The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1871-08-18
|kpE NEW COURT HOUSE CONTROVERSY.
bmplstion Of the Argument as to That Bill for
Iron Work Before Judge suther-
land-Dscizion To Be Given
on Monday Next.

on Monday Next.
Pursuant to adjournment the argument upon the
ppltcauon for mandamuses to be issued respec-
vely against the City Comptroller and New Court
louise commissioners asking for payment Of un-
aid balance Of bill OF the Messrs. Cornell for iron
Fork furnished the new Court House was resumed
csterday before Judge Sutherland, of the Supreme
J0urt. First IN order was
ARGUMENT RESUMED BY MR.. O'GORMAN.
The Comptroller was not here to place any unfair
objections he insisted, to payment of Just debts
against the city. AS to the appropriations or 1871
or building the new Court House, all are ex-
hausted. The question as TO whether they have been
legally or Illegally exhaused has no relevancy to the
present proceeding. This was an application for
mandamus compelling the Comptroller to pay the
bill Of the Messrs. Cornell from appropriations for
the Court House. AS these appropriations are
exhausted 1t was simple absurdity asking
him to pay this Dill. Charges had been made re-
Meeting on the official integrity OF the Comptroller
Such charges were made on information and belief.
They were mere lnstnuations. They should be made
explicitly and should have no weight with the
Court. He proceeded to take up the points Of argu
ment adduCed by the counsel for Cornell. In the
idrst place he submitted that the Comptroller had
made no payments except In compliance with the
statutes or legally advised. The Comptroller dis
|tlncty AYERS in his afidavit that he has no money
from which to pay this DILL He AYERS further that
the $780, 900 authorized to be raised for the
pleton Of the Court House has not yet been
raised by Issuing bonds as directed. In his own
view this money still TO be raised was in
tended to be applied for future expenses. The
Of 1870 shows distinctly that this fund was to be
raised for the purpose OF completing the Court House
and not TO pay any past Indebtedness. He urged
that the Legislature designed the same disposition
OF the $500, 900 appropriation Other provision had
been made to cover all past claims and 1t was the
duty OF tho Messrs Cornell to avail themselves OF
this provision. If this bill had been presented to
the Commissioners in 1870 for audit undoubtedly
would have been paid. 1t seemed to HIM that 1t still
lay with the Commissioners to pay this bill. He
should like to see the bill paid. The Comptroller
made no charge against its Justice The question
was whether 1t could be legally paid IN the way
sought. The strong and vital point was that the
money could not be paid out OF this $780, 900 apprO
pratton. When he had concluded Mi. Mcneil pro-
ARGUMENT FOR THE COMMISSIONERS.
The relator did not seek Judgment against the
New Court House commissioners, mandamus
their hands was asked. This payment was sought
Sot OF inc aH e ~ e @ on
ton by stating that this 100000 had already been
ali exhausted. the Messrs. Cornell, under their
contract made In 1862 had received some 81 AGO. 900.
AT first they obtained their payments through the
Board OF supervisors, and wnen TINS Board was
IN the Court House Commissioners. Alter showing
that no claim Ior payment of the bill in question
urged that by the act creating these Commits
el0ners, the latter could III way be held RESPONSE
edness The duty OF the Commissioners was plainly
and obviously to supervise the completion of the
oc me aSs weos w co
plete the Court House. All previous labili-
ties it was distinctly set forth IN sect, section n
bonds. The Messrs. Comes work was done long
before the commissioners came into oiice. He
Insisted that they could not be called upon to pay
any bill until the same had been audited to them:
They were made the custOdans of a special fund.
Visors. Alter enlarging on this point he took up
some items OF the b as one OF some $500 for repair
ing locks, &C. the surrogates once, and another
of $3.50 for drilling holes. DC, the Sherfs once
and still another OF $13 for putty Tor tue dome,
these charges we're not in with the spec
ncations OF the contract All ihese items, amounting
scented 70 the Commissioners TO be audited before
being paid. In conclusion he urged that it was
ieft Discretionary with the Commissioners use or
not use the 500 ordered to be raised complete
the Court House. Mr. Lawrence followed with the
ARGUMENT FOR MR.. CORNELL.
This discussion had gone over VIDE neiu. he
should be brief. The facts were simple. He re-
viewed the TWO afidavits OF the Comptroller. insist
ing thut the first one acknowledged that he had
funds in hts possession on account OF the Court
fact Ii had been found that this first ADMISSION
was too broad, and hence this second affidavit that
pietiDg the Court House. The Legislature directed
him tins STOