New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1854-04-03
DsnKEyI.G COUNSEL.

our columns on Saturday were graced bya Letter
from the Counsel to the Corporation not badly spicel
with stascnable epithes ard phrases of yernal vgor
by way Of reply 10 exposition Of certain facts with
regard TO tia, functionarys official revenues which
il bad been duty to furnish to the public the day
previous. In so doing, the Counsel employs the in
genious dodge Of charging points beyond oil nsu
ral proportion, AID leaving others of quite equal ian
portance unnoced, in order that he may crafty us
with the genial nputaton Of having detrauded both
the public and himself This procedure may do for
lawyer wbOwants - brow beat opponent or humbug
Jury but we fear it will no. answer before the pre-
sent tribunal.
Frat OF all let gently Fay that tie Counsel is mis-
taken. We made no charge of uaccuracy against the
Street Commissioner, Of cOncealnent against himself
but simply stated the fact that The Commissioner in an
swer to requisition of the Legislature, had returned
the aggregate of the fees and other charges paid the
Counsel In street opening during the year 1888
ut some $500, while they in fact amounted TO much
larger sum. No doubt the return as made by the
Street Commissioner far as he con cerned may
have been correct and if the requstion had been ad
dressed 10 the Counsel and not 10 the Street Commits
sioner the true amount would, we make no question
have been forthcoming. Nor have we any doubt that
il wss voluntarily and within the first week Of the
Session reported BY him to the judiciary Committee,
as lie states But it is not too much to say thai the
accuracy of the Street Commits return had been
publicly imIugned il would have been satisfac-
tory If the Counsel while voluntarily making his
nu1icatoi to the Judiciary Committee he'd at the
time volunteered light touching the true state of
the case to the tax payers of the City, whO-and not
three country lawyers at Abaoy-were the real parties
in interest Ii lie bad taken this course it would have
saved time and perhaps have relieved the Counsel from
unjust suspicious tie part of those who do no.
understand the of official purity and moderation
which within the past twenty years have illustrated
the Office be nov occupies
We gladly take note Of tie pledge of the Counsel
that he viii not receive certain fees allotted him by
the act which has passed the Legislature. That act
We print in another place it no. only retains the fees
in all up to the LIST OF January next, but also
allows them after that date in all cases then pending
and it gives him besides an addition Of $500 TO his
salary, in lieu Of those fees. Or iG other words,
if we read the act correctly, 1t gives him $6 500
year in lieu o. fees which are not taken away This
interesting provision the authorship of which is dis
claimed by the COun8l who drew the BILL ia ho geyer
of account the public has his word that he will
not take advantage of it, But we to infer that the
provision requiring the Counses fees and charges no
the time when Lis salary begins 70 be taxed b. the
" CjerL of the Supreme Court at for aud upon, the
usual and customary rates services and proofs here
fcfore tared and ailO,red, lie HE bill or somebody's
addition 70 il
With any quarrel which Mr Dillon may have or
may desire with the gentlemen who have taken the
lead in the work Of aboshing the iniqIites which dis
gIaced us office for years before he became its 10
cumbent, We have nothing TO do. That these gentle
men labored from personal political hate Of him
we have no evidence beyond his assertion, which We
think is impsssoned, preudiced and altogether
neous but We do know that there has for some time
prevailed among the taxpayers Of the City very
general and most justiabe hate against being plum
dered they have been in cases OF street opening,
but which the Counsel seems in some sort TO have re-
rarded as natural appansge of hs Office since be
frankly charscterizes I'LL 70 cut j, of Of once as
sroiition ard injustice tn this head lie is indignant
as tie defender. of vested rights 10 profit derived from
established or tolerated evils have generally proved
themselves q, any attack upon those profits
His n1Iguatin, however. Is accompanied by the
voluntary abandonment OF the very rights in ones
ton 81 tre expiration Of the present year Nor
can il receive very respectful attention from
those who have felt and understood the enormry
of the system OF charges heretofore made by Counsel
to the Cooperation q street opening cases-fal.ely so
called for the opepag is only paper and We know
case IN which eighteen years have passed and the real
opening has not yet been made and who know that
the services rendered blythe Counsel if any be render
ed, are quite unnecessary. The truth IT, that the sys-
TEN has grown up since the year ,20 By collision and
management between different ncumbents in the Office
Of Counsel and their creatures the individuals appoint
ed b. them .s their Commissioners and the harpies
who hang about the City Hall
Ii is Of piece with the general food of corruption
Injustice and abuse which has lately REACHED ts eli lax
IN so nan! departments of the Municipal Admins
traton OF this the least Informed readers can need
10 other proof thsn the Counse own statement that
under that system bis fees IN the opening OF the Central
Park alone would have been 100000
We cheerfully admit the part that Mr.. Dillon Las
taken in putting end to system against which pub
lie feeling was 80 strong snd decided We are very
happy 10 learn that he is not the author of the most
Objectionable clause in the bill just passed under his
auspices and that lie rePuiiites the money it offers