New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1859-03-14
OUR CORPORATION COUNSEL.

We have been waiting with some impatieoce 81
not little curiosity for q reply on behalf Of u.
Law Department of the City Government to As
energetic and not complimentary criticisms pa
forward over the signature OF the acting Sired
Commissioner, with reference to judgments agsiaa
the City for claims supposed 70 have originated q
contracts made with the Street Department TAs
charges brought forward against Mr.. Busted wore
specific, and based on official information. Il wss
sverred BY the Street Department that forty leigh.
thousand dollars in one case, twenty six thoasnl
dollars in another, and ten thousand dollau il
another case, were now in process Of beiag eX.
tracted from the City Treasury on judgments Wild
could not have been obtained had the CorPors6sa
Counsel dor Q his duty. 1t wa, also very brsslk
implied, on the same authority, that the Corpors-
ton Counsel had been guilty Of similar neglect
with reference to the FIVE hundred other judgussh
assinst the city obtained during the preceding
year; and facts were given in support Of thes
allegations, whi,h certainly were strong and ~
pcious enough TO call for and receive an offiGd
reply
Be il remembered that the officer assled n
this case is the same who prosecuted puns
gentleman for libel, on account Of an article at
containing fraction of the eliminating nfcroacs
officially put forward by the present head Of ~
Street Department. The party prosecuted hads
official records to fall back upon in support Of Ii
published statements. He could not cite IL
letters of the Corporation Counsel as proofs Of Ii
allegations against that officer; nor could be rsEr
to the files of department when called upon 10
his sworn and solemn duties. Under these circuu
stances, Nir. Busteed yentured boldly to questM
the accuracy of his accuser, and obtained u
triumph Of persusdiug one half jury that w
prejudicisl statements could not be supported d
open Court by any evidence within the power
the defendant to produce. This was regarded y
the Law Department Of this city as q victsT.
though admitting in minds differently constitutsls
very different construction.
In the present case, however, the accusations n
pglect and malfeasance are laid before the CITY
Legislature, under the sanction and with eli tn
responsibility of an official report. The documa!
is entered in full on the proceedings Of the Comaa
COuncil and yet, after weeks delay. w scss
10 nearer to an explanation or reply than We wore
before Some ill-natured critics suggest tAst tAn
silence is tantsmount to eognorit, or sckaoWIs1e-
ment BY the Corporation Counsel Of the charges
made against him; but as We are aware that M.
Busted, just at present, is actively engaged
securing Legislative. prolongation Of his tern. W
must protest against this malicious and unfouadsA
construction of that gentle mans failure to rspt.
He is anxious to make full explanations, confessions
and revelations on the subject Of city litigasosF
but as these will involve very extensive and ssa'
pcated Developments, he very nafsely dea'sA
that his term rhs be extended three years for 10
purpose of enab Jog him to compile brief sumn1I
of the judgment which have already been osts'nsA
against the city under his astate and active I"
per,ision