ‘flagrant crime.” You also atiege that it is aggravated by the law beng Violated in my hot returning the names uf those | cunvicted in courts of record, and disregarding thar provision as to “the enormuus number re- ported ior the Special Sessions, which you (I) omy gitve the total number each mounts.’ THE REPORTS OF CONVICTIONS. You then proceed to an additiona: and even Graver charge, that whlie my reports of con- viciions to the Secretary of State were tius rauduiently swollen to enormous proportiuns, | yet that “you (1) collected pay for 6,353 more cun- Victions than you (1) reported,” substantiating the charge by the tolluwing tabi Charges in Sherif’s Bill. ——Courts of Record.—~ Courts of Special Courts of Speriat Record. Sessions. Total, Record. Seasons, Total. Ay,yi0 723 BOR 3S 25,311 677 «SUIT 3,0yk 25.518 635 3,422 4,107 68,559 2,090 9,38 11,898. 14,271 6S 2.90 3.538 17247 735-2946 3,732 108 627 2,830 5,516 Totals..10,422 41.262 51,634 2iL 8,785 10,846 Add 1059, 1360 and 1363., 68,669 2090 988 11,993 Grand totals «120,263 4.201 18.038 22,239 You then assert that the amount of money you (lj pocketed by this suameless fraud is as follow! For the threo years ot your first term you (I) charged and received pay tor reporting con Victions to the Secretary Of StAl@.....55 05... 68,609 The records of the Court show that during those Yeurs there were ony convictions... + 11,893 ‘The excess reported by you (me! being 81178 To which must be added thé of con: ‘victious charged by uri your second term, at flity cents, over the uuinber shown by the Cuurt recoru— Charged by vou cm Shown by Court rec Being an excess of. Making a total excess hich, at fifty cents each. au to. rom Which must be deducted the’ amount taken of by the Board of Supervisors trom ove of Your moutaly bills, ae will be hereat er EXplaiMed. sss cieeee seee sees 2,050 00 Leaving a oajance of......01..ecseserssseveee+800,103 60 Mo which add. the aulutit: recdived ior bs excess of ininur convictions charged by YOU (ME) s..s...s6 41,262 Showa vy Court recoras 8,736 Excess... 2,627 Which, at twelve and one-half’ ‘cents’ each, amounts to... seneee seveseees $4,065 87 Making the total amount which you (I) traud- ulenuy received. se eeeeerse+934,299 37 Stating, however, “that this sum may be subject tow deduction of afew hundred doliars” tor con- victiohs m police courts, not inciuded io the clerk‘s report, ‘These charges [ assert to be base and malicious yalsenoods, aad which you and Neisun J. Water bury, your assistaut in preparing them, must have kuown to be such at the time they were written, WHAT THE TRUTH 13, ‘The truth in regard tu the matter is as follows :— by section 4 o1 the act of April 26, isdy, the Sheriff or each county was required io report to the Secretary of state the name, occupation, sex, mative country, &¢,, Of all persons cunvicted im aby Criminal courts of record of mis county. By section 6 similar reports were to be made by the Sheri! ol the city and county of New York of couvictions in any Court of Special Sessions of that city, by the Sheri of Monroe of convictions in avy cruminal court in the city of Rochester, by the Sheri? o: Kings of conyictious im any orimimal court ol the ctty of Brooxlyu, vy We Sheriff of Erte of convictions in any criminal couré in the city of Budaio; und by section 6 all justices and other judicial oficers were required to turnish the required iniormation to the sueritt. ‘The object of this jaw, Ay denned Lo bhe Secretary. of State in @ circular for the information of Sherits, issued long beiore my election to that office, was, “0 obtiin such accurate statistical i- formation voncerning cunvicts aud cranes as may wiide intelligent legisiation, For other countries such thiormacon has veeu found eminenty userui in developing the sources of crime and ladicaung the means a prevention,” It wil readily be seen that to make these statis. Ucs of aby value they must be unorm, and tat it would be absurd to require returus trom “ail criminal courts’? in the cities of Rochester, brook- lyn gud Budale, and omte the great city of New York, For uuls reason the pructice wis estab: lished, jong before : first became Sneri, tor that oficer to cullect anu return to tie Sec- retary oi State the convictions in ‘he diferent police courts of tie city, and imelude them in tue colin heaved “Convictions at Spectal sessions," @ practice which your own letter shows was known to the Supervisors When passing my buls. In tact, tue Lumber was so great, bemg bearly ten uine all the otuer courrs, that it could not be othe erwise than apparent to both them aud the secre- tary of sti tue pumber o: these conyictiou 4s will be hereafter suown, was enormous, Kuch Yeurly statement of tem, incurporating pare Hceulats speciied by statute, constituced a volume Jarger than a bank ledger At tue sume tine tue onlences were of @ situtlar and not aggravated Character, Such as disorderly conduct, vagrancy, ke, AG, G8 to Which the mames oi the criminais Were Uuitiportant, alinuugh 1 took trom the vecurd4 of each police vourt the Dawe, age, Native country, degree ui edu: } Is6i—Returr mm respect to | NEW YORK HERALD, THURSDAY, OCTOBER 1, 1874—TRIPLE SHEET. | same in my office. For this reason, as I am tn- ormed at Albany, for the couventence of the Sec- | retury of State, the practice sprung up (rst intro- | duced, 1 believe, by Sheriff Willett, my predeces- | Sor) of forwarding @ tabular statement only of | this class of conv ons, and retaining the de- | talled and bulky returns in tue Sherif’s oMce. | That tois practice Was im accordauce with the inrentiou of tne Legisiature was conclusively shown by the passage of fhe act of March 29, 1861, | by which it was provided :— | WHAT THE LAW 13. ' FECTION 5,—Tae respective sheriffs of the coun- | thes of Albany, Cayug: jIuiwola, Dutchess, Ert Kings, Monroe, New York, Onetda, Onondaga, Os- wego, Rensselaer and Schenectady shail, on the | frst day or every mouth, transmit (6 the Secretary ; Ol Stale a statement of the number of persons con- | victed in Courts 01 Special Sessious during Lie pr | ceding month in the respective cities of Alban | Auburn, Brooklyn, Bunaio, Hudson, New Yor | Oswexo, Rochester, Poughkeepsie, Syracuse, | | nectady, Troy and Utica. Such statements shall specily the crimes, the whole number convicted, seX, age, Nativity, INarried or single, degree of ea- ucation, religious mstruction, parents living or dead, whether bviore convicted or not of any crime, und whether temperate or intemperate, All courts in the city of New York having jurisay | tlon in cases where criminal couvictions are bad are hereby, for the purposes of this act, declared ; Courts of Spectal Sessions, whether composed of | one or more police magistrates.” ‘Thus expressly ratifying and continuing the existing practic and Which taw bas ever since remained in sore | By section 6 of this act tae Clerk of the Genera! | Sessions in the city and county of New York was | required to return tbe convictions had “in the Special Sessions of the said eity and county.” } _ Under this law most of tie returns were made which are attacked by you as iraudulent. The diverence between the names returned by me to the Secretary of State irom the various courts, and those ior which L was paid, upon Which you lay such stress, arises from a@ very simple Circuni- stance. As