New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1867-11-22
THE CITY LAW BUREAU.
LETTER FROM THE CORPORATION COUNSEL TO
TIE CITIZENS ASSOCIATION.
LAW DEPARTMENT, }
OFFICE OY COUNSEL TO TIE CoDroHATIoN,
n ~


PETER CooFTn, esq, ChGirron, dc.
SIP: am DESTROYS TO Zeal with yOur letter
q. Nov 12 received by Nov. H. and published by
Won in tie morning papers Nov. 10 and the charges
against me made therein, with much clearness and
distctness as possible, and stopping little possible
IN resent such hints nuendOes and suggestions are
scattered over the document should Ike to he able TO
beeye that you good faith and good earnest wanted
10 know why certain things had been dore left uudonc
by mo which you had been induced TO believe were
wrong TO do or TO leave undone and that you really de-
sred to do no injustice TO anyone Al his would have
bcen inclined to believe, because had respected your
~ oracer md entertained doubt OF the sincerity OF
your motives Iregret To say that The persistent and *
traordiuary miscellaneous Ci ldtt ana ulsrele5tnth
lions OF law In yOur letter have shaken my confidence
me pOints IN my official conduct which you seem 10
think require explanation, as IND them enumerated III
your letter nre as follows:
rom dontfi istat rendered asnst he CIV eeosG Perurr
ys5' ag s OIL Fs ~ P1orrs q, f So rsisii1t
them ara psg enormous rim: resistance proceedings
n ATl g ,esos Of the local Gdssnet which we're e to
damage tie cv citizens end enrich only tie Iroecors aud tier
en Ssso: O7erharg0g for The services eomcd n violation
Of the law Fgt: Advising against o. elnee to ,w I.esG oMs
enlarge appropriations r oe sbI se aid bas ereAss as
proceed TO answer these charges serviam. for the
sake Of the greater cirarnes, somewhat reversing the
l. "Fernittiug u vast number OF judgments to Nc re-
corded" The first allegation which fnd 10 support h5
charge is that the sum S9i0CO recovered during
my term OF Office by judgments against the city for ads
Using the PROCEEDINGS aud notices Of the Common Council
f. certain local papers.
Thls vast sum was recovered" you say in open VIC
/ answcT-Fvcry one Of these suits was dcfendrd by
In every answer was put In, setting up the
statutes To which yOu refer IN your letter In every ono
o. them counsel for the plainh moved for judgement ~
hs favor I'm Ie OF the answer, arguing taat the said
laws Unconstitutional In every one ~ them he
was opposed such argument either by myself or ny
assistants and the Court decided that the sadnt WERE IN
this respect unconstitutional Judgments were recorded,
and there 10 possibility of preventing them from
being 80 recorded. II the law violated II not
violated hy but ly The superior Court and H." Com.
mon Pleas who decided against Tie law ana declared IL
unconstitutional. dd enforce the PROV aons Of these
laws as tar as could u they Were openly violated
AID dcfcd," You say they were, they were 30 violated
and deicd by the Justices OF these Courts, ana loh
that could have been Sald or written or d0e ny te or
IOratlon Counsel could nave aNeiod tms event bu no
question here arises naturally whether uur view ~ INC
law or that Of these learned ana eAltrer.cd Jhdt IL
the correct ONE Lot us see what we're the I2cs H. cse
cases, and the views Of law applied 20 them These
newspapers, Of which you give list were employed ~
the Common Council to PRINT reports Of olh L"c, !.
proceedings, Sc, These proceedings wero required ~
The Charter requires the publication Of the following
matters: ,.-,., -, ,, -,
specific Boz pr'',ine involving ne tlf or ss.'g 'ie ~
o. the appops on Of Iee mor ana ie woe .ieaH " ~ s
he YET, nesrre Of TIE N,ycrin tie daily F'P
OF the city, Neo'iou lt, Chater) ...
