The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1867-08-04
THE BOARD OF AUDIT.


THE BOARD OF AUDIT.
--,>-.~-~0~-~~~,~~>-~~
Fae,. and Figures Regarding Its Orsnnixa-
ton aud the Claims TO he Adjusted ny Ii.
The Board OF Audit, al present restrained from the
exercise Of its functions by the timely issuance Of
order Of Injunction by the Supreme Court, through
the Influence Of the Citizens Association engaged
in struggle its very existence that win test all tho
resources and influences Of its earnest partsans
and supporters. The question OF its constitutiona,y
about be tested before the courts and In this con-
nection reliable facts concerning Its organization
will prove Of interest to tho community which is, at
large deeply in the scheme and should know
something Of hs character
The Board created during tho last OF the
legislature and was empowered audit, adjust end de-
termine all unsettled claims against the city OF New
York which had matured pfor TO January ], 1857 The
bill composing read before either house Of
the Legislature, but tackled the Tax Levy tho
title read. and mmediaely referred TO the Confer
ence Committee This about thirty hours before
the adjournment Of the session. and certainly gives
IN suspicious reflections considering the magnitude and
responsibility of It's provisions bill embracing such
Important powers and discretionary authority this
should would think be entitled debate and
grave consideration But like the twelfth section Of the
Tax Levy, which transferred the licensing powers from
the Aldermen and Commonalty to the Metropolitan Pc.
lice Commissioners, but has been declared
stitutona surrepttiousy engineered by the lob
bying cliques through the Legislature and impudenty
foisted upon the public a law. To con-
vey to the public mind idea Of the
corrupt and impolitic measures IT destined, II
not intended subserve is necessary only refer to
the claims which have fled for adjust
ment by the Board OF Audit Tho Hackley contract
contract made 1861 between the city and Andrew J.
Hackey BY the provisions Of which he was to clean
public streets in consideration Of the Of s279 600
nuay. The proceeded with by the contractor;
but in the of 1868 the Board Of Health declared
that the streets and public thoroughfares in
such condition Of cleanliness tho public health and
the Of the contract required Upon this the Com
mon Council took action declared the contract for
eited and directed the then City Inspector to take
charge and control of the street cleaning Tho suretes
for the proper performance OF the contract by Hackley
the Messrs Hope and by the OF section OF
tho they made liable for the payment OF
all expenses which the city might incur in cleaning
the streets in the event Of the perform
ance Of that work not being faithfully
cu'ed by Haekley. The city then proceeded
TO cleanse tho streets, through officers,
annual expenditure Of about $500 000 and therefore, by
strict construction Of the terms OF agreement
debled to the city in about So 900 1t now appears
thst the Messrs Hope declare that the city
titled in resembling the contract and that in consequence
OF its abrogaon they have suffered pecun airy losses.
For the recovery OF the amount SO claimed TO have
been lost they have filed claim for settlement before
find certain politicians, among whom are Charles
Devln Charles D. Blsh and Colonel Bagley presenting
have fled claims before the Board to the effect that they
were interested In various amounts under Hackey,
Inn they have damage
in large amounA Thus the aggregate Of claims against
the city arising from this single Hacklsy contract
reaches the modest sum Of nearly 5000 00
prominent party in connection with the contract
also summoned before tho Grand Jury TO gi1Stes
tmony on the subject OF bribery and corruption of the
Common Council in making that contract; but he de-
cned 70 testify the ground that he might crminate
himself =, H N was committed z prison su,
submitted for adjustment lie that Of Charles Devlin,
amounting 70 over 500 ooo for work in altering
grade Of streets shall DO altered without consent
Of the property holders the line OF the proposed
law and without obtaining such consent directed GER
tain streets to DO regarded. Mr. Devln submitted a
proposal for the contract which ultimately awarded
10 him. With Law staring hum in the face he pro-
ceeded to pcrfom the work. The city then attempted
70 collect an assessment for the regarding of the
streets from the property owners, but defeated
tho courts on the ground above stated The contractor
then commenced action against the city for the
covery OF the amount claimed to DO due, and de-
feated in the courts the ground For several
past no has presented this claim to tho Ieglsa
ture hoping to have allowed but has been annually
tho city before the Board of Audit Nearly all Of the
claimants before this Board ana their claims as well,
are 90 well known TO the courts that they dare
sent them in the shape OF ordinary suits at law.
But the members composing the Board OF Audit have
be perhaps unaware Of the character Of the persons
the eases with which they have been called upon
dents OF the city and the remaining two have
been for years removed from political spheres.
The majority OF the claimants old political trcksters
who well know how TO appeal TO the sympaihies OF
gentlemen not cognzant OF their antecedenis and the
broad exercise OF the equitable powers OF this Board OF
Audit there Is the anplest room for saddhng on tho
community the payment of claims which our courts
would throw out without mercy. Tho proceedings OF
the Board would also endless there being no restrc
ton in the Law the length Of time II should sit
aud the city would be for years NJ the mercy Of
irresponsible tribunal There is no appeal from the
decisions Of the Board; no errors Of law fact which
they commit could ever be remeded, and out OF
all the people Of the state the Corporation Of the
forever dsbarred o. the judgments Of its courts
and OF resort 70 che Court Of Appeals The
before the Board or 60 before the courts a. their option
but the civ must follow wherever they may choose to
drag IT, lfsuch an act we're passed 70 adjudcate upon
the claims OF any private citizens Il would be consid.
cred . monstrous hardship and encroarhnent their
rshts Fortunately. however, the wovisions 81 the
constitution have been 30 palpahly violated in constitu
ting this Board that the community Congratulate itself
upon ultimate relief. Although the city Of New York
cannot appeal from the Board Of Audit 10 the higher
courts yet the Beard of Audit itself appear before
these courts to give, can, reasons for being per-
nitiee 70 proceed with lie duties and such reasons
will have opportunity 70 present In the argument
the motion dissolve the injunction when
this test too would be well that all the techn
calties should be waived and that the Board should
stand fall upon It's merits and the law Of the land
There hardship enjpining the Board from pro.
ceedng because the courts have always been, and
now open for the hearing OF claims against the city
well against private individuals: and ie this latter
circumstance In connection with the seathy and eecret
manner in which the bill passed. that tends TO
nrm the impress that the Board created through
and for the exclusive benent OF lot OF vampires OF the
city treasury and their hand-inhear frcnds-tho thiev
ing. lobbying politicians
The claims already fled before this Board amount 70
shout - 900 00o and this, speak In IT, incipency
There doubtless scores Of other swindng demands
which have been sheved for years by Of their
lack OF success In the civil but which have not
yet been put In presenable form for adjustment; and
the prospect would never be brighter In fact, the
principal reason assigned by exJudgc woodruff for
rendering bis resignation that he dis
covered the number OF elaine which were being pre-.