above shown, I was specifically r quired, in my returns to the Secretary o1 State, to include, under the bead of “Convictions at special Sessious,” both the convictions in the rezular Courts, In collecting my compensation trom the county, this rule did wot apply, abd I, therefor | made out my bills according to tie fuer, specilyimg | nuder ove dead the number of convictlons in the Oyer and ‘Yerminer, the General and Spe- cial Sessions, and those in the Police Courts under another. It true that | the Clerk’s returns do not accord with | my Sgures. This is jor the reason that he con- strued the law to only require him to return the convictions in the Court of Special Sessions of tus county and considered that le was not bound to | return those irom the pouce courts, This, Low- ) ever, had novhing to do with me. { had no con- | trot aver tin and was not respe { The law made it my duty tu go to those polie | courts and collect these statistics, and I uid it | honestly and properly. KELLY’S BILL CORRECT. My bills tor service are strictly correct, but you, in order to malign niy character, have desperately garbled the figures which you give as the number of convictions returned by te to the Secretary of State. AS a proof of this scandalous conduct upon, your part I give in parallel columns the convi tions as you say I reported them to the secretary the office of that officer at Albany, a8 appears by his oficial cerfiticate hereto annexed:— —Havemeyer’s State’t. ——Seo'y of State Certificate. Court <perial Tokil. General Oyer Special of Sessions. Sessious, and Sessions, Records, Term'r. + 655 18,635 671 19,201 , 210) 536. 22,652 276 67k 24,654 14,28) 675 13,60L 770 16,503 3s 191552 3,933 109,157 113.090 3,982 92 116,285 120,359 From this ic appears that, for your own base and vindictive purposes, you Nave falsely placed the real number, as follows :— Amount actually returned by me. Courts of Record, Special Session Oyer and Terminer,. “9 ae This statement of my returns, as certified to by bed charges, Which 1 find by my bills were as Jol- ows: 1869—Returns for quarte: endings April 1 Returus for quarter ending June 20.. Keturns jor quarter ending septembe: Returns tor quarter ending December 31, Total, 1860—Returns for quarter e Keturns tor quarter e1 Returns tor quarier-ending Sept r Returns tor quarter ending January 1. Total for quarter ending April 1 Returus tor quarter ending July Koturns Jor quarter ening Getober 71, Keturns sor quarter ending December 3i Yhe number tor 1859 being exactly what | re- turned, and those o1 the two following years aggre- gating slightly less than the number I returned, THE POLICE COURT RELURNS, Alter 1861, se compensation for returns from Police Courts Loving been reduced to 124; cents, while that for r-turas Irom the other criminal | paid for both. my ils were necessarily divided. These have already been published im the Times of September 17, 1874, probably at your instance, aud although they contain mauy erto:s in copying, us W other itemis, as far as Us matter is concerned, were, I believe, correctly printed. By reference to these it will plainly appear that while the vast majority of names returned by me tu the Secre- tury oi State as baviug been convicted im tne Special Sessions were really convicted in the Police Vourts, and were ouly imcinded in the re- turn of convictions at Spectal Sessions to comply with the provisions of the act of 1861, declaring that jor thts purpose the Police Courts should be deemed Courts 01 Spectal Sessions, yet that in making out my bilis{ was careiul to make a dis- tinctivn between them. For convenience of refer- ence I give the iollowing summary of these bills pa fea General ant Police 1845. juarter aa Speviul Sessions, ts. March SI. e908 Os Beptembet 20 S545 Deveuver 81.. S200 TOONS. sos ssacssecrsarse EX i General and Special Sessions...........secereeersee Beet Grand total, seceeceeereeess MQ7L General aud Special Searione Police 1856.—Quarter ending “and'o, and tt Courts, Jen 20. ! on Pert Pep wiuver 30, 046 3.977 December si 88) 200 is.608 r 3,043 and special Sessions and Oyer and Ter. Grand total.. “ seveseenene AAT General and Special Sessions 1887.—Quarter ending— aid O. and 2, Maron sv. oS » 895 June 3). «Bel Septemvuer 30, 8u8 December 31...... 15 ‘Totals, 3.319 General and Special Sessions and Oyer and Ter MAME. s..syeereees ‘ ae : 3,319 Grand total. + 20,165 You Were familiar with these bills, In tact you borrowed them from the Comptroller in August, Jast, and 1 believe stili huve tue tu your posses: siou, You were lumillar with te act vi 1801, for you expressiy reler to itin your letter, aud yet you have the mendacious audacity to ignore f existence Of uny convictious beg returned or Charged for irom Police Courts, aud by branding me as having returned 10, convictions irom the Courts of Record and 109,157 Irom the Special Ses- sions, strictly su Calied, and publishing the con. victions in tue two latter Courts alone as benz but 22,23y, assert and claim that you have proved the difference, amounting to 68,014, is fraudulent. ‘The scandalous character of this-statemen: can be best understood oy the (ollowing comparison be- tween the charges contained in my Wills during the years 1885, 186% and 1867 (when these Convic- tlons were, ior the first tume, separated), and the figures you give as ovtatued Irom the records :— My Charges ua Contained in Your Figures as Obained My Bille, from the Records, General and Special Sexe mous aad Oy- Courts er ana Ter. Police a Re Speciat i Courts, Total. cord. Sessions, Total. GL L316 GSU 5,08 B} URWS Myhi 785 2 SY 16847 BTW Ua Torats.10.422 4lzd2 GHGS UL 735 10,840 Amount charged by mo as convictions in the Over Aid serminer, General and special sessions dure ing this period, eeatuissvinte, LOGS Ditfevence in my faVOT..sseeresees A SHAMELESS FRAUD, In this connection it way be Well to call your aviention to a “shameless iraud upon your part in regard to these figures. You expressly re- Jee tu the résolution Of the Supervisors, Uxtug the nd by whe pre- tions reported from the Oyer ‘and Termine General and Spectal sessions,” aud ceding tigures Siow that, according to your own Cvnpulauogs irom the records of these Courts, £ Was eucitied to charge ior 1y,346 convictions dur- iby (he years 1865, 1800 And 1337. Yet. in spire of the heag “Amount of Piunder,”” viz. i— "Excess of convictions charged by you (tne) during your (my) second term, at icy cents over We number shown by the court records :—"" Charged by you (we), Shown by Court record: Being an excess of. rian sie) wl Althougb, im order todo this, you have to omit entirely the convictions I the speci sessions, Whien your own letter concenes Law enutied tu charge jor, and Which your own tigures show and tins endeavor tw convinces the public thatt Lave swindieu the county by ove: Charging for 5,8Ll convictions a tilly cents each, Whereas a cumparison of my bilis with your figures show that l have cuarged tor 42s lesa con. Victious than, according to We records of tue Catloa, religious iusti ction, former conviction, £0, &G, Of CuCl pOrGA GORvICIed, aud led tue Courts, | was entitied to, da aduitivs, you put down ag “excess of minor Totai. | courts remained a. ity cents, the price previously | Suerit’s compensation “ar fi.ty cents tor convie. | this, )OU Insert the