The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1871-09-20

""niism r. rraver-. william n. Travers, he 10
the man." broke IN ne member nom sliSo.
why" said hsJOr Han quietly, rs he Jour
brokerr'
on said snso. '-hss spieaaa man for ,ss
place. and II bal he slsins q Il I would give &c
10 him.,
AZ tnIs janciure nc foioring letter. rom Cen
eral Mcclellan AMI Richard o'Corman were landed
TO the Mayor. Ne scanned them over ana then
handed them TO Mr. cardoro 70 - gs,a to the
eKSERsl N'cIrLLsrs LITTER
Is as fonewss-
NV YORK, sept u. 1871.
Hon: C oAEEr Hali- hasor Of the eHs q New
DEAR sr-I have the hsnor % seknowl~are ne
receipt OF your letter % TIE ittb n- conveying ~
me the sey nsitciing oar u the conpfsoersa,p u
While wOuii Willingly render a service 20 the
ihe present. aesertss,sss us req sfa 70 -, ruse
anu rtlNaie dalics as TINS time cefnpes 10 de-
JOura. ChIhGE AZ Mc,I.FLLAS.
oonroRArioS corssEl's orrSios
In ~ follows
To Hos. A. osKuY H.I. MAYOR
nv b.Ak SUI fegfet thai Ms ABSENCE nom me
city on Monday has prevented af scrlng y 90 as ,oa
desired na.e siocc uen csTeiall1 exaAlasd me
affecting your iure acion Ne msltss " ne sfcs
OF Comptroller of ins CIV % New YER. y SENS 10
by considerations o. expcdlsRcy and aoana prlry
than ny tioe motey OF sifct exsi rights 90 p0~er.
Even ON the aesunruou thai yoo posa the
power 10 remove a person hoisilns ihas osacc. az
that vacancy On lnestlopsbiy sAfsied ana thai
new appcin,men, made ~ y9a 70 psnastaF aIns,a
me- an antsg MS a. claimant VINO wouii lave zoe
night 10 appeal nom the decision OF sinGle Judge
against it and VINO would no doubt rrv-eeo's sal
appeal .,.,., -, -,
gress Of the lteaii0u az tcfy critical csild OF me
IEsnsu o 1y enc ,swsals ana in,anst.on
spectacle Of two persons Claiming 20 Oe en-
uiled the .ofncc OF coinp'roaier each Nd.
Of his rival IRON ms state Of s,ng. sres, coai
sion would incyltably cnsue. and great damage ~
the ciy treasury and TO the public erediiers Who
fed at the delay which would he sure 70 occsS N
the payment Of Just and legitimate claims.
slon OF y new incumbent into the onoe u ,omplrol-
Ter, you seem 70 me TO have exhaus'sa every isysi
sslency.
the opinion OF tue eminent rrist, Charles u'Connov,
before me- cannot advise you 90 take step that
would lead To complicated aud miscliesous iniga-
inc refusal Of General Mcclellan 10 accept me Do
sltlon or Comptroller. Of which an informed. n
an additional reason for such conclusion on my
part
Legal discussion might. as you intimate, bring mp
questions Of law which you think could not nave
been presented 10 Mr. OConor's consideration.
Among them select from your memorands ths~e:--
Whether the Comptroller, having powers ana
duties conferred on him by many general laws
other than the laws OF 1870 aud 1871, commonly
called he>charter, and as q member Of various
committees can transfer these powers and duties 10
subordinate by virtue OF q section IN act which
may be regarded as local act, or whrther that
section may not possibly bc IN 20 far
as 1t permits the Comptroller to rellnqulsh not oDly
ehae powsr a oS a oser power o. whether an
the charter may not 'pso Jdcto, amount 10 resig
nation and create vacancy.
N Vnp Inn ~ltsnI AL IN
me are no doubt open To discussion, aud II ~
think, probable that legal contest In ibis
sderations as to the law Of implied resignation,
vacancy and removal; In addition TO those winch
have thought 1t necessary 10 advert In hrs OPINION
But, returning to The question Of expedlcncy aud
this case and laying aside these legal gne,ions for
the present, as head OF the law department 1 now
advise you not to make another appointment %
withdraw your notice to the various departments
and 10 treat with AIr. Connolly as Comptroller
If you do not think him as entitled 10 MI the
least de Jdcfo you will adopt "a course which II, In
my opinion. necessary to prevent financial diGlcul
ties, complications, ana tho continuance of that
public excitement aha sense OF insecurity which
prolonged legal controversy In this case would
1t should be borne In mind also. that long before
that controversy could be determined new Legis-
more calmly and deliberately to cousidcr any
matters connected with this case which may 10
properly snnmitied ior tneir consideration re-
RICMARD O'GORMAN.
Scarcely had this been read ana copied when an.
other came from the Corporation counsel IN relation
FERRETTIEG OUT THE FRAUDS
by process Of law. The letter was immediately an.
,wered by the Mayor, and from the correspondence
Will be that the Corporation counsel and the
Mayor pray sort OF battlcdore and shuitlccock
business with the question. The espondencc IL
IS follows:-
Law DEPARTMENT.
OFFICE or COUNCIL TO THE CoRPORAriOS,{
CITY or NEW YORK, Sept. ~, 1871.
Hon. A. OAKEY HALL, Mayor, &c. =
Barnard, In Foley vs.. The Mayor and Others, IN
which he gave a quasi judicial sanction 10 the ru-
mOrs which have been rife In this CITY OF gross cx-
iu some VI the bills presented by various
contractors. and paid TO them out OF the
unds OF the city. II has seemed to me proper and
necessary That some effective legal steps should be-
AIKEN by the Corporation to recover these moneysH
sufficient evidence OF fraud can he obtained 10 sus-
ain action. l have been so necessarily occupied for
he last few days in attending to Official business
writing opinions &c.-which has accumulated
during my absence In court, on the Fo.cy
case that have not been able tn devote my mind
specially to the question: but think II question Of
pressing Importance, and beg to call To IL the at
and to ask yon for your instructions The premises
Yours faithfully, RICHARD UGORMAN,
Counsel " the Corporation,
The following is the Mayors response
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT, CITY HALF
NEW YORK, Sept. 10, 1871.
My DEAR STR-You are the mead OF The Law De-
partment. Yours Is the full discretion 70 bring
rood name better prosperity Of tho