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

\ iAsss4kSSS
you. or whoever pretended 70 give the facts had pur
sued your Or his Investigation iurlher with the honest
.n.s e sss = ns b. , Mould have
or fined for disobedsncs 70 the mandate Of the
Or for contempt There va. an order to tina. effect
Bosrd Of Councimsa lad an opportunity Of answer
ing the charge or defending themselves against
their behalf The matter vas then regularly heard and
the Court decided that they nad guilty OF
The public viii thus psrcsivs ,ha YOU axain 10
mslead, whether wilfully isnoranuy leave their
}udsment You would seem 70 wish nst public officers
ouE h into court matters connected with their oi-
cial Obligations In which they not ~ fault should
be personally subjected the burden defending
selves against htgatoss which mad no foundation, -
the several Instances above cited show
8. Tho Case OF Pullman the Mayor, &C. This was
case here plaintiff obtained Injunction in effect
restraining the Common Council from discussing
sidering The question TO whether there should be
power or the SUPREME Court saus 20 Control Tue iss
tive action OF the Common Counci question OF vital
ration 70 tss. H. On the part Of Mr. Pullman several
eminent counsel appeared 1t seemed proper that
petent counsel should also appair on behalf Of the
city. Tho first person retained by In that
arespocted member Of the Law OF The Ctiz MS
Association On consultation with him. he agreed with
me as 70 the Importance OF The question aud the pro-
prety Of testing It. He subsequently, retired from the
case, because understood the Ctxens' Asso-
casion was substantially the other SIDE rgrstted
the loss OF his experience and skill and the OF IT,
and retained IN his place Judge Aen 10 whom paid
vices rendered in me casa don't know how you arc in
the habit Of settling with your counsel when you
pIoy them. Bat mere a~ysr dealing with pro
fesona brother OF honor and repute help treat
ing with him ~ would WISH him 70 treat me- viz -
Pay bin sucn fsss As in his opinion IL far compsnsa
uon for the services rendered ana the labor undergone
4. Instead Of assisting sut commenced IN 1885, By
Mr.. Putnam against Fernando Wood aud the Comp
roer, aud hs subject OF The leases FOR Nos lis and
III Nassau street, you cay that interposed demurrer
70 The complaint and employed counsel check L.
With me e e Ss . mod. o. sssS n
tho question OF the leases. Of which much has b.
written aud read and h. T. now acting as coun %
OF the Mayor. Aldermen and Iommona,ty agaus. Mr..
Wood, by means OF when suit the Guy has been
projected, The suit or Mr. Pullman having turned out
rs thought would turn ou, untenable and abortive
The fact Is, consider the Pullman matter Of
''buncomb" and display ! ds,rasted Ms object and
feared rssults was sausned commit the
erssis OF the city into the hands OF the attorneys u
have anything 70 DO .n theme ana ID
10 keep towards It . position of EARNED neu-
wa. .sSss ha Rs dsa Sso
.oroa. have never been delivered; has
ben paid them. Tho city mas been protected
against oss, and not by Mr Pullmann but by me;
Tor the suit by wien It LAs prolecled
ing II he mad never meadiod IN tue mater think il
would have been all the better But that 10
In this case, in which win peculiar
care energy, watchiulness and success done my
duty 70 Lac cy, even 70 me disregard Of al poioai
Cause OF comp ant. Ane charge ~ utterly faise and
you Kaw ought to know II is ia,ss The cas-, last
referred 10 by you In support OF this charge wucn H.
presume. the case OF "Daiy vs. supervisors" II In tho
questions involved smliar 70 that mentioned in tho
| paragraph preceding marked first In botu OF these
cases my siior. was NOS 70 deprive the public or their
undoubted right but 70 protect toe public officers from
beng unre.sonaby interrupted IN the OF their
Saa-rne sixth charge: -"Furthsring schemes ofthe
local gov wnicn cacusted damage The
city and citizens, zurich only projectors and
their frend&" In support ot this charge you
Ann and evt uf arr "A m
toe rst-Ann stree-l have no recosiection Of having
inlcered 10 any MANNER for or ssaiast the project
into oMce; and though the Commissioners we're
appointed BY the Supreme Cour. on inc 6,h
April 1868. sbe Common Council the 2lst day
Aay following revoked tho resolution directing the
widening, and hAd any communication with
On s uod men saop me
push This measure on aud went 70 Albany and sought
70 Introduce special Law on the suojsc. Y utterly
slion Albany or 81 ewhere A. 70 the extension Of
Vhuryh slgslk d,d my simple aud obvious duty a.