iollowing in your table under | Special Sessions aud those iu the various Police | ible tor his acts. | ot State, and those which are actually found in | number of convictions returned by me below the | | higher than conrictions received by you (me}] being those in Police Courts ......... Shown by conrt records 41,262 + BTS Excess enenberrnnesseenaces sees 35,227 Which, at twelve anda hall cents eacb, amounts to $4,005 57," and assert that tas is a “rand”? Won iny part. In other words, you @ the 8,725 convictions, your own lable shows Were rendered 1 We s nd ior waiek you aduat | was entitled to ¢ ity cents eden, and that they, amd they only, are the returna tc police courts, for Which my charge was 124 each, and upon this basis essere that {hay an overcharge of . uvlctions, although every one oC uy Dlils, during uy second cer, charges lor tie returns from tie Al Sessions: re distinctly separated iro: those for the police courts, ‘The only recoguition you give to the ex- istence of such @ thing as a poiiee court at ali, ts your statement that “a few of the minor eony tons in the police courts may Got be inciuded,’”? and that & deduction ol 4 tew Luudred dollars for convictions IM police courts may possibly be il- owed ine, MAYOR HAVEMEYER You knew better than that when you wrote it, You cannot have lived as long a8 you nave in the city of New York without knowing that there are aluost ten Wmes as Many Convictions in police courts as inthe Oyer ana Terminer aud General aud Special Sessions combined. Why, the police arrests im tae city or New York during the period you rejer to were us loilows: Year ending October 31, 185 r ending October 31, 1x Year ending Octover 31, 150) rota) during Year ending October 31, Yeur ending October $i, 13 reuding October 3), 1337 ‘Yoral during wy second term Grand total. Where were the made KNEW BETTER, betty offences that const 44,360 irured the vast majority of tuese cases triea, i! not an the Police Courts? You would fain have the public believe thut the total convictions im the criminal courts O! the city of New York during the years 1859, 700, '61, "65, "6S And ‘67 Were bul 22.23% In fact, You say tuere “cannot be many” more, aud are oOuly willing to allow me a few nundred dollars for collecting the statistics required by the stut- ute and returning them to the Secretary o1 State. A COMPARISON WITH BROOKLYN. Yet in the neighboring city of Brooklyn the con- victious, as reported by the different Sherids of that county, compared with mine, were as Jol- low: $ Courts of Record. Speciat Sessious. 1359, No reuirn, O°) Asi 1 1 1866, 130 as 79,688 Being about twice what you allow for New York, although the latter contains & vastly greater and more turbulent population, Why you should have been guity ol so yrossly misstating the facts in regard to this matter 18 a mystery, particularly as the truth could have been ascertained without very great difficulty. From the lact tnat you, al- though profes-ing to bea “iile-long democrat,” “an Carbest Supporter of Silas Wright, samuel Young and Michael hotman,’ should speak of my having # ‘sow beginning’? and of “my class,?” that you cannot disunguish between an at- tempt to punish Police Commissioners who nave violated the election law and made a per- | sonal attack upon yourse!!, and irom your general | extraordinary conduct while im office, | should judge tat your mind must be somewnatallected, Yet your letter shows such avility in coilecung and distorting facts, and usserting lalsenoods that 1 am unaole to accrive to you even Uns poor excuse, and can only account ior it toa com. | bination of malignity, sell conceit and vad advice. | You next attack ime because, in my returns of couvictions Irom the police courts (which are in- cluded under the head ul “returus trom the Spec- | dul Sessions,” as above stated) | placed the pro- portion of temaies, as regards aus, and of Irish, in Tespect to natives of uther couotries, mucn 1 did in my returns of convictions irom Courts of Record, and give as a reason tuat 1 “manwiactured the statistics,” the asseruon being General Sessions... 18,08 116,285 4,074 ; Made with the particular view to injure Amount stated by you.......3,305 100,157 | me in the estimation of te race irom whict Difference between your 1 sprang. Ii the facts were us you statement and the truth... 141 7.128 | Total. + 7,269 the Secretary of State, coniorms in all respects to | i | Mecord, but that in large cities the number o1 preiend that there were no suct: names and no Such convictions, is it not evident thac I wouid | have been particular to make the fraudulent re- turns coulorm closely to the genuine, aud 1s not the variance between them in itseif a prooi of their being currecty But, without arguing the matter, 1t 18 enough to say that in this particular, as 1 every other assertion contained i your let- ter, you maliciously assert a willul and déliberate untruth. A Chief magistrate of a city like New York, even withough he considers it beneath his | dignity to read we newspapers, shoud surely kKuow thut females are seldom guilty ol the huzber grades uf crimes, such a3 are tried in Courts of | Jemaies convicted of the Various descripuon of minor offenses coming under the defluition of | “uisorderly Conduct aud vagrancy,” and which | are disposed of im Police Uourts, 13, unhappily, | | curtytug privouers baa been Uxed at seven: | | of Which 17,850 were males ana 12,66 females, and | very lurge. THE IRISH BIRTH QUESTION. ‘The same is che case as to the crimes committed by those of Irist birth, Impulsive and pussiouate, iiey are apt to be guilty of disorderly conduct and | to be brought belore a police court; out the crimes that involve dishonesty or moral turpt- | tude, and which are heard belore the higher courts, are much more rare amoag them. ‘Ihus, in the report of the Board ot Police for the year ending Octaver 31, 1858, when | was not Sheruf, the wotal arrests were given aS—males, 42,891; Jemales, 18,564, Total, 61,495. Females | Disorderly conduet. 3143 Intoxication and disorderiy conduct. 3,552 Vagraucy. 1,032 Aud out of 75,373 persons arrested in that year | in New York, aud the preceding Dive months 1n Brooklyo, 44,587 ure reported as born in Ireland. | As 4 lurth instance to the same effect, by the Teport Ol the Commissioners of Charities, i ap- pears that the total commitments tu the institu. tious unuer their charge auring 1867, were 47,133, 21,079 were of Irish birth. @ tolowing table, taken irom the official reports of the secretary of State, suows that tue sume rule applies to the county of Kings:— Convictions in all the County Convictions in the Special | one Curts or Recurde Seouousin Brovkiyonty. > Males. Pius. Irish, Total. “Mates. Bus. Irish. Total. §859...No report of Sheriff. 7,669 3,39) 4.579 11,089 160.045 9 108 857 9,568 3823 2.637 13095 1805.. 72 Qu BT 92 1GMTL BTMB GUTS 24094 1300, 40 WG BL 156 LOc7S B49 4.060 16,452 In conclusion I would state that whilelam as conscious as any one of tne ubligation which 1 owe to those of my Face, that tuey would be the last to ask or expect me [0 lalsily the records tu couceal a tact, Your next attack iy ior overcharge in conveying prisoners, As 10 your assertions 1D re- lution to the returns to the Set tary Of State, you in tnis matter practicaily omit the persons | Committed trom the police courts, aithough you pretend to give them. During my drst term you admit that] charged for 448 less than 1 was enti- | tied to, la my second term, however, you allege there Was au enormous overcharge, us shown in the iollowing table contained in your letter:— | Black owe GPneral Spectal well'e — of Com: Sesvionntuand Ryuge: ited, Sesnons. | 1985...00 usa huet BON ase | MS | Lede + 265 1M 9 1s 2,985 0,048 1307 18 1 wh li 2,226 6,951 Totals.. 