New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1857-09-07

= al be g. pubhc hact"h. LUZ S'''
be sale !, "a ore, should have authorized me Ians
fer frorl Drsptr 20 Va'num, Hhch the Co'H"e' ''oA
upon himself They alone had tae porer' ana ''' 'ae
CoEtroHlr. With the title thus tainted u s,eH' P'"l'
enough to any person Of ordinary sense tnat 'ne q@
clsm Of Drsper TO Varnum lad no validity 'na'
Draper could not hold the property, and thai tue SAFE
10 Loveioy was irregular and totally Illegal.
THE SECOND PART OF THE JOB.
Ipder these circumsta ces it would naturally be e1
pec.ed by Taxpayers that their sgeusin the City han
would seek 10 vscate the bogus title, and reclaim the
ci,y's property. But no; this cour'e would not be
consistent with modern Common CouncIs-t Is II not
in their wsy" In the report OF proceedings OF the
Roard of Councimen, June 1884, it will be found that
q measure had been set on foot to repurchase the
pyoperty to give the alleged purchasers chance 10
make handsome profit in the operation, by paying
s33OOO for the same property 70. which they agreed
TO pay $l60, COO. The purchasers from the sinking
Fund had doubts of the validity of their title, and
would be glad to sell for 1870 600 aud interest, al
though the same property is worth over hsii NIL
lion of dollars A committee, consisting OF Messr''
y.ruilye Kennedy, Conover, Smith and Cooper, re-
ported in favor of the repurchase
GROwL FROM THE Watchdog.
Controller FIsgg who had come into once IN 1901
having heard Of this movement, apprsed the Counch
men in an official communication that the safe 10 W.
Draper and others was invalid He believed they
were under a msapprehension, and referred them 10
an account of the transaction in report made oy MIN
April 4, 1853, 10 the Commissioners OF the sinking
Fund This document contains minute details oil the
transaction and important arguments, butt Is long
for orr present space.
The Councilmen were deferred from passing the
report they hadifmsde, and the subject was droppeu
for awhile TO await the action OF the supreme Nou
the title being then under consideration Some furtner
ATTEMPTS were made to lobby through repurchase,
but without success.
THE PROPERTY DECIDED TO BELONG TO TIE
CITY.
On the o6th ofNarch 1862 the title was decided by
Judge Mitchell, of the Supreme Court, to be null and
void The Judge would not decide on all the points,
considering the one point that the property should
have been sold at public auction sufficient. His opln-
ion was sbort but conclusive. The case is before the
General Term, and decision may be expected very
shortly Judge Mitchelrs decision in the follow
ing words:
The individual defendants should reconvey 10 the
Corporation, by title free from all membranes, and
with covenants against their own acts and be repaid
the amounts paid by them, with interest," ana tne
elect 10 have the property sold At auction, and In
manner coufOrmable TO law in which case the de-
PENDANTS would be bound by their purchase, unless the
property should bring more than sloovV' anu Tue
interest thereon. The costs OF the plaintiff should DC
paid by the individual defendants the Corporation
should bear their own costs.
THE JOB IN TIE PRESENT COMMON CouN'iL'
Yet in the face of the decision and the facts Of al
ILLEGAL sale. the present Common Council, who by
their ncendiary resolutions aided in keeping the city
IN state of mob excitement and under for weeks
this Sumner, claiming that the Legislature hsd
sIop2ed the city by taking away much OF 'ts power,
comes boldly and abuses the power they already have,
by Offering to individuals 1913 600 OF the citys money
for land decided by the Supreme Court to be still the
property of the city. Here is our phalan1 OF city
guardians, with schemipg politician for aleader, ask
ing the honest of the country to have compass
son al re store their rghts-ghts TO conceive, plum
der swindle and make the taxpayers bear the bur
den.
HOW THE ALDERMEN HAVE DONE 1T.
ON the 9th of July last, Alderman Banta presented
the following
E,so,d That Special Committee of five be appointed 10
with the OF the property between Ganseyoort
nd Iweith Streets WEI street quo ,pe az and
rportng Whist and conditions the same can Do PuF'
chased by the Corporation
This was adopted and at subsequent meeting Mr..
President Clancy appointed as the Special Committee
Aldermen Banta, McSpedon, Valentine Steers ana
Drake. This Committee lost time in making re-
port that holds out no prospect for the city but to pay
1898, OOO Thee sages get up their opinion against
that of the Supreme Comt in this way; Your Com
m,tee they are induced to say after careful exam
ra,ion cannot concur in the view OF Judge MITCHELL
The property was valued BY A. j. Blocker, ESQ., az
tG35 OOO yet the liberal "propretors, instead OF cell
rg at auction for about this offered t, me city
for 1920 OOO with interest," &c. making in all $393OOo
The Committee excuse their indecent haste by asse'cg
tina, the city requires the property immediate tor mar
ket PURPOSES and to save time and legal dificulties
This report was ordered printed the 10Th of July,
and after several efforts it called up for action on
the 9Th Of August. Aid. Monaghan had the chair.
The document having been read, AID. Tucker moved
10 postpone the subject until decision could be made
in the General Term of the Supreme Court, which
motion was lost by vote of in the affirmative and Is
nj the negative.
AID. Owens moved to postpone to the first Monday
in September, which also lost blythe same vote.
AID Blunt moved to lay on the table. Lost.
AID Tucker opposed the repurchase The title,
ACCORDING to Judge Mitchell, was invalid. The sale
of the property by the Commissioners had been, in
his opinion, inv aid and it was the duty Of the city
authorities to await the final result. The report he
denounced entirely sided, and dsadvantageous
to the city. The negotiation another attempted
outrage upon the city treasury and he hoped the pro-
iect would be voted down.
ADD Banta said this property wa wanted for the
purpose of market and the city could not wait for it
longer. The Committee looked upon it in business
way, ard came to the conclusion that it was the
city e interest TO purchase i.
AN. Blunt conteDded that the title was invalid aud
that the property wa now, in reality the c.ys Fit
not the proprietor would not be so anxious to sell
it for the cum named. He m.ved therefore that the