New-York daily tribune., 1865-09-25

I fr,ou tp
irie heines as their spiritual advisers may sug
cost proceed 10 state all that Know about tlc lIdg
,nents In question. -, - u,.. 49,,
ony 40 not know, but "a OF th'm we're settled ile
compcd with the rules of law which require eplfae
snit fer each claimant No person conheetcu WIN ~.
Tor,oroton could control prevent tDls result III
,,, Tho snitors were men who had worked on the
poads bnt were not paid, tor the reason wnich was
urged the Hecker ease thas O. no Pp0nissioner in
,is stance adhered TO this rule. Ihe defense was
presented on one trial. in the action OF one Doc, t a
and tbe ouestion was presented to the Iehed' iern
n Il y,,s held in substance that the officer VINO
emploved the men had general authority 10 drec M" h
sernre work on the roads the emPoymemt iisn. pc 1
/ Gee,red len, and the city held Liable. Ihs was IN
effect the same ruling which Judge lngraham made ~,
tbe Iecker case OF this advised by me Connsei
10 the Corporation through letter, of WHICH 'ne ioi
! lowing is "A copy;
! Cry OF NEW YoRK-LAw DEPARTMENT ,o,.
| oc. =, rnrSsv, TO rur CoRPoRATros June 9, 1850
/ JIoa MATTHEW T. BRENNAN. ControHer &C: ,,h c.r
& - ,b, case Of Donovan w. The Mayor &C. wond ,'Se
n at the drfens- iuerposei IN that case haf be
onr the Justices of the Supem" Court 10 De -, -
Mat The same deln.e ha. been nteposed IN every our oI
Rec,r in Ie CIV aud has been invariably oyerfu'ed me
correctness Of these decisions utpen he }sb lection of
srucou to be given to the PROVISIONS 9i we o" 90 tbe ,ro
! the CHARTER OF 1891 ~ 70 appropnauohs' an ~, r.,
visions Of the 38th section Of the ane oharet a. y. yer.
i,ae Of the necessity Of expenditure ana It's auoN'"
by The Common Council. ,,.,o-. .hor
I II these provisions to be construed a. usS mn
there can be question OF correctness oil these deo'
on the other hand they are 70 ne tohfi"'" l'''
% 10 be cxent ,nat all contracts and empoymcns nlde
n Il ,errd IN them are void then these decisions are ,r
i9ne9ni,' q, - co1stroetion In tie HecSer case
Judge ingraham expressly decided that me a't lI 81
was no appropriation constituted no defense 20 e 'hi
aborcrs who had rendered service IN ceahns TIE p1O'
streets. , -. - :
be 10 prrrcye any distinction between the Of a
bore who renders service in cleaning street and the case
aborer who renders service IN repairing street %
Jony +. 'nEyrrrs Counsel to tho Corporation
Thus ndvi.ed. set about adjusting these dcHiHds'
The Street Department furnished me the evidence in M
the eco.d tha. tAese men bad performed Tue "oA io
Ttep concluded that tie amounts dlo them should
be paid on there nr allowed 30 tnc CITY deduction
of one third ~ the amount of costs In each case Which
w,s agreed to. IA.s was the most ads anaecou' set
n i. ,rru 10 sttte such suits must be brought in r
court OF record. The Marine Court and Justices
Courts have 10 Jurisdiction over them.
/ By statute. the plaintiffs on recovery 20 no mhltcf
what amount are allowed full costs. A. already stated
we had uO means 20 limit The number ol suits, ana
viii add that there WAS 10 Legal method "i ordering
them 10 be consolidated as each W.. snt ny person
fr his own separate aeryces Aud u tlc suit' instead
oi being settled bad been allowed % remain lh thr
court. toe costs would have continued To accumulate
until they exceeded lie amount n controversy III cue"
TIE JuDGMrsTs Foa $4,000.
u This is another ieirck char-c ale fng that cor
rru.ly allowed Judgments by dt.lnt AGAINST iAe lliy
dirlr the gu ending DccsnbT 81 'e'' ior 80.
co., large plIt0u # which was ilr COSTS lnai anohR
them was olc 10 favor 90 Dennis thh'rd Tor - H.
