The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1867-11-22

vhv shev vere NOT psld. except that there was 10
nensy IN the treasury vhsrewish 70 pay then
ns ..s no object n n ShsD such isforms.ios
had 10 fact been furnished BY him 70 me defendAncs
financial officer and by that omcer placed IN my nands
Tns information 90 supplied 70 me WA In all casss be-
fore ths cour,s VINO dscided TO allow Judgments To
obtain second tbess claims would b simply
irpossibIe II never attempted and never can be
ai,smp,sd To nerposs the objection that no bills OF
particulars had been supplied me oy the plaintiffs would
have been mere pss.ifosging, unworthy any respect
able In gyer The fact that Of the answers put
m by me were verhed rs wholly immateria, and did
ia no case and degree Affect the interests OF the
any Plaintiff NO advantage ever sought to be taken
OF It. and tn fact advantage could be taken OF IT, II
question raised 10 recent important whether
signature OF the law officer OF the corporation
pleading does not Of ITSELF amount TO sufficient veri
hcAton. think It does. However that may DO. tue
counsel FOR the plaintiff 10 any whore al
fed was made by made NO objection treated
verified and took action that would have
been open II II had been verified. The question raised
BY the answers Was one Of law. and not Of fact aud
could probably have been raised without any answer
Now ss 10 the judgment obtained BY + Jones for
complaints in these letters from the late Compirol-
Ter that the plaintiff claim in fact just that his
bills had been audited ana found to be correct and that
there was no reason for Withholding payment, sxccpt
the fact that there funds in the treasury out
Of which to pay him. When the complaints were sent
70 this ofice In Washington engaged In the argu
mont OF the bank tax cases On my return, no,wish-
standing the instructions received rom the Finance
s Ss% s e
before Judge Jones, OF the Superior Court.
who decided AGAINST the city and delivered long aud
eabo ate opinion, OF which should BIO happy 70 fur
nisn you with copy If could baliese that Is would
afford you any light From that judgment took
IN .Ss
we're provided by the Legislature 10 the Tax Levy.
The funds having been 80 provided the ground OF the
defencs failed, and continued litigation would have
been absurd. The judgments were entered, NOS
with my permlssirn or consent, but IN spite Of
my opposition and by the orders or the You az
'tnere is another law consttatins bar TO these claims
with winch l bound TO be familiar" presume
that YOU refer to section Of The charter Of 1857 am
quito familiar with but d mt think It doc cons-
tue bar 10 these actions in any manner applies TO
them or the so3,o6O 81, judgments obtained BY z.
letter admits els excepted from the operation OF the
prov sion" The remainder Of tboso judgments,
$2,522 % for stationery furnished to the Common
Council for experience has proven that Is i'm
practicable to mako contract and therefore. cp,n the
principle decided by the Court Of Appeals 10 the Harlem
Gislgnt the plaintiffs were entitled TO recover
quantam meriN for the supplies actually furnished
As to tbs advertising ella ms the law, ~ have shown
above has required certain entertainments 10 DO pub
listed " Common Council officers Of the Corpora
The law has authorized the employ OF
IN which to publish ana the papers publishing ey quo
at the rates that they charge to their advertising
patrons In complaining OF tho entry Of these ud0ments
your mplaut should have been directed against the
awasasnst the courts which have interpreted The law
against the CORPORATION Counsel who has dcne
all that proper and possible TO the enforce
ment OF the law But reading your letter may
say, why 50 many Judgments against tbs city," For
this simple rcason:-rhs city Of New York does not re-
from tho Legislature authority to raise enough Of
money any TO pay for It's necessary expenses
within the year This Is one OF the "penuy wise and
pound foosh economies OF Albany legislation. Take
FOR us ancs newspaper expenses which the city
Is by law compelled 70 contract. The yearly appro
Pration allowed By the legislature on the r tax
when the bills are presented 70 the Comp
troler, he 10 without funds Tho city l. SO far
creator Is Obliged TO sue and what you complain is
tina, the counsel to the city, and the courts and the law
the city 10 fact to swinde lis creditors and you regret
that It's law officer, By sos legal machinery or device,
don't compass the fraud BIAS this been your style OF
conductug your mercantile transsciiousf or bias this
theory Of civic morality bsen taught tho Citizens
ASSOCIATION by any one who has h,msclf, in his own
have before stated the Legislature Of 1867 has 70.
