New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1859-03-08

IT, 70 ,b. e..e SER ,eportea anedia'ely snes .y
s's w = , 10 h. co1nos Council tsr
"th.y tspt iron he brG~ e5se OF DO -
"Urtl ,n.r va ost IA the 'core pse'n'-
b. sr.etee sy yoa a. y.ur EARLIEST convenience Iaey zee
~, kIowu ofes he dAy before al comma is- loo
i.S.ses.Ty to - hat bal fise endercy
Of be .ui l. th Gao SOC esse % ~ p, q
,itos tails Department. came ufdsf ihe 90. Oi @ ~
Drpo;y snd Actias SGsst Con missioner
To which letter The folio wirg reply was made by the
Cooperation CoaIsel, VIZ:
Law D,r,RrNtSr, CRY OF Hsw Yoss
oos 0f's, o =, % "a. 0 S X 1P;a
NJ LovrLL, rs, Street cO@u,..ossI. ottc..
sR: sm receipt # your ''er Of Ie an IA t-py
hes ita.tts Yea ~A aisnd - iris o1ee 'oa.y a. one
doe,, Si 's'e icom yaa such sieneAi, =, ,ol have %
n+'s ~ ''.ei rm To ;stt p- Of tr Il ye.:sfssy
y 18th say, you sec verbal ~ NJ saaaisrd q
lion .h.c 81 yoaf u a- s,
Common Council esuDot Pc hr' b.t.r reply than b. sending
youiuo.se coPyot. ,r rom sss' s'n'''G'a to @e ~
RICHARD BUSTED, Council 'or CorporA;i'n.
Mr. Sanford, in the note referred to above, deaies
the receipt Of a verbal message from ms or any oae
ese in the Sate Department IN relation 20 pefsonai
uterylew With Mr.. Busted.
The following reply was thereupon addressed TO the
CORPORATION Counsel, VIZ;
srR.Er ConwtssiosEE's orFIcr.
Nlw.ioEN, FEB. -, lS'e.b
RICHARD RusrrrD, ESQ. Co POrsaoa Counsel
siR: Your letter Of i, d' requesting 70 s'tua = y,
ices u the P,it,re~ nsr Is Dis loncus rece'.r' sn'
vii n'eatss cause q. ia A'A,enens .. V.,', :. 81
iact, ,sa be- ps,ed IL proper ga form VII '~rN q
t1sn t.ke q oshet reoesay AID proper ',eP' N 'he
I ,ttsr As in ooIGuce - toe P.llc ,n-sTss~ &c.
Viii ssis ne ,ublec- of NJ regir'ns PeEsonsi ins
view Sou have TO ihs, b,e some oe3ss'ioa -h
ssItsusn your ofe vi, Wa pelsoIsiy Unknown %
ne bot ~hose sut~sueuuS i~foEn-d ~ss Sacd'
IL. .Load ,uze tie gcu't.u at sslt "tosyert may
ts' been rtqat''o MIN icy % you there WEI. - e
points Shich caused me 10 prefer serue fo pr
sly sld la,is over zoe .u5J' Ct wa ~, 20 n ~
ttcerp on tins po1t there he No Gi.,sse.
M usen,ut Of fats I'll b. usu,;ea to You this ssf-
irt~I,s. 70 ieass your otr ,aeh 'tAsneti'
may haze to Make th, matter call from the Law
D,pao upon hi. Department lot the Necessary ln'FiAoa
on NpL,h to ba,. 30 action Res. e.t'uHy,
NJ LOWELL Deputy ard Acting Street comm'siorer
On the ssms day fuI ard detailed statement Of
the facts 10 tie cne 80 Tar IS knoSp, was furnished ID
In mItter T,fTelce to the communication of the
CORPORATION Counsel to your HONORABLE bodies, It u
bat proper 10 add Ia Justice 20 this Department tnat
lu cates DO call Whatever WAS mace on tis o.
fce Ter iL!oru atiOn end in many others tho call was
rot made until considerable portion OF the me al
io.ed I, ? the answer had elapsed.
In the hieh important matter Of the Hsssu sud
Cltik oil bua Ga their Eghtl-siNtb street clalm'
uyol,pg an amount % $500 and where iraud has
been alef fed TO have been committed no cGn for IN
formation wac made this office oy tue Law Depart
mens Ga tie 2lst of December last the day before u
became Necessary t. pr coed 6th the Defense ioter
Mayor sskLg foI information, by whom IL vas re Yer
red T. tos Dspartu ent which Only reached through
tbs cieutous route on the day named tor proceeding
with Re dee1se A. this was mp icaiei case, M
yo,viuy tao contracts aud tao iojlIctons this De-
ohrnent c.ud scarcely De erpec ed 10 do tll Jdsce
10 II n ,ueh shOit uo,ce No Ieason is keOwn Why
this Gaze ID common with others should not have been
seIt direct - tire Office.
