Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1871-09-16

would not declare the act so unless
very clear on the case; and he had no
such clearness and would not take the
responsibility, and would prefer that
it should be heard more maturely in
the general term. The plaintiff, hav-
ing clear right to sue, brings an ac-
ti0n against the four defendants, Off
GERS of the city government, asking,
among other things:
1. That the Supervisors be enj0ined
from raising taxes in 1871, until GER
tain things shall have been done.
2. That the defendants be ordered
to meet as a Board of Apportionment.
3. That the Board of Supervisors be
restrained from paying claims until
the Board of Auditors meet and set
them apart.
4. That the Mayor, the Aldermen
and the CommOnalty be restrained
from paying any expenses, except the
Board audit and set them apart.
5. That the Comptroller be re-
strained from paying claims in excess
of the amount set apart by the Board
of Apportionment, and from paying
any debts incurred to the New York
Printing Company, New York
| transcript and Leader associations,
and Stationery Company, or any OF
them, and that he be restrained from
raising money, on behalf of the city
and county of New York and Board
of Advisors, and from paying any ex-
penses of the Government and city
and county for 1871.
The complainants also charge
conspiracy on the part of
their defendants by eOmbi-
nation of collusiOn and fraud to obtain
the payment of dishonest claims on
the city and county treasury, and
that they did other acts of wrong
and fraud; that this allegation is |
made on their information and belief. !
The three defendants deny it. The |
defendant Tweed denies that there is |
any truth in the allegations. The
Comptroller denies in the same way. |
Hall denies in language equally |
strong. The amount of belief to be |
attached to these statements, as made |
against the defendant Hall, cannot be |
weighed by the statement of counsel |
for the people, who last addressed the |
court, that he did not believe that the /
defendant was personally interested |
in any of the companies or asSocia-
tiJns named in the charges against
him. Then come the points Of law.
1t is certainly to be borne In
mind that when an allegation
is made on information and belief on
one side, and positively denied
on the other, it is TO be taken in favor
of the person denying, unless other
circumstances throw discredit on the
man making the denial. They also
charge the defendants with having
run the city into debt and having in
CURED vast debts in excess of
appropriations allowed by the Legis-
lature. Their answer is that the two
per cent. law did not repeal laws pre-
viously existing for raising the reve-
nues in the city and county.
l differ with them. 1 think
the ten per cent. law repealed all
laws except those giving the power to
issue bonds for the departments of
decks and parks, and therefore these
expenditures will not De taken into
the two per cent. account of the de-
partment of docks and parks, and they
have the right to issue bonds WheneV.
er necessary to carry on the duties en-
trusted by them. No! No suspicion
or allegation Offraud has been charged
against them, as lar as / can find
from any paper here, or any state |
menJ. There is another allegation |
in the complaint that large sums of
money, amounting to several hundred |
thousand dollars have been disbursed
to persons having no existence and no
legal demand. The right to re.
cover has not been denied, as
we can understand by any of
the defendants in their answer. |
Beach says: We deny any knowledge
of a fraudulent character of Judge |
Barnard. Now, before preliminary
injunction was granted in this case, it
became necessary to inquire whether.
under the words expressed by the
city government, it was the in
tention to stop all the work
on the public docks, streets, etc.,
and the counsel agreed with me ,
that it was not the intention, and
/ said as l now shall rule to-day, that
parks, docks, charities, police, CrotOn
water, gas works, board of education
and salaries are not included in this
The same pay of salaries :
of employees in these departments is ,
to have been raised by the
Treasury, and if paid away wrong
AAl1J cACg do lAAdINCA VI CUulcCg / :
and must see that the
Applause. That brings me to the
last allegation. 1t is charged against
the two defendants, the Mayor and
Comptroller, of having paid dis
honest claims, and knowing them
to be so. The Comptroller is {
the city's financial officer; he is en- l
trusted with auditing and paying t
almost all the bills, and even after the T
rendition of Judgment, he still has J
power to apply to court for final ap- q
peal, and has paramount and su- y
preme power, and 1t is upon him t
more than all other officers together Q
that the people rely for the prevention i
Of freud. 1t is not possible to perpet &
uate or take dollar from the treasury I
if the bills coming into his Office /
are properly audited, and it is c
not wise to say that his subOrdinates
may deceive him. It is possible for 9
them so to do; but il is crime II it be Z
done, in paying these various claims, j
which are OF an outrageous character, !
bearing on the face of them the ap /
Dearance of being little better than !
robbery. It was his business !
TO have examined carefully the 4
and satisfied himself that l
the charges were correct and the ser $
vices performed, and il he failed in 2
that, he failed in his duty to himself
and to his constituents, and was J
guilty Of an act of criminal negligence. 8
In regard to his duties as Mayor, {
be says his duties are merely meehan- G
ical, and that he signed warrants SIS
presented by the Comptroller, ard
although that may have been the /
practice, and presume it has been for I
years, TO sign checks without
and though l have myself, 3
as Commissioner, signed checks
for millions without knowing
they were correct, yet the q
expect, or at least hope, =
that wherever an act is required to be i
done by three or four persons, in eerti-
tying bills, they will not rely upon I
others, but will see to it themselves.
l am not satisfied, under the circum- !
stances, in saying that the payment !
of these bills by the Comptroller, and t
raising of bonds by the Board of APP s
portionment, authorize me to say
they were entitled to confidence /
30 as to permit them to go on
and spend more money, having
failed in consequence of the omission
If not of the commission. It is my
duty, and painful duty, not to allow
another dollar to be paid from the
treasury or another bond to be issued
until at such time as there shall be
some alteration in that Board. ZAP
plause. 1t may be false that, in CON
of the granting of this order 1