moved all questions TO the coustitationay Of ths
Sou refer in' th. case Of b. the sps
act Of excepting that class Of CLAIMS from It's effect
But Is another element Of inconsistency and
fusion which toe public should DO made aware Of In
section o. the same act, six gentlemen consti-
tuted Board or Audit adjust and % tie ali legal and
Ne. York outstanding p.. to January. 1867 and are
empowered 10 nsider where c,a'ms have
been rejected by courts Of law Of the absence Of
an appropria the claim Does not tho action
OF the Legislature confirm the Vows taken By the upe
ror Court and Common Pleas a. to the upcsns ut on.
1861. and show how unavalling would have been any
further effort part tn contest such caimsY Re.
member that unavalng litigation only adds the bur-
~~N $500 ~~~.-~- - -
AZ 70 the Board Of Audit, IL Is proper FOR me here TO
remark that present In Commiiies OF tho Senate
when the clause Of tho act establish II read and
considered did then remark the manifest incou.
sstency or legislation which raised up defence in
clause but TO knock down In another; aud did. a.
far a Il proper and me- protest against
sos S0 o. hs e
counsel who usually appears on behalf Of the Ci.i
sens Association was present. So far a. TO the
charge that permitted Judgments TO DO recorded
against The cify-tne charge Is simply untrue.
The judgments entered bv courts OF competent u-
rsd ciion, bills furnished BY the Fin De-
pamen certified aud audited as correct both Is TO or
tent OF services rendered and the prres charged
Instructed 10 all these that the debts had been
trscad by the city and were justly due Such offences
under these circumstances open to the CIV
up and IN ~ and fairly argued The decided
subsequent action Of the Legislature OF 1857 In effect
confirms and approves OF the action Of these c,urts
This charge against me is therefore, In all respects
uniounded, unjust and, deeply regret 10 believe II
malicious.
Seeond-rhe charge on your list nsgsc. in refrain
Inc from taking appeals 20 hghcr courts from doubtful
judgments against tho city," Ny answer TO tho last
charge In effect applies TO this The objection Of "
appropria made the superior Court aud Common
Pleas did MOI, a you remark tho city from judy
agains. IT, There reasonable probability Of
rever d Of tn decision by appeal TO the General Term
The defence Was not good, and further litigation thcrs
seemed useless and, Il useless Improper because IL
pealed ali these cases decided against me. ss
u woud seem you would have desired, how
could the city have been benehted, for all these claims
could have been transferred to the Board Of Audit.
where the dstence Get up by me would have had no
effect forever, Of those cascs In which Iudg.
had recorded provision soon flor made
BY he Legislature Tor the paymen, Of the Judgments
thus removing The objection which the FuOce De-
psriment ginay had TO the settlement Of tho claims
In fact. did not appeal Ia cases where. in my
judgment, good end would have been attained BY
peang The people OF this city In eIectiug TO the
cnce hold. connded these. questions 10 my
professional judgment Upon that Judgment 1
have acted; and with all due regard for
Mr. Cooper and his ability and ataiumcnts.
think likely TO b. right question Of Law ~
te The subsequent legislation. The constitution OF
the Board OF Audit the liberAliou Of newspaper claims
from the uo appropriation" defcncs, &c, have proved
that right In al these cases, remember that tho
only defence that could possibly have been sustained
wss purely technical or the services rendered or the
value thereof question could have been raised by
ques the kind IL raised By you. The blls had
been duly examined and audited BY the proper depart
menk In every case, Tar - could ascertain. the
claim just and equitable claim. and only OBJ
lection you ure and un,ruy urge against n that
did every technical defence possible the pAs
Of the corporation 10 defeat such claims t@