New-York daily tribune., 1865-09-28
OUR CITY OFFICIALS.
Cnrf..ued from First Page.

,onla not commit the foy OF awarding contract TO
company which might might not perform a. ~ ,h com
no redress TO the Corporation OF New ioIx Vi '
aissioners il the company should make ueiau s o,r
And even II there were any doubt about the capaciy
Of this Compost Company TO contrae. ior g., 1nent
streets (Which the Commissioners 90 hot ior
sim;O that doubt would admonish the commissioners
cot 10 about the streets and leave room io III
asnce ar 70 all the questions points Of law in
yolyed in the awarding and making OF the contract
scted under the advice and opinions gneH ona us n,
lion being entirely satisfied that their knowedge anu
Judgment as 10 such subjects might De fully relied upon
AS to the allegation OF r Badsers nav,hg auo
psy-First That it was not made; and, Sccono' II ~ ~
lad been would have been bound IN duty 10 reject W.
he had put in bid as President of company when
he knew or ought to have known such bid was illegal
and unauthorized. -
The Commissioners had no bid in bis OVID name; nor
had any Individual offered 10 do what ne hau usecss
propt sed for his company. r I'LL
Legal bidders had made their offers. Inc pnpnc
calling for the contract 70 be made. Inc Jaw li
tility Of selecting the person or persons 10 "Loh h
contract should be awarded. so as TO secure ,ne mvs
effective service and "be most advantageous 10 tne
public interests They were left 10 choose between
The bid of Messrs. Caferty Guidet kingsley thnt Oh
Messrs Brown Knapp DeSoe t ana traI o. %, az is 500
and the third at $500 O0O the difference between TIE
Grst two being So, 500 per year.
Two of the Commissioners voted TO give the CONTRACT
20 the lowest bidder This being rejected IT was unani
ously voted to give the contract to Brown, Knapp
Devoe This deponent voted TO give the contract TO
Brown Knapp Devoe, because he believed that lley
combined more experience, capacity and capital
The charges in the ninth specification are iase as re-
spects me- and believe them to be equally false as re
spects the other Commissioners. 49,
Every statement in either of the charges which I'M
putes any corrupt wilul or dishonest motive OF
design purpose, is utterly false and unfounded
Acting under State law in the performance OF
responsible duty invested with discretion to be care
fully exercised for the pubic good and actuated soe
by the act with honor, intelligence and hdei
ity cOncurred in making the contract in question
never had. nor expected, nor nave now any inIer
psf in the contract; do expect to be in any way
benefited because Of ny means OF the awardinr or
making such contract otherwise than all other citizens
In having the streets properly cleaned
/ feel that under the circumstances, the charges
against me should be at once dismissed.
All which is respectfully submitted. ~ ,
Dated New-York September &c, ls65.
CITY and CoHa.y Of Albany ss. Matthew I. Bremen
above named being Guly sworn, saith tnat the state
nents in the foregoing answer relative to matters 9i
fact are true and that to matters Of law therein
stated he is advised that they are true and be believes
them TO be 80 MATTHEW L. brennan.
Sworn this 26th day of September ls6j. before me-
u. +. TYLER Notary Public.
THE GENERAL CHARGES.
To ErceIeney REUBEN Il. FENroN GoreTHor Of The State
/ had the honor to receive, on the 3lst Of
August last communication from your Excelcncy
dated the 3Oth ncosng copies Of certain charges and
specifications preferred against me as Controller OF
the City of New York, and stating that would have
an opportunity Of being heard in my defense before
lse5 at 10 m. am also notified to appear at such
time and place with the proofs" l might desire TO
offer" on an investigation of the charges.
am now, as I always have been. ready for any ana
every scrutiny OF my official transactions When the
Senate Committee OF which the Hon Mr Munger war
chairman. sat in New.York last Spring to investigate
the various Departments of the City government IN
Guiding the Controllers attended Deiofe & an9 Ix
well.known lawyer who was supposed 70 represent
body engaged in the alleged attempt to secure mnnci
al reforms His zeal and persistsnce in that exanina
tion were enhanced by his having no friendly feeling
toward me- and he pursued his inquiries with the arts
Of examination acquired in his PROFESSIONAL practice
ineluding his experience while District ctAttoTney o.
This County and of the Southern District Of the United
States believe this examination covered the sub
stance of nearly all the subjects of the charges an6
specifications which am now called on TO answer
refer TO my testimony on that occasion carefully tGkel
down and written by the able photographer whom
the Committee employed to show how cneerfnlly
gave the fullest information subject inquired
about showing satisfactorily that on no occasion had
been guilty Of any official misconduct.
an not aware that the Committee ever made anv
report affecting the Controilers Department; But
while they in session. requested that thoIoug
examination might be made of the books accounts and
vouchers Of the Department and the Reormers have
mentioned selected for that purpose book keeper of
skill and experience, Who after full, minute aud
searching inspection expressed his opinion 20 the effect
lad been conducted with unexceptiOnabe correctness
Besides this, Of the gentlemen who promoted the
investigation by the Committee made similar exani-
nation. alude these facts because think that in
the face of them it is hardship that should be sub
jected To the labor Of submitting more TO the
necessity Of noticing charges already investigated ana
this will be shown hereafter upon the charges
of accuses who entitled to grave consideration
While it is my intention however to incur this labor
and give full answer to the several charges and speci-
fcatiOns Of which your Exceency proposes TO take cog
nzlnce, must ct the same time respectfully protest
against exercising any jurisdiction whatever over
me in regard 10 them.
was chosen for the Office I hold by the electors of
the CITY of York. The trust which administer
5s theirs. The Office belongs TO them have right.
were disposed. TO permit any exercise of au.
thoriiy the Office its incumbent, except where
that authority has constitutional warrant. No such
warrant exists for the present proceeding before your
Excelency. the following suggestions will. trust,
clearly establish.
First The Goth section Of the charter of 1857 which
oonfers upon the Governor the power 10 remove the
Mayor Controller and Counsel 10 the Corporation, for
cause in the manner provided by law IN the case Of
Sheriffs is unconstitutional and void.
(a) Tae 7h section of the 10th article OF the COnsi
tuition is as follows:
provision shall be made by law for the removal for
misconduct or maversaon in Office OF all officers Tex
cept iudiciaD whose powers and duties local
lsatir and who shall be etscted at ReRer0i ccfiOns
and also for supplying vacancies created by such re.
moval."
1t Is obvious, from the phraseoogy Of the above
toD that there three restrictions upon the power of
the Legislature 10 pass laws for the removal Of officers
Tor misconduct or malversation in office.
]. The Legislature has no such power over judicial
officers
1t has such power over officers whose duties are
local or legislative.
3. Even in the of officers whose duties are not
local IL hos no power 10 pass law relative 10 their
royal from Office for misconduct maversation in
Office unless the officer is who by law elected at
q general election"
Applying the provisions Of the Constitution to the
present case. we say
l. That the Controller of the City of New.York is
an officer whose duties are purely local Charter 1856,
%; Act relative to Supervisors Laws 1851, vol 9 D.