The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1854-08-05

pia nee pubic poiic for the fun period OF iays
wss, bcder with adequate security All such bids or
proposals shalt Be opeped by the heads c departments
s1,sti-ng Cor them In she pessncs Of the c. n)rcer
and -ucn Of tbs parties making than wsy Leslie to
prerept
And from that section II Is argued that iaasnuch
~ The total claimed by the plaintiff is u,re than
"t250," the same should have been by contract,
fonnded on sealed bids or proposals. in compliance
Si,h public notice, &C., and no. having been So he
sane b illegal The very nature OF tee pllintih's
claim (beipg provision for eutertatrment) in
au es, The instant, the doubt that 1t was one OF
that character Of expenditures contemplated by TOE
twelfth secti n. How would the "puolie notice
be d avn TO meet the exlgency OF the case
Wba language could BE- used TO express
jts reqn'sitons2 Do the defendants argue
chat public notice for bids or proposals" :" T.,
get mp celebration OF the anniversary OF the
Ls,hday Of Washington would have been suit
csent and that the thing thus 10 be jobbed out
70 some SPECTATOR to conduct it with eye solely
20 bis own profit, and 10 his own mauner, however
much that might ex, ibit the parsimouy rather IN IN
Sue Patriotism OF The government Of the largest
ID the wealthiest city Of the country 0, which
Washington 10 Justly called the father Hal even
sbe PLAINTIFFS claim been Jumped" and presented
fu instance, in the form OF bill again !. the Coo
porstion for entertainment furnns led Veteran
Cors," &r., there teen might be some show OF reas
ssn In the argument, because IL would have the col
lateral reason TO strengthen and sustain it. that he
same entertainment might have been furnished by
some competitor at less price; but In this case,
where tne account ~ presented, fsem Dy item, the
a~tcnce 10 deprived OF even that argument, an the
plaintiff avoids collision with the twelfth section,
1hrough the duty of the Court TO pass upon his
account item by item. Is there any item which the
Court can reject unier the strictest construction OF
the twelfth tectionf None unless IL be the seven.
teenth item; and II the Court felt compelled TO re-
ject that item, they would certainly consider them.
selves justin<d in applying the payment or sl5l AZ
spon that item, leaving the defendants 10 recover
shat payment in such manner ~ they might be al.
vised; but for the reasons before stated Il Is unne-
csssary further to pursue this argument The ninth
section
Sec Q. No money shah be expended ny the Corpora.
&ion for any celebration. prooesson or
~ any hind any occas4os except for the cslsora
Mon Of the anpiverssrv OF the national Independence the
twenty .afh Of Novemb~r- Evacuation day-and the an
iv~rssry of the birthday Of Washington, unless BY
vote OF al the elected In each
board Of the Common Council
--abo, by implication, abrogates the twelfth sec.
tioD far applies 20 the occasions mentioned ia
\ At section. Having concluded that the twelfth
Z mon does not apply, and thus disposed OF tbs
v st and second points, W. pass 90 70 the consdera
Of the third point sngges.ed By ihsedefendaots.
Dder this third point couose reserr 70 Peterssns