b 70 S before ny .nrs
inlo ONES. Ia lhe performance OF my onicai DUTY
Of The rs,ort OF the Commissioners some dozen able
counsel opposed representing various obec-
i,ons An assoc Lad boon organized 10 mAnalac.
been Iat ny through the CITY every means nad been
tns project, aua yes Il .arned out on se nearing sSsi
majority In amount OF h9 parties Interested the
ses>nst aud Award could not b. rot " JON inc obec
toa, VINO specially reiaiosd ON the part Of
tns Commissioners Tue oojecti,n ~ 70 assessments
and awards iaised ~ the various able wes
by one, ossp sod Of in cour think 1. clear 70
every injustice had been done In tine report
DECIDE ias 20 ss s,ss = Sssd mo- .
msnt cai maize In the ancient lorts0h 6 tie ",
however .adispensble TO meet the growing require
paid for BY an extended Assessment sine pro-
perry Immediately ,Jacent principally bsne.
hated would inadequate 10 sustain the bur.
den. Tnere was, on the hearing no whisper
OF fraud, and the presiding judge expressed his
fraud proof suggestion II fraud, had been
made " ths opposing Counsel Your nvective - 10
tne extension Of Ihurcn street does not In judg-
men, correcty express existing Pablo opinion. which
seems TO be about equally DIVIDED 50 Tar a. can
cersaIn You foraes THINK, that am counsel 10
tue 20 poraiion, not the Citizens Association,
any other assoc aion or fraction OF tue cnizeus II
had refused 10 appsar In TINS matter nc cotcly con-
Quoted my case, should have rossly fa.lel In my
daly As " mo costs IN that matter l never
The bill consulted about Il, know It's
tenss, unl long a'ter IL mad oeen put on Me. These
bills OF costs opening prepared py
me but by tns Commissioners No part Of IN
belong " come inc. In this case my ony connec-
tion vi tue bill Was 70 reduce II BY requestlns tue
COMMISSIONS 70 sIixc out . cnarge OF si,0oO
when eeasd TO have boon meant for ms. AID 10
which was not by lag emitted, and $1,000 Tor
cory OF the report, which l did not deem required
by iaw. These t,ens aud some othe objected {,
my per Of the b,I and any her objec-
tons inerpossd Vita tho view then oppressed
b. the Commissioners SURE struck out the
iem objected 10 the b so reduced MAS prs.enlsd
10 Judge iuershaD, who, after examiua ION Of Witnesses
anu Argument py council Tor the vDjecions and by Mr.
fusstoa behalf VI The Commlssioncrs gave d,rec-
ton 70 tue taxing Of the lists BY tho C0anty Clerk
Your critcssm ON Tue items that bill OF costs mar
may not DO correct have time to arr that ques
ton, merely sating thAs II Is true thai defended
supported pressed tho charges On The Contrary,
ies mater completely In The hands OF Mr. FuIer-
ton aud tie Court resng thas with many able
cossnei 0pp0stion, AID abe Judge the bencn
NO lesal charge could be . lowed
Sevcntt-Yo r. event, charge b:-'0verchargng for
| SERVICES performed ia ,ioslion o. the law" the
specification Is that took $1,000 from the treasury
for my services In tue bank Ax eases. Tserc we're
twelve OF these casss, represented BY soma OF the
ablest council In toe city. These IN many
respects dlssimilsr and repaired separate invssgs-
tion Tie amcrnt directly involved was about Two
millions Of dollars; Indirectly LIABILITY OF
| ton Of bank " the amount OF PROBABLY sev.
eusy millions Ia this county was question Il prob
ably tue most important case, amount aud elect
ever argued IN 40 An .riran Tho ereat OBJ
jec u AID p,edy Diet OF the matter.
thai the taxes for the 1867 be arranged In
accosassce wah the dccisop. Tho werr By