708 Ot 0S 837.807 17.546 Deduct number committed, ey Balance. . Allow additional tor Number fraudulently charged for. + 9,449 for the police courts you w the beggariy Duwber of 1,000, and calunly ussert “that that is at | Jeast double the actual deficiency.” | THE HOUSE OF REFUGE. | The figures you give in regard to the House of Retuge are of course all wrong; [have in my pos- Sessi0u an oficial certiticate of the prisoners re- ceived at the House of Keluge, of which the Jol- lowing 13 an abstract:— 1265, 1868. 1367. Total. Number received....... +40 80 BSH 1G ‘Lhe aggregate you put in yoar tabie for this period is 82s, The reason tor this, as L am in- Jormed, Is that When on Septemocr % you wrote to the instituiion tor tueir figures you only asked for the number of boys comuutted, bemg appar- ently in ignorance that the insucation recetved boil girls and boys, but even tere you nave ving- dered iu your figures, The iolowing 18 a state- ment taken irom my books, showing the number Of prisoners Who were convicted curing my last tera, and Who were committed to the Sheriff to | be conveyed, aud Were conveyed to tne places to | Whicu they were senteuced: Feniten- se uf Jucenile Work- — City : tary. ‘Asylum. house. Prison, Total, | 1835.0... 1,070 BSS HUSA Gls Ade ce eo 1307. 150 Btsz ATL Totals. Az 1,707 9710 OM 18,80 Tue evidence of these commitments are in my Dos-ession. 1 have receipts jor tuose sent to the renttentiary and House uo; Retuge. Llu addition it appears by the report of tue Commissivucrs of Cusrities und Correction that the soliowing per- sons Were reveived by tuem during this period ova raen of Work- entiestiary. howe. ben ‘ia is ish Walt 136i ¥ i Totals. 5068 Bou4 Mj charge Was Wased upon the number of those c placed by law in my touy us Suerill, aud jor Hone otuer. ‘They were carried by my deputy and 1 was responsive ior thew snd entitied to charge lor their conveyance. THE CONVEYANCE PRES, The jargest numver v. tiese prisuuers were cou- | victed bY the pouce Courts, awa your fixing tie | Dumber at 1,000 would be preposterous it iv Was Hot Stated maliciousiy. One word us to my tees jor this service, Youu admit that toug velore my accession to lice compensation of tue sherif ior y-tive cents Gach, tie amount which [ received’ dure Ing omy frst term, bus that during my | seconu term, “Without we Bagbtest warraut sro AY source,” 1 had tue atuauily to charge double the previous larye rate, and coceived $1 40 for each — prisoner— rate which two years | and | tur moutis alterward I tucreased | to $175. AS yuu stuic you “are nu law: | at,’ you geet to consider yoursell iree 0 make =6Aby Aésertions in regard = t0 | | tion, | Why no fixed sum was given was tuat the Legis- TT et the law which may strike your fancy. It is cer- tainly singwar that you sould be the firat to dis- cover that the Board of Supervisors, in auditing Sherits oiMs, a5 they have dope \or many years without any question, were exercising 3 power noranthorized by law; bat then you are cele. brated for doing stuzular things. Ti fact, it would appear trom (ie blunders you make in your quota Hous irom tle stitutes aid allusions to decisions not to be found i the Kooks, tual you bave pre- 4 yoursel: lor your attack on me by lie pera. sal ol some such Work avery Man His Own Lawyer.” Prooubiy vou had couferred with a lawyer beiore takig suc a step, he would have Suuested Co you the proverb that “he wuo tg his own lawyer has a fool for pis client.” 3% SVO SHERIFF'S PRES. gis a briel statementof the Jaw in regard to Tae tees of the sherit;— By the Revised statutes (1 Edmonds, p. 357) 3 provided that the following saull be county charges the compensanious of sheruls for the commitinent and discharge of prisoners in crimiual processes, * * # * * * reason- u PAS cemagargs 10 Constadles and other officers cuuhy process on persons charged wittt al onences, lor services and expenses tn conveying prisoners to jail * © # and for other services jn relation tu crimmal proceeamgs lor Which ua -pecilic compensation is prescribed by law. 6. The senses ibeurred for the support of person, ed or convicted of crime. * * * 7. Moneys 1 ssurily expended by any county erin executing the a 01 his offive 1p cases fit Which vo specitic compen bu 1S provided by law,”? Such accounts to be presented to the Board of Supervisors and audited by them, Also (2 Ed- mronds’ Ry S., 665)—For giving notice of aby general or special election, $1 lor each town or ward 1B the county, wud the expense of publish ing; Jor any services which taay be rendered by a constable, the same jees as are allowed by jaw lor Such Services to a constable; for summoning con- stabies to attena the Supreme Court or apy other art, Oiity cents tor each coustavle. Also (2 1d., ‘is)—For every person committed to prison, thirty-seven and a hall cents, and a like sum for each person discharged; tor summoning » Grand Jury, $10; for conveying prisoners 10 House of #0, SUCH SUI: a3 Shall be alowed by the Su- Visors, (LAWS of 1559 Chap. 254, p. 652.) “The Board of Supervisors may allow such fur- ther compensation ior the service of process, &e., as they may deem reasonabie. vor other services in crimiua! cases, for which Do compensation 13 specially preseribed oy law, such sum as the Board of Supervisors of tue county may aliow.’? f THE SUMMONING OF JURORS. The Revised Statutes, parts, cnupter 7, title 4, arnicie 2, section 21 (p, 698, Sth Edmonds), provide tor the summoning of jurors by the oficers now required by” law to serve them. Sections 96 and 109 (p. 718) make this the duty of tae Sheri! not only THE The followin | Set forth in nis aMdavit, hereto annexed, marked B. Toe receipts irom poundage (two and one-hall per cent for sums less tuan $250 and one and one- Marine Court because it was done by my predece: sor, although you assert lis action to have been “a clear robbery of the County Treasury,” | wil: pass by that w.tn the single remark that my conductin quarcver per cent on sums exceeding that this particular Was paged upon a Written opinion amount), and upon ail other — process by eminent counsel, still IN my possession, and aller deducting the amount paid deputies, dated April 29, 1869." You admit, hiowey Wough my predecessor charged tity cents for tus service | charged but tuirty and in 1867 thirty cents, For your caution im this respect you more than make up When you couse to speak of the ,thatal- did not exceed $10,000 a during ooth my terms. For calendar fees ana all process patd for by attorneys f received $12,000 a year. From real estafe business uot over $2,000 on the average, For conveying State couvicts I received nothing, Jurors summoned fur Uie Oyer and Terminer, and the whol: amount pald by the Stute bene received particulurly of “extra jurors.” AS to the latter, by the aeputies periorming the service. This you ussert “that of the 3,601 eXtra jurors gives the sSnerum’s totul income