New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1867-11-30
TIE LIZ DEP1RTNENI


County of New-York the sum OF Slo2,9'4 ~.
Mr.. OGorman admitted this charge
Second. That in the same period judgments
were recovered against the city to the amount
of s474,5S9 rs. This charge was admitted.
Third: That of those judgments Sl94,OOi ~
of them were obtained in violation OF law Tor
illegal advertising and printing claims. This
charge Mr.. 0'GOman admitted, Dut attempted
TO lay the blame on the Courts.
Fourth: That Mr.. 0'Gorman neglected 10 APP
neal from these judgments. This charge is ad
mitted but Mr. 0'Gorman says that II would
have been unjust to oppose these claims
rim: That he advised the Controller to pay
these claims, in violation of the express pro-
hibition of the Legislature. In reply to TINS
charge Mr.. O'Gorman submitted the letter ne
sent to the Controller, from which 1t appears
that he directed the Controller so to act
Sirh: That out of the S15294 30 legal ex-
penseg of 90 months, he paid S64,6ll Oh LOT
extra lawyers, in addition to his own salary
of SIS. 1888, and his clerks salaries OF S22OOO'
This charge Mr.. 0'Goman admitted.
Serenh: That in addition to all such pay
ments he finally paid himself $4,000 as an
extra fee in certain cases. This charge is adj
mitted.
Eighh: That he attended at Albany to in
crease the appropriations for his Office TINS
charge is admitted.
Ninth: That he employed and paid as addi-
tional counsel certain lawyers who, at the
same time, were sueing the city and obtaining
judgments This charge is admitted.
Tenth: That he pressed the scheme known as
the "Ann-st Widening" and when the Com
mon Council were about to stop it, went to
Albany to consummate the job.
Elerenh: That he pressed the scheme known
as the "Church-st. Opening" and vast bill OF
costs incurred in it. This charge Is denied
| TreIfh: That he endeavOrcd to defeat GER
| tain legal proceedings taken in the Courts to
protect the City Treasury, and bring local on
GERS to a sense Of duty. This charge is denied.
! Mr.. O'Gorman says he did all he could to
stop the advertising judgments, and that the
| blame of their recovery is not on him, but on
| the Courts But how stand the factsP What
saws the rccord9 In the record of The Tran
script Judgment recovered January 3, 1867, for
| S34, 40 60, there is not a single word showing
| that the work sued for was done subsequent to
| the law of 1865, prohibiting such judgments. A
great deal has been said about these sections
of the law of 1866 being unconstitutional but
| this objection can be taken only in regard to
! those claims that accrued before the act passed,
| and i'm such cases the objection Is reasonable
enough. Mr.. O'GOrman must have seen that
there was difference and a distinction between
! those who had done work for the city limo
Gently before the prohibitory law WAS passed
and those who did the work after the passage
of the law, and in its very teeth.
The Citizens Association lays the entire
record before the people. Why did not Mr.
| O'Gorman bring the fact before the Court that
the work was done subsequent to the passage
of the law7 This fact nowhere appears on the
record as having been before the Court; and
| Mr.. O'Gorman cannot shift the burden to
| Judge Garyin's shoulders when the record
places the entire responsibility upon his own.
Again, Mr.. Benjamin Wood obtained judg-
ment in August, 1866 against the city for some
$4,000, for advertising; but from the bill OF
particulars annexed to the complaint it appears
that the work was done before the passage of
the prohibitory law of 1866. Judge McCunn,
before whom the case was argued at the June
Term, in his opinion ordering judgment for
the plaintiff, bases his conclusion upon the
fact that the work was done before the pas
sage of the law, and that as regards such work
| the law was unconstitutional. In December, 1866,
Mr. Wood again sues the city for some $4,000,
but from the bill of particulars annexed to the
complaint it appears that the work was done
subsequent to the passage OF the prohlbltory
law of 1866. This case came before Judge
! McCunn in December 1866, and it appears
from the Judges opinion that cit is conceded
"by the plaintiffs attorney and the Counsel to
"the Corporation that the questions arising in
"this motion are the same that were raised IN
"that case" Judge McCunn therefore gives
Judgment for the plaintiff because he held the
act unconstitutional as regards claims existing
before the passage of the law.
But were the facts the sameY Certainly not
In the one case the work was done before the
passage of the law, and in the other case after
its passage This made all the difference i'll
the world. This disposition of the case was a
deception practiced upon the Court.
Why did not Mr.. 0'Gornan make +. Jones
e. Co. prove that they 81 had delivered the
"25, 900 copies of the Lincoln Obsequies" for
which our taxpayers have had to pay over
SsO0O02 If Mr.. 0'GOman wanted to stop the
Fernando Wood lease, why did he not com
mence suit before Mr.. Pullman showed HIM
the way If he wanted to merely test the
power of the Supreme Court to stop the pro
posed robbery by the Common Council, by
making an infamous gas contract why did he
suggest to Mr. Pullman's counsel to raise the
injunction so as to permit the bids to 90 in,
when he knew, or should have known, that
under the law of 1861 when the bids are once
in, the lowest bidder has vested right to the
contract
Let us ask Mr.. 0'GOrman about the S9S,OOO
| in the bill of SsOOOO for extending Chnrch-s