Al ortrucrs ai i' u ordinances ees tha go
&c Corporation he by noes lyon al orulcss ehb
sIPIoptIn ~ I,o , H. s,Ss,sr S.,t 81 III te Ct'r'er5
10 Dc laeh'i % -i' ., 'a' az , $780, ~, , ~ t
pusiel Tor tel u te -y uev,aier. saPoJo By The
Notice Of sss q ae pIep,ra a,d isa. ,'e' % doef,
lie newspapers employed ~ The Coor,oe md r % daJ each Of
he daily ,tIus 20 euroJs4 tSee'aa q ch.I,sl
refer viii be found III sections and 10 which are as
SIC And ud,he- ,lll corporation ror ,ry hoard
depsfteu; sRnt thereof shan aly b Hase sry
contract o. 81 l',~i. ID ''' 90 M ~, ar,
poses specified ne sfTats ~ uii,h iles sui u he hl
purpose suy oler rulo'e object 'hsn ta herein r
,hal entered ty default oisrs toer he ga
Co"ron except upon oo oea t"ar' nat ne nerti .si
TeasrrT T. credit Appropriation sg,s object yuF.
pofe Upon uh,h ,ge Tor founded sn 10 Il shi -.
pear b. the deiepnts proof lave D, ilcul y
o. vorE done ~ said egoatoa ofsy a'lrrett br r'sr
sHouut Of which iiiue iofer win ths 'a sued sti
plaintiffs fA,orm suea scion"
The Interpretations ~ these sec'ion adoptcd by the
courts icfeired to- differs materially from the statement
Of their gal eject contained m your letter The publ-
directed ID the sections OF e charter 81 1861 above
referred 10. and were g. most absolutely necessary
Indeed full publication 81 such wac ucccssa
for the projection OF tie owners o. property interested
Many OF these claims had accrued before tho passage of
the act 81 iso the judge lore whom
the question raised unconstitutional 10 deny i1dc-
mont 10 q sutton who had IN fact done work Tor the Cor
pogation before 1907 unless he first proved there was
money in the corporate treasury 10 pay bis claim. IN
cudance with statute passed long after the claim bad
accrued Suppose for the sako OF eAampe. that
you had cold 20 customer I'm 1865; aud IN
1856 law wac passed hat ycu could not OBJ
tain Judgment against him for tic unpaid deb unless
you st gave proof In open court Tint hc bod money 81
hs pocket meet your demand II might 90 you hat
such law was unconstitutional II "a seem 80 10 the
judges; and cannot lightly come To Inc conclusion tat
they al were wrong Notwithstanding your opinion to the
contrary.
your attention 10 downright Misrepresentation 90 your
letter OF law passed Apr % lsC7 and 10 convict you 81
proceed TO quote The exact language YOU employ You
that ny the ac me SUN Oh t1psO was appropriated Tor
advertising ana thht II was declared that 10 greater sum
should be expended for such purpose and that the city
should be liable any contract for any greater sum-
ana that no Judgment should be entered against The city
for any sum Tor said purpose after said $4,000 had been
IN 1860 and 1851 have been duly expended by tie Con-
trOcr in paying for advertising during the wOycarsand
the amount $4,000 20 recovered by Judgment above
slated, was IN excess {" slch appropriation, ana there
fore Illegal" " IL Ia singular" you eXulungly state that
yOu lawyer OF the city, bound by your oath OF Office
enforce this provision ~ the laws OF 1866 and 1901 which
have been passed 10 protect The city permitted them 20
be- openly violated aud dcfcd Gud allowed such iudg-
ment6 10 be uDawfully entered" Strange aud almost
incredible a II may appear the very provision Of the law,
cOnyicDg mo ~ violation OF Official duty contains the
clause that nothing ia ms act contained shan he construed
such ci0iD has been, dioy oeTflGed and audited"
such disingcuOus perytfHiOn Of the act 81 the leGsa
tuTe, even under the cover Of your reputation,
dangerous II audacions since tie simple exposure
OF the fraud which you have attempted, while II dis
gIaces you ehtlIely eAOneales me ~ must 10 hpla-
rent 10 every competent lawyer that this clause In the
act OF 1867 completely relieves newspaper claims, when
properly authenticated, from the effect Of any restrc
lions arising out OF tho want OF sufficient and adequate
cided by Judge Clcrke OF the Supreme Court in Il
recently submitted by me to MIN for his opinion.
So much az 10 the charge that suffered judgments 10
be recovered against the city In the superior Court and
the Common Pleas A. to these my answer IL. did all
could and all any lawyer could 10 prevent their being
recorded. The Courts against me. Is often the
fate Of counsel and was forced to submit You further
charge to judgments that the claimants gave 10 de-
tailed statements Of items. prices dates Of the work
for which they demanded Judgment and That should
have moved the Court 10 make the complaints more de
finite and cerain," &c Now the object OF such motion
on the part OF defendant u TO enable him to ascertain
the precise nature Of the plaintiffs claim, Of which it ia
assumed lac IL, Ia some extent In doubt else tho claim
should not be opposed. In all the IN question re-
ceiyed from the Controllers office the bills rendered 70
that Department Ivy the claimants when demand
cults were founded and these bills invariably