at $24,000, and wor owhich Lt was paid during my two shows toatl it Were hot lor the county bills he | terms of office “not one of them had could hurdly pay the rupning expenses of his auy existence, and the charge for them ofice, while having to bear the lmumeuse responsi in criminal, but m civil cases, specilying the Cir- | ent Court, Superior Court, Pleas and General Sessions, Makes this the Sherifl’s duty. seems bo be fixed tor this service. fitty cents to be collected w5; 5 Edmonds), Section 110 also of the attorney (3 KR. S. cannot be the ony compensation contemplated, a3 the Sherif 13 also to summon jurors jor the Oyer | and Jerminer and General Sessions, — and be 1s entitied to charge for one he ts tor the other, His compensation, theretore, audited aud allowed by the Board of Supervisors, us they have done for the past thirty years, under the powers given them. (1 R. 35., 848, 855, 3. R. Sy Pp. 1,046, sec, In the case of the Supervisors of Onondaga vs. Briggs (2 Denio., + 41), where a District Attorney was charged Witt procnring irom the Supervisors fees not author. leu by law, Chief Justice Bronson certain services the Legislature has given to ofti- cers & specified iee, and they are forbidden to take more. Jaw the Legisiature has uot undertaken to say how much or how little shall be charged jor any service which may be rentered.”’ in the case ot the People ex rel. Hiltou, against the Super- visors of Albany Couuty (12 Wendell’s Re: p. 267), it was decided = that when any duty was imposed upon a county otticer by the Legisiature be Ww areasonable compeusauon, to be audited by the Board of Supervisors, Chief Justice savage said :—*Pne perior ce of the duty may be, and generally mast be, attended with expense, and there 13 no reason Way the officer should lose both his ume and his money witiout just compensa- lo ig very provable, too, that the reason Court of Common | No statutory rate | ‘Tue Sum of | mov sworn in, eltner because they ure excused vy is to be fixed, | 1a thas { Be ae clen. | for juro.s not ut when no iee has been prescribed by | indy, Was merely a barefaced jraud.” “Tus f hyery bantly devounce us 4 barefaced taisenvod juror for whom | charged was regularly draw, and [stand prepared to produce lis name, Unser the wholesaie system of excuses prevaient 10 UL courts prior to 1870 the first pauel of juors wu soon exhausted tn civil as weil a3 in criminal courts. An “extra panel” would then be ordered, returnable sometimes the very next Gay, Thes bad to be summoned often” in great haste, tue entire lorce of my oMce being tequentiy at bibty thrown upon him by law, You ts the amount received by me, during bo tenis, from the COUmLy: & 3h ate that of this | Have my a 88,546 “ 70,567 OL wy sole compensa« e ous respousivilites I Nad to incur ds Suerid, Let me ask, What dusiness man Would incur 4 Habiity of $3,500,000, @ large part of Work until late at night. Yet you fie your Which, alter (ue expiration OF sixteen years, stil! Statements as to the jurors for which I was Continues, and which, lor three years alter my enutled to charge ior the General ses- frst term and seven years after my second sions of Oyer and Terminer und Marine term, has obliged me to twaintaim ah Court, and, with your usual facility jor oft and clerks tor public accom. vlundering, omit all reference woo ta Riodation, at oun exp of at least Various civil courts, as tf they never had any $8000. The foregoing embraces complete answera jurors, 1 wave a certificate jrom tne Couury [0 the leadiug facts contaimed in your charges. Cierk that the VoOkS in bis oftice are defective as They show them to ve utterly uniounded, snd to petit jurors summoned tn 1899, 1860 and 1361. Tender it unnecessary that | stiouid allude to the ‘The panels in the oMice uf the Commissioner of Jurors jor the entire jury year, whicu runs from Yctober to October, for sone courts are also deiec- tive; consequently the Ngures you nave obtamed from tnese offices are utterly wortnless as evi- delice as Co the buinber of jurors drawn by ne, Rave lu wy books copies of ail panels drawn by me, Wilh the name abd residence of each juror and how he was served, The tolowingis a taole OF the nowber of panels, as well as petit jurors sum- moned and charged for by me in 1865, 1866 and 1867, und also of those appearing by the recoras of the County Clerk, a8 certified by him:— DRAWS AND CHARGED DY Mx. Panels ot grand jurofs.. .. Panels of peut jurors. other minor matters contained in your Letter, (O ali of which, however, [here interpose an abso- Jute and unqualified denial. As this letter is not intended tor you, but tor the public, It is neces. sary that J should make it as briet as Vossible, and it bas aiready ontgrowa my original inven'tion, but your charges have been 80 elaborate that t was compelied to answer them in detail, THE PERSONAL ASSAULTS. I cannot close, however, Without ullnding to the Personal assaults you have inade upon me, td which [ have not ‘previousiy reterred, If, when you say that 1 was “born of a low beginning,’ you | mean { my Jather was a poor ian, you are right lov about the only time in your lengthy epistie. I bave never denied ft, and am not ashamed of it, If you desire to insinuate that Total panels. MinibaNoD pebtIarORRei. my parents, although poor, were not re- PIVANED HOE RFORR cs soshts spectable ahd honorable, you assert what is f grand jurors. not true. in this connection I migne ask whether Panels of petit jurors. - it ts not tae case that you yoursell were not bora in affluence, but, in conlection wita your father joilowed in’ your youth the trade of a sugar baker, as 1 did that of a mason and prate setter the oly diference between us, asf understand your history, being that built myself up without ius ieee ar pene . Leng 4 Deri. ee. in y infancy, Born in the city of New York, | nave out authority, By order of tae Court tue Sueruf | lived uere upwards of fity-two years. During that summons thirty-six meu ty serve as Grand Jurors, | period ihave peen elected by my lelow-citizeng, Jor which he 1s paid $10. It the legal number are | once as alderman, twice as a Member of Congress, and twice as sherit. In these positions { have come in contact with a very large mumber of pea- ‘Yotal panels...... Number of petit jurors. see THE GRAND JURY CHARGE. This disposes of avout all your allegations in re- gard to jurors, Your assertiou that a Sherif can only charge Jor a Grand Jury, not a panel, is with- the presiding Judge or do not attend. tne Court orders tue Sheri to summon anew panel. Can je, and am ver! fenerally Kuown throl - there be auy doubt that ue is entitled 1 be paid | but “the city, ad 1 ely ett one ae Jor doing Sor Certainly no one but yoursell ever truthfully say that im any single par ought there was any question wboutit, These CLarges Were the same tu ail respects as made by my predecessor, with tue exception that in 1867, tie lage year 1 Was in olfice, the Board of Supervi- sors increased the compensation irom thirty to thirty-five cents, which, as 1t occurred when Con- nolly was Comptroller, you attempt to insinuate was dove througn him, although you cannot but know he had nothing to do with it, im regurd to vhe siatute reierred to in your letter as to paying Personally served, as nsual you ticular, either as @ public officer or as u private citizen, | Nave