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

In addition to the &Gos4 50 sued for Mr. Jones had re-
making grand total OF $1,000 for the printing.
binding, &c, OF "The ObseQuies."
What portion Of this work was done after The passage
OF the Tax Levy OF 1866 and what portion after the
passage Of the Tax Levy law OF 1896
"Prnting for Common Council for the year 1867 SO
ont OF which shall be paid the costs and expenses Of
and ordinances and ne costs and expenses C printing and
binding The proceedings Of NE eleh authorities % regard to
he ObsSnteS Of President Lincoln"
Did aneger occur 70 yot 70 ascertain ghther ne 1900
rdti0n Or you informed that this cllim also Was
OF the just claims against tho city aud ought TO DO
AS another instance OF how you did all you could TO
defend the city against the advertising Judgments the
Association calls your attention 20 the Judgment OF The
Daily Reps against the city for tol recovered Dec ~
The complaint in this action WAS verified
As usual you neglected 10 reritg your aGsuer.
This s,d entirely for vork done subs 9eni 10 ne pa,
Vie Daily Yes had recovered judgment Aug u. 1866,
against the city for S47C 49, but for oork DONE rerions
70 passage @ the Tar Lery lac Of 1866 as appears 6y TIE
Both Of those suits came before Judge McCunn the
the June and the other at the December SPECIAL
Term, 1866.
u, the case at me June Special Term, Judge McCVnn de-.
ctded that since me Or done precious 10 e passage Of
he lar OF 1906 that ta7 Tas unconstitutional so Jor as q
attempted bar ne claim II rioated ne PrOrisiOn Of ne
Constitution Of the United states, prohibiting any STATE
from passing Ian iBpairing the obligations of contracts
But when the for work done subsequent 10 ne pas
sage he aw Of 1866 came beore Judge AeCaih, in De
cenber 1885, for argument appears from the statement
OF the Court file, that 1t submitted by the PLAZA
t counsel and the Counsel TO the Corporation upon tho
points that had been argued IN the other case and
Judge McCnn IN his opinion says that as the Corporation
Counsel admits the question IN me case tSor him TO De me
same in tie nat ras before htD at ne June term
he cannot but give judgment for the plaintiff But was
the question the ssmei
IN he case at the Special term The ieOr done be
fore the p0SsaOe Of me lar Of 1866.
In The case at The December Special term the WoTk Vds
done after the passage Of the LorC 1906
HOw, then, could The eases ha c been sipddrF
Judge McCUnn bases his decision upon your admssio"
ldl ne cdses rere cruelty similar.
You cannot us escape responsibility bg attempting 10
shin IL 10 tie shoulders Of the Court
fact what you professed be- Counsel 10 the Corpora
ton" and would protect It's interests
DO you consider this manner OF defending the city IN
harmony with your pledges to the Association n
Levy Law OF 1867, which reads" But nothing IA this
act contained shall Do construed 10 Impair affect
any claim for advertising required under tho pro,
visions and authority OF existing laws when such claim
has duly certified and audited the Association is
Of opinion that this can be OF no avail TO you since all the
advertising Judgments above referred TO- except for
7s 49, were recovered previous to the passage OF the
But this allegedexcepton was improperly inserted in
the law after the final adjournment OF the Legislature,
IL never passed the Senate 1t was attempted TO be i'm
properly inserted into the County Tax Levy law also,
through the vigilance OF Of the counsel OF the AHsoc
alton, 1t was stricken out before the bill was signed by
the Governor, and the fraud thus far stopped.
But you are mistaken. Advertising is not now eN-
cepted from the limiting provisions oil tho acts OF 1850 and
that such construction must DO given TO II 70 allow
the whole statute TO stand possible
TIC provision OF lne act OF IN section especially
about advertising, Isl advertising for the Common
Council nifty thousand dollars The Controller OF the City
OF EewYOrk hereby directed TO select three daily and
three weekly newspapers published In the City Of New
York papers wherein the proceedings OF the Common
Council Of either branch thereof and the notices OF
ITS committees shall be published and shall communicate
10 the Common Council and 10 the Clerk OF each Board
thereof the names or titles OF the papers which he has
selected as official papers. And proceedings Of the
Common Council, or OF either branch thereof or notices
Of its committees shall De officially published In other
paper or papers And hereafter the said Corporation
shall not be liable for any debt incurred for advertising
cOntrayonOn OF this provision and person or cor
pOratOn other than the prOpreOrs OF such selected
papers shall DO entitled 10 receive any money from or re-
cover any judgment against the Mayor. Aldermen and
COmmOnaty Of the City Of New-YOrk for publishing
advertising the proceedings Of the Common Council or
Of either Board thereof notices OF its committees
The language Of the alleged exception being In another
section In reference another subject is too vague 10
allow II TO nullify the exact and specific prohibition OF
the provision in section upon the particular subject or
advertising
The Association reltorates ITS statement that IN the
actions brought by +. Jones Co. for stationery, &c,
alleged TO have been furnished by the corporation,
amounting 10 $4,000 49, the judgments similarly oh.
tanned violation OF the law of 1885, and that you failed
lay before the courts the fact that the charter Of the
city barred the recovery OF the claims Tor stationery and
advertising asmuch the work was performed without
contract.
The Association reerates rs statement that In the
Spring Of the present year you recommended tho Con
rOer 70 pay the Judgments obtained ia VIOLATION Oi the
law OF 1866.
You deny having done So and yet In your reply you
give copy OF your letter 70 Controller Connolly, occupy
Ing column OF very fine print wherein you argue
with great zeal and Ingenuity that the Controller should