tie costs being so 90 ana one ln igiur oi - bul-
l,- r .l tbc costs being 81 r. Gl of wuich iIdg
ments we're paid 20 lnonls e. teds TIE attorney ioF
tie .inrhs. MI
Now. fIr 90 ibis am In no way responsible The
s.it were or work and ml'er'ih IN ihe plpAc rotls
auiinf t.e ycsr l-D1 ! bad roih.ng 90 DO Win the
conduct of t.c SUITS My lg- knpwcdg' oi thc itlgi'
tons WIS that transcripts Of he Jldtnenis were pre-
.rt,i o. me- certified fur payment by the Couusc! 20
tIeC rplut0n As 20 the amount Of costs, regret
tlIt lac Legislature tus not made some provision 10
remedy ti canuot coatr o. Costs oTc adjusted or
t1ct accordiugto certain cscf!u,u IHs or s'lnuA
sls fliur neccsslri gin courts o record ana iH
costs recoverable uy e1ffcss ilw' ~ Tue pa!httlh ia
scd a rish even % 0lc DO lar the dIspirlV Oe
tween tic demand lna tf costs u tue cases usaheed
b. accounted ir. Bui ofoourse % was ior he Law De-
plrtment g. attend % tbs matter had aud nave no
doubt tnut t.is was iniliuly done.
Add hero il il piolef % rcmars tiat my department
Is entirely d.stiact inm the Law Department oil tAe
City Government. Ehich u separately created; ana
Of ~Aic iAc Ioa c 20 tue Cor ion Is the 'oie re-
spoltl1c bead. IL us rigat aud duty among Other
thing, 10 take charge of al suits against tlc city Iue
IaA law 81 l-oj f'ntAius provision WAch stui re-
mains n force. fu- thc heal 0i tie Ia" department
" ,ho have tie exclusive fight. and It sha! be his
duty 90 Hpp.I on aud represent the Corporation uud
!t. officers !n NJ n0ti0ls actions and proceedings
The CouU sol. therefore advises as 10 whc.Aog suits
should ol Shout. Lut De- Tended, tnd 10 Waai MANNER
and whcr. furier defense would De- useless anu Wien
d lldci1ls tosettc litigation. 10 s not my duty io
Slow tt tlc advice gyan or course taken by him ln
ct.rr 40 the Isstltccs discussed I'D tLs answer Was
tle bDst that could be iIgusAcd II s enough that
saw nu r,asoA 10y such advice saold not control my
action pdy lt Sls not sound aAd Jnleious IN al
eases where followed o.
l.atIuus rerrca against zoe gong more INTO d tlh
ttan would L. necessary u dla not desire % Iei the
public ade.and thc cutrc history oI every trAnsac
upu oul oi HDltL titI tN4I-c Mlsta' IL VI" O' %"
tlcr tlIf exec 10 u reference 20 the street Cleaning
contract In. iie claim 81 PiucNncY houton, tue ac
e. afons e-t ou ana uic yeTAed only ny Sir. Hcrflca
u RESPECT 90 a tlcso be- swear, as % what Dee SAYS De-
bsIrt F VpFg frW of ile ttct being within his own
knowledge Nr. James Gregory ycfhes tAe clarres
ili-t tat Commissioners us 20 tIe street NloinIhg
contract hy stating tlut they axe tue 10 tle De, o
L.. k.og.,l-r ANA as hc verify bCcyes. he does not
state ans knowledge or WeIAs Ot knowledge. lie was
induced to lend hi, name 20 the person who drew tle
charges Mr. Mou.tol ,weais 10 his statement about
hs -io, clam. but TO nothing inconsistent "ih what
have stated 30 tAs answer
Noother nan come, forward TO say that ! in.
luled lim or violated Uy duy ODtuued one cent Ot
uruef from the Treasury. except th5 compensation
allowed me hy law for my official duties IL has been
said that the charges against me- Ike those against tie
olcI city officials have cmnnatcd from an ASSOCIATION
connected With which some reputable and well. /
Known citizens Vet neither of these has yen'ured Ia
give thc charges the sanction OF bus uamc leaving the
iadursemcut ur yeficdi0n OF all The accusations to
prIous wl0 with toe exception IL Mouon. are dsap.
pointed and scleming politicians, having no claim tO
public regard Ii any oi The upright citizens OF New.
York could md warrant lor assalrl nae, why has Lc
not come forward aAd stated how abused trust
No mau make any such statement with tnc slightest
warrant 900 truth. have cndolyorcd to discharge the
d1fics ~ The mpOTtlut ard ihurogs station which
hold with the utmost advantage 10 tc Cy ana County
Of NeH-iork, never scchiug In any way 10 suhscNc
ms interests while doing and | invite al nj. /
points me most rsii scrutiny oi my ollcih career |
being perfectly assured that the result will bee my entire
1ndicnii0n 10 Che s8tsiiciion OF the community aud
The discontinue of NJ maligneIs.
In addition 90 what is cOrtIincd IN tie answer OF
tie mm sioners about the award ofthe street Clean
ing C,utIac' ] state ns 10 tho ninth specification of
Mr Gregory's charges That the statements therein re
Aung 90 mc are a.sr feel lIte certain that no per.
son worthy of belief told NJ Gregory that Mr.
j. L a q.