ever done auything of whict a map Of the strictest integrity would not have approved. itis not my habit or desire to speak of myself, nor would Ido 80 Were it not jorced upon me in my endeavor to defend my character trom the base and untruthtal iasinuations that you have brought against it. But under the circtimstances I will state that Lsolemniy believe that | have lived a ile, both as a public oMicer and us a private citizen, that will cause my memory to be | have misquoted its provisions. Wuile the act | honorably remembered When yours will of 1853 mukes it the duty of ull Clerks of | have been iorgotten, or be recalied only courts to certily to the Supervisors when = by the wicked follies aud wrongs of whicd the majority of a panel {8 not personally | you have been guilty as a public officer. | strued to apply only to the criminal courts, and, lature Knew the prittciple upon which the courts | had acted, and thougnt that justice would be bet | ter vune by leaving the amount of the compeasa- tion to the Supervisors than by giving a gross sum, Winch In some cases might be liberal and tn others totally tnadequate,”’ following the rule laid down in Bright vs. Supecvisors of Chenango County, (18 Johnson’s Kep., 244.) case of People rel. Hail va, Supervisors ol New York (52 N. Y., 475), where the county was. held liable for my ees for serving the papers in Wavcerbury’s excise cases, the Court ol Appeals heid thay each county was chargeable, in the avsence of any provision tur specific compensa- tion, with the moneys necessurily expended vy any county officer in executing the duties of nis ollice, und tuat expenditures were necessary when they were reasonable, appropriate and cus- ae io the discharge of the particuiar official uby. ; THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS. When my bills were sent iu to the Board of Supervisors either L or my under snerilf anvari- ably w@nt be,ore them and expluined the diferent: charges contained 11 them, so that in wudiung my claus they knew exactly what they were tounded upon. As was decided by Judge Bronson in Supervisors of Ouondaga County vs. briggs, “above mentioned, they were ap- pointed ior the purpose of deciding whether the charges came witnin the statute, and their determination is & concinsive udjudication upon the poimt. | indignantly deny the insinua ton that 1 was in coluston with the Supervisors, or any of them, at any time, or that | used any impreper innuences to procure payment of my bills, and dely you or any one ewe to produce tue slightest proof of 1t, ‘The deduction of $2,550 trom my bili for September 30, 1860, was made because the records ot the convictions Jrom the lower Courts had not veen flied with tne Clerk o1 the General Sessions, a mutter over whién I had no coutrol, Tue position which you take in regara to the construction of section 9 of title 8, chapter 2, Part iy. of the Revised Statutes (2 Edmonds, seq.), quuted by you a length, is erroneous, The “preceding sections” thereln mentioued have no reference to Sherif, cunse- quently that section has uo effect. Your position thut there 18 no authority lor the payment by the Board of Supervisors of the Sheriff's oils of this county lor these services is ridiculous. ‘I'ue prac- tice, AS yOu yourseli admit, tas lasted in most in- stances ior over thirty years, aud existed througu- out the Stace, It is uot only sanctioned by iong Usage, but Is the fair aud reasonable construcuon ol the law, apd it will take something more than your mere assertion to establish the contrary. ‘The reason Why wn increased compensation was allowed Was oovious, The jee 0: seventy-live cents was Dxed thirty-iour years previougiy, in the meantime values nud cuanged greatly. Thirry- Jour years ago the auyor’s salary was about $2,000; now I believe your various salane: oun’ to sume $12,000, Labor thut tn 1831 o but $1 in 16) commanded five times that sum, For the conveyance of some of these prisoners L paid to my deputy as hign a8 $1 eucu; aad the Su- pervisors accoriingly raised the compensation, as they bad a legal rigat todo, So tar irom veing exorbitaut, the rate paid by the State Jor all p:ls- oners conveyed to Blackwell's Islaud upoa convic- tons exceeding a yeur Was $2 60 jor each prisuner. In regard to my charges tor commitments and dts charge O: prisoners, Upon which you lay such stress, the acts are as 1ollows:— f THs COMPTROLLER TROUBLE. Upon my frst election as Shertil 1 was advised by my counsel that was entivied to make tis charge, as hud been done by my predecessor, Under this advice | inserted the charge in my bill, Which Was paid by Comptroller Haws. Upon the presentation ot my next bili the Comptrolier declined to pay this item, acting uuder the advice vicounsel, 1 took the payment of the remainder under protest, bat fluaily, ag [ wanted notuing apout witich u fair question could be raised, de- cided that | would not tngert it again iu my bills, aithouga my counsel were positive i their opinion that i Was a charge 1 was en- utied to make. My successor, Mr. Lynch, reguiarly inserted this charge in his bills during bis term of office. Mr. Haws declined to pay him as he had mie, and Lyncu took tie money dudet protest. Subsequeutly he succeeded in recovering the money trom the county, taus re- ceiving payment fur the whole amount, some go1,00u. It 1 lad done this—and there Was no reasvu why [should not—I should have received at ieast $100,000 more from the county than lL actuaiy dud, THE PETIT LARCENY CHARGE. You are pleased to asserc tat 1 have been guilty of petitiarceny ta churging tity cents lor sum- muuthy Coustables to utleud tie sessions ol the Oyer and ‘feriminer, It 18 hardly necessary to state thac you ure wroug in regard to every detail in this matter also. ‘the vourt of Oyer and Termiuer is hot a continuous court, bus only Meets at miervals. The law provides that the Shernf sual! suimrmonu constavies to stiend it, and fixes thelr compensation at $1 by u day and his at tity ceuts lor ewcn man ne summons. ‘The Coury species the number required and the Serif nas t) furnish tem, As there were DO constables iu New York while 1 was Suerit 1 had Ww iod men; and w isure some responsibility Upon their part, ad Well as to ive them the Leces- sury power, L nade tuem spectul deputies. This | wus no innovation apon my parc, but had beea Jor years the practice of my predec Wilett, aud Warranted by law, yourself would attempt to stigmatize a iraud, and sou kuow you are not telling the tuth when you say so You Juake a8 a lurtner charge agaist me that | have, Without AULNOTILY Of JAW OF Usage, overcharged $24 25 jor servings NOUces Upon newspapers. Without ,oimg iulo partiguiars Intu tae matcer I org, Orser and No one bat it as | assert (aut my bis Were correct in all respects aud Warranted by law, and wouid refer you to BAS. seC. B 926, Chap, 490, Laws 1800, p. 6975 Crocker vu Sherins, 1,107; People ex rel. Hilton vs. Supervisurs Of Albany, 12 Wend., 267. SUMMONING VESIT JURORS, Your neXt attack Upon we is tm relation to my charges lor suma@utlug petit jurors, ere aisu, although GO levyer, you beve ho hesitation im wa- Serting (uat LO provision Of law Whatever exists for compensation In ¥Uch cases, alchougn you aumit tat ever since 1843 the power has been reguiarly exercised by the Bourd of super. visors, Who buve allowed $10 tor each panel (tuen’ consisting of thirty-six and since tn. creased tu pity) and twenty-five cents cach lor extra jurors, As you make no charge against mo for my fees ior suumoung petit jurors sor tae In the very | Was entitled | &@y court but the General Sessions and Oyer and | served, and in Which case only no tees are to be | NO QUARREL WITH THE MAYOR. allowed the Sherif, the act has always been con-| You say that there has beeu enmity between us, | for reasons which you set jorth. ‘This 18 incorrect, 1 have iad no quarre} wich you, and have still hone, , My proceedings agaist the Police Commissioners Were based upon the grounds that tuey had vio lated the pority of the elective franchise, and my views iu regard to them have been sustained by according to the best tniormation I can obtain, there is nO instance Known where any Clerk of ‘Termiuer has made such a report. 