Notythstapding this a statement Of facts was fur.
rsped on the same day, setting forth the important
points, tAattne contract wac Lot made win tue ose
nc der; that Harsh himself was lover bidder tnan
O'Ntara the c, Dtraetor but declined TO make the
contract nfler it sad been svsrde1 To him. thai vas
actual made With another psrty, aud tnat after tEo
assignments the cOotract tnus made ie into the hands
q Hareu AZ an advance OF 81 900 upon MS own b,d.
Jatgegfett was, nevertheless, rendered AGAINST the
CT OF the report of the r. eree Mr.. Fuleotou, for
sisOt1 in ADDITION 10 5000 which had already been
paid by the Controller.
Again, on Nov. ~, 1853 call was made by the
Law Depsrtua mt for the facts In the mater 0 JO1n
Gale an Va. The Mayor &c., for regulating Fourth
! AyebVe, between Seventy hrst aud Seventy -niEth
streets aud on the same Gay an order from the Court
mace submitting the care 10 referee, Aerwln Il.
Brewer, esd 10 which, reference the consent OF the
Corporation Counsel lad been given nine days before
The 10 the complaint, which Is fled with the
iudemt Ltol, is not sworn 10 although the cOmphiSt
| was duly verified under oath. I1is Ut itset would
have .nIed tho counsel tor the plsio,f, Alr Chares
A. May 20 dpregard the answer, aud ~ nave entered
up judgment at the expiration Ut has tsenty days, al
II aLtwer lad been mace. liis Isasoos for not so
] 2,
In the letter 10 tpe Law ID, yAggeut furnishing the
facts IN the above case which transmitted GA 10
I'd OF December The msip poirt Ter The dotsnse ~ the
/ suit which vas made known by this Department was
| tina, John koSirene, vita wbOn the oJntrac, ~ss
sde and by ~nom it vas assigned TO Ca,I4nan, was
not the l0xest BIDDER, the award OF contract haViug
been sic snn ouly cor hrmed 20 mlc1ael Tracy, a
| lOEer biddes. The declElOn Ot tie SrPfeme Court
(Justcs DhVisl 1T Spoci,l Term, November 3 1905,
10 matter OF the assessn-ut for digging Fifty fourth
street between THIRD AID F5Grta syenGe-, de)lrs5
that there Is authority gwen 10 the cVnirac log
! "depsrtme1t TO make The contract with any othof
party than the lowest bidder, snd made with
one else y is utIa yiIes aud VOID Jldgment not
whstaDdrg rendered 81 sihst the cty, apon tho
report Of the reieIee FOR more than siOUUV Neither
PEI ns DO, Ks papers were called for from this
Office either 81 III. two eases lest ce1, 10 establish
oil portaIt ioct that neither nsCaDc5 the
contract made sitn tue losett bdCer-n pom. winch,
bad il been confirmed before to respective r. sree,,
would probably nave pro,ucsd different resait tax
iIg to ration IBe decision previously Gade by
| til Supreme Court, as above quoted.
II Will tbas appear % yom honorable bodies ID II ia
these three portant cases, amounting in tire egXrs-
Sats ~ nearly $50 UlO, no call by the Law
Departn eut On this office for iuforaation except IN
one instance ard although highly important f.cts
were iurDsbed IL two Of tne cases, which It was sop
y0ssd would be aupy sufficient 10 Geieat the claim Of
the pl,nt lie YET there = infer that h
tacts not 70 the CtT Oct xsnt, made available IN
the conduct OF the defense.
% the 27th Of J,Dusry THE Department called
upon y the CDfDOr Counsel ~ furnish Informs
,iOn IN thirteen sGits sAh the report was drrired 90
the u ~ FeDfOa'y. Ga tue day lat nemsd, twenty
seven t-I) trlnsBItted, vita request for
the particulars before the G,h. TIE records Of this
flee vii chow that L0eee calls fJr iriurnatIOn have
received prc0p. and full replies ar ~ circum-
.tsucss sould permit. These points are recilsd IN
order 10 fhow Lsst abe great labor Of preparing de-
ferse to the SUES or dsn. against tie city
does rot de'OVe altogether upon tue Law Depart
nseBt-
As tie commUz cation o. tie Corporation Cou aael