The New York herald., 1871-12-28
ALBANY, N. y, Dec. 81. 1871.

ALBANY, N. Y, Dec. 81, 1871.
The argument was continued before Judge
Learned this morning on the motion to vacate The
order or arrest OF Thomas G. Fields.
Mr.. PEcKHAM, In opposition to the motion, was
proceeding to characterize as remarkable the
object OF this motion, which the counsel making II
SAID was that their client could take his seat In the
Legislature with clear record when Mr.. Beach
rose TO correct the counsel.
What he iBeach) mad said in his argument was
that he claimed as point OF law this order should
be vacated, and, as to his client, he did want to
spread before his colleagues and constituents the
afiidavits and papers here presented, showing his
innocence Of any illegal action.
Mr.. PECKHAM then proceeded to criticsc the ac-
uon or Fields, showing that by a law OF 1868 the
Comptroller had all authority auJudicate any legal
claims but Fields, knowing there was no legal
claim, went to the Legislature and got y Dill through
legallzlng these claims Mr.. Peckham then pro.
ceeded TO make his argument against the motion
before the Court. He reclted the iacts relative to
the Old Volunteer Fire Department, It's change 20 the
Metropolitan or PAID Department In 1880, when 1t
was provided that the existing eight volunteer
companies In the upper part OF the city should re-
pears Mr.. Fields discovered that there
was great injustice done these nremen
took 1t upon himself to secure pay for them on their
assigning to him thrty-three per cent OF their
allowance. These nremen, It should be remembered.
perfectly satisfied until the appearance OF Mr.
Fields on the scene, and then they looked upon ms
proposition as swindle and fraud. 1t Is also
shown that at the time he undertook this business
he was City Attorney. and was In duty bound to de-
fend the city against any such attempt TO defraud
treasury instead OF urging II on.
Messrs BEACH and REYNOLDS claimed that the
retaining OF Fields In the case occurred In 1867.
Mr. PECKHAM Insisted that his retention was not
finally accomplish. ID until November, 1868. There
mig mt have been talk about the matter In 1857, but
nothing was definitely done until 1858. Counsel
then passed on In review OF the action OF Fields
wnile member OF the Legislature In behalf OF the
bill providing for these Illegal claims, when action,
hav n.lnnf fhn .f lln
visel Statutes against Dri0ery. Mr.. Fields, In his
affidavit, says that the Finance Department OF New
is sworn tnat that department knew notnng Of I
unul 1t was law. IL was passed on the last day OF
the session, and Fields was careful TO have inserted
In 1t the assignment OF seventeen per cent In add
ton to the thirty-three per cent already agreed
up0n
Counsel then proceeded to discuss the law OF
1869, which limited a settlement of these claims TO
$50 000 and, therefore. there could be no AUDIT ne
yOnd that amount BY the aidavlts IL appears
there were claims presented In 1870 never heard of
beiOie. II there was no audit or any claim beyond
the $50 900 (and there Is evidence OF any where
Is the Legislative SANCTION so eloquenlly alluded
by counsel on the other side for paying anything
ceeded to show that the law OF 1870 was unc0nstu
t0nal and void. lie read from the con-
sllluu0n the section requiring that laws con-
the for and 1t shat not be sufficient TO simply
refer to another law And yet tins was the case
with the law OF 1870. This law OF 1870 was snug
gled through the Legislature osrensibly 10 pay u
balance due OF less tnan $500 to make up the $4,000
authorized Dy the law Oh lS09, Wnen In realty, as
md, IL was used to ecurc nearly half million
OF doliars. Tie counsel closed with an argument
sustaining the right OF the people OF the state TO
bring such actions as have been brought IN these
cases.
Mr.. BEACH rose to say that before his associate
tMr Reynolds would present his argument he
wanted to call the attention OF the Court To the per-
Hisency Of the counsel In saying he Mr. Beach) mad
said all the defendant wanted here was a sort Of
whitewashlng decision IN his behalf. NOW, he
had SAID nothing Of the kind. The defendant had
come here for adjudication upon point OF law and
fnafn IL IA n q n rtunI nf QCt
The Court IL bound to Insist upon this right being
| shown, and Ii 1t Is not shown then ne submitted
that sucn right has not been shown as TO the uncon
stltutonality OF the act that there was ques-
Neither Nett % the Comptroller % Of New York nor Fields
could be expected TO test this question.
ceedei to address the Court Referring to the claim
that the people OF the Stale had extraordinary
w.s % osea England sr'' hs &c 'aa a
a not propose nrss,,o to ~ inquire VIVA, was me
aeny that State h0Enn aaoa ne tns s
country had any such rights. Counsel then stated
that the iremen OF the city OF New ork and Brook.
yn were organized into nett Opolltan Fire Depart
ment under law passed by the Legislature. The
Fire COMMISSIONER. It appears, In reorganizng the
department. set of the fire companies in tine north
part Of the city AZ volunteer unpaid nremen, while
those IN The lower part were paid In due course of
time it was found these men IN the upper part of the
city were entitled to pay. and Mr.. Fields en-.
gagged 10 secure pay for them. This was
came mat Fields should have giVen up this en
gagement when he became City Attorney. Where
Is the law which requires this personal sacrincef
There Is no sucn law. Then TO Fields connection
with this matter as member or the Legislature.
law Is passed limiting the settlement OF the claims
TO $5000o but 1t IS feared tnat there Is more than
$4,000. that there Is nearly $5oO,OOo due, and
the Legislature Is appealed To for an act quidating
the claims In full NOW, that Is all regular SO
was the action OF Fields a. member Ol the LegIs-
lature. Ii Is not shown that he did anything more
than any other member OF the Legislature concern
ing this bill indeed, he did nothing but vote Tor IL.
Counsel concluded with arevew OF portion OF
the aflidavits and the Judge took the papers.