1p the case of the regular panels, wnen the fui time was given | to the sheriff, a majority of the jurors were io- | the Supreme Court aad by the Governor. 1 never variably personally served. But in the huste re- | claimed that I or Mr. Morrissey should have quired in summoning eXtra jurors it was impossi- | the absolute right to name one-half the ble to make personal service, although the fee re- | inspectors or poll clerks. 1 considered and | cetved by the deputies employed was doudie when | now cunsider that the organization known personal service was made, having beew | as Tammany Hall, being the official representative lucreased’ by me for this purpose. ‘This | of the democratic organization of the State, was was uot the Sheriffs fault, tor he | statute was not eniorced. eatitied to name the uspectors.and poll clerks 1e- quired by law to be appoimted On behali o: that party, as [conceded the right of the reguiar ore was but obeying the oruers. of the Court, aad, as this was well known, the stringent rule of the I have not charged x ganization of the repnolican party to do the tor 713 more panels, as you allege. or for any other | same —a right which was conceded to them by number thin were drawn. You have omitted from | your irieuds, Charlick and Gardner. You lay your stitement the panels actually drawn jor the | great stress upon the character of Sheridane Civil Courts. , | Ate you aware that the removal of Shere THE EXECUTION FEES. ) dan Was but a single one of the crimes You also wiliully misrepresent me in regard x0 | which your friends, the Police Commissiouera my churges tor capital executious In my second (Whom for some ¢xtraordiuary reason you seem lerm of oftice, a8 compared wici my first. A great | to consider identical with yourseil), have com- deal of the difference arises Irom the greatin- | mittedy Conceding, jor “the sake of. argue crease of Values caused by the war. For tue same | ment, that Sheridan was everytuing you scaffold, Which Includes a large platiorm and par- yepresent. how 1s it abous the removal ution, that cost $3277 1 1860, 1 paid Samuel | of the other inspectors, ior which the Graod Atkinson $191 07 in i867, for which I have his re- | cerpt, a8 I have jor all the other disbursements | ecnharged torin my bills. and which you and the | pudlic can inapect at any time at my office. My charge for the board Ol prisoners 1s open to no eriticisin. Many or these remained on my hands | jor along Ume alter their sentence—Friery for | Jury have indicted these same Commissioners? How did it happea that all those removals were of inspectors represeuting Tammany Hal? How | Was iC that they were all removed in a single | Assembly district, when, too, the contest Was doupituly How was it that they were ail removed the night previous to the election, too late for their places to be supplied by tueir party! And how was tt that, in every mstance, those who were put in tueir places were not only men in political opposition to Tammany Hall, put men of bad character, who, Whe forte Luese posinons, committed iravcs npon the vallos box, jor which a Nuinber of them have since been indicted. This ss not a simple assertiou, but @ lact which you can assertain by referring to the proper @year anda half, Ferris a littie longer, O’Brien tur nine months and Wagner for seven. During this period it Was customary, as it was humane, to atlow them better foou than ordinary prison fare. 1 paid Mrs, Fostet, the Prisou Matron ‘$ia day each for their board, tor which | have her re- ceipts, the folowing veing 4 tuole of the amounts paid Jor and during exch quarter :— BOARD OF PRISONERS UNDER SENTENCE. = 7083. 2a ste — > | records, and which, in my opinion, effectually ais- Apr 1. Fave 8. Sept. 8. Dec. 81, Mar 31. Juued0. | Hoses of your claltn that the rewoval o1 Sheridun R Lamb... 800 9 92 9200 Wd” RZ OD | RORY picky tt B. Frierv...360 910) 9200 9200 Ww 910) @ mere error in judgiment on the part of Char- F. Ferrls...129 00 91.0) 9200) 9200) ~—- gL oY | Jick and Garduer, and was the only offence of ©. Walter,..39 00 9100 = 12.00 — = — | which they had been guuty. t fear that in the copies G. Wagner.. — - — 6600 780 9100 | you wrote at schoul (reverred to in your letter), J. Hackett... = Ge) — Ww Woy MW the one, “Evil Conmmubice tog Sor Wik good mame ners,” was omitted, or you woul jave studiously Totals....113.00 266 00 388 ae stam ae Pipes w | avouled he bad company of these men apa saaredy aaa leer =~ | saved a littie of your reputation, ow at «by Pe March, June Set. | swith your strong conviction that the Police Com 37 500 — — — | mMisstohers were the victims of the most iniquitous . Mw 190 | — = =| persecution ior selfish aud political objec:s, you Ga. Wagne: wo 920 | be - -| con age Leddy pecs Panini dl if igor ae oe] Y eo an 4 = «stoo yy them.’ aly! ow Luat yor Sere ae Oe ra = Ro we aos {9 | do respect yourself for your conduct. in this pan | oharies Moweti = x= CX ew 3%) | teular, because you ure probavly the unly | Maurice Lanergan. - = = ilo "—| Person in this city wno does, ‘The Governor —- —— —— —— -—— | of tne State, who, singular to say, is the Totals... $252 37,186 00 189 @ 1710 4650 only individual im any way conpecced with the Total amount paid in 1865, 1866and 1867. 12,764 37 | proceedings against tae Powe Comminsiouers and These men could not be trusted with razors, and | yourselr vi whom you have bot something deroza they were therefore shaved by a barber, and the | tory to say, does not entertain tae same respect for you tpat you fave for yoursell. In deciding your case he expresses the almost uaiversal public sentiment when ke speaks of this conduct, upon ‘which you now pinme yoursell, a8 ‘one vl those examples of eceentricity with which you bave Tore than once surprised your fellow citizens,” and remarks that your desire ‘to sustain your a&- gociate (in which he evidently refers to that gentie man so eminent for tis integrity and purity 0! character, Mr. Oliver Charlick) had led you into devices utterly antagonistic to your general candor and directness of purpose.’’ I think, however, that If the Governor hau read your last letter to me he would not nave alluded to your candor aad directness of purpose. In regard to your asser- tion as to the source of these charges, the Gov. ernor gain 18 correct When he remarks “that Amoug those presaing your removal most urgently were Many by whom your election was most strongly advocated, and whom until a recent day were most ardent supporters of your avministra- tion.” He sums Op, 8 8 Conclusion, that v your conduct im these particulars, whic! you seem to consider #s exuibiting the best qualities of Solomon and George Washington, “the good bame of the city has been tarnistied and the dignity of the oftice of Culef Magistrate compro. mised.” So iar irom aequitting you, the Gover- nor expressly states that your offences have been such us to warraut your removal, and, a3 it were, simply suspended sentence upon you in cousidera- tion of your age and the brief period you had ta serve—a concinsion im watch the largest number of the people o/ this city thik he bas very ei erred. and that he has been disinciiued to tuifll the strict letter of his duty on account, perhaps, o! hia being himself a candidate at tne coming election. MORRISSEY, CROKER AND CONNOLLY. You Say pretty severe things your letter about Mr. Morrissey and Mr, Croker, bub neither of them have ever been publicly ceagared Ih this manner, Another charge upou which you lay great stress is my intimacy with Richard B, Conuoliy, and espe ctaliy as to'my ediorts to have bun elected Comp troller. ‘This is another example of your “eccen tricity,” or, might betler say, of your perverse and Wilful intention to misstate cts, You know periectly well tuat Richard 8, Connolly Was always & » protegé of your own; that he was long employed In the Bank of Nortu America, of Which you were President; aud that he retained your intimacy ap to the very day of his arrest, 1t bemg mainly at your suggestion and omimnendauon that he finuliy resigned bis ofice and appointed the pres. ent Comptrolier as his deputy, thus snowing the influence that you exerted over tum. Now, alter he has fallen into disgrace, you leigh an utter ignor ance mm regard to Wim, and seek lo tragsier to me the burden of belong one of his principal friends and supporters. ‘The truth 1s that I was strongly opposed to the litigation. During my two terms there were 770 | nomination of Connolly as Coniptrolier, while you Jaw suits brought against ime, not personally, but | were strongly In uis tavor, Alter he tad received in my oficial character, aud not for any negligence | the nomiuanen the first ume I did uot oppose nia or delinquincy On Wy part, but tor domg what the | election, as he was the vegular nominee of the law obilged me to do, ‘each involving ou the | party to which [ belonged, When he was elected average avont $2,000, Of those brouvht auring | the second We | was in Europe. So far trom nav. Ty first term more than fifty are still alive, as are | ing auy particular relations with Connolly Tnever over a hundred and twenty-ilve o1 those brought | Went IDtu his private office or hud any personal in my second term. Since the commencement of | communication witn him of any Kind while be waa these actions many of the bondsmen on thei | Comptrolier. 1 went there aud collected my bule demnity bonds taken by me have become insvi- | In the reguiar way and that was all. Cau you say vent, and i consequence their responstuility is | the same? tirown upon me, aud I have been ulready obliged KELLY’S CONNECTION WITH WATSON, to pay considerable on that account, For the In regard to Watson you are as much in error limit prisoners alone my responsioiiity lor my first in what you say about my connection with fim os term was $819,900; 10f my second term about | you ure in everytuluy else, which 13 saying & wreat $583,500, deal. You assert that ve Was brought over irow TUR SHERIFF'S RESPONSIBILITIES. Calvornia as a prisoner and was in my custody, ‘To sum up, 1 estimate the respoastouites I had | and tha’ as soon as he was discharged 1 took hig to assume as Sherid, as follows :— into my confidence as a clerk, ‘Tats 1s utterly +++ $751,000 to $1,000,000 | bills presented to and paid by me monthly, which | accouats for the charge under that head. From the suicide of McDonald and attempted suicide of Gordon 1 established the practice of watching each prisoner day and night for twelve days be- tore lila executiog, Which accounts for my charge for watchers. For myself I was compeiled, in ad- | dition to atvending the execution, to remain in | court during the trial, on ove occasion being | obliged to be there every day ior several weeks aud to visit the prison irequently, The charge I made lor my own fee was less than Sheritts in other counties were charging, and the Board of Supervisors, in whose dis cretion the whole matter was piaced by law— a fact as to Which you seem to be in ignorance— in auditing my bila aecided them to be proper. | Wouid any reasouable mun say the charge was too | much? You do not appear to agree with the Leg- igiature as to the necessity of there being any jurors or witnesses summoned to witness any ex. | ‘ecution, and thereiore assert that because, in uc- cordance with the requirements of the law, I did summun them, as all Sueriifs do, it was & 1raud ior me to charge for the service. ‘Ihe law, you assert, ga)8 the Sheritf shall “invite’’ certain oMicials and other parties to be present, That there are many | Who are eager to be present, and thereiore he has no right to charge tor bis services. Does it not seem to you that this proposition is hardly stroug enough io vase & charge of traud upon? THE EXCISE SUITS. As to my charges for services in serving the papers tu the excise suits, this is a matter with | which your assiscant, Nelson J. Waterbury, who 18 using you to pull his chestnuts our of the fire, is quite famuar, He was District Attorney at the time the most of them were commenced, and brought them to advance lis own personal ends— a motive Which, a8 33 Well Known, coutrols nearly pangs cal be does, He brought these papers to my office in large bundies, 4nd enivarrussed my business so much that 1 at one time peremptorily reiused to serve tiem. He insisted that it was my duty, as Sherim, to do so, and f was compelled to, paying tor the services out of my own pocket. The propriety of the payment of tae fees for these services having been dis- puted, a suit was brought, Which was carried to the Court of Appeals aud is reported in “Peopie vs, Supervisors of New York” (32 New York Rep., 473), ‘Tue Court of Appeals decided that we charges. not the payment therefor, Was legal and proper, The idew winch you have of the vast | emoluments o1 the offive of Sheruif ts erroneous. | If, ag you state, the Sherif? was to louk alone to | his fees in civil Cases tor his compensation there | would be very (eW candtuates tor the position, and those elected would svon be bankrupt. Tne Sheriff is obliged by law (to perform certain services, | in which he incurs very heavy responsivilties, and is eXposed (0 aD inCeasant and prolonged jaise. At the time Watson came from Caitlorota On limit prisoners. .. " to his ems r veer" P10) to” 200,00) | Orser Was Sheri, and he took him into tind party Clatme on replevin.. aon to KV.9 | ployment as collector and gave lim bis cone ——-— | fdéuve up to the time of his (Orser’s) death, Totals $2, 80,00) to $3,000,000 —for which responsibility I received no extra culu- Yue expenses of my oitice, over all iyvom the county, averaged about S200 a yvar, Those of tae oresent sueriul are Alter Orser went out of ofice Watson was retained in the same position by Willett, nis successor, — ee OONTINUED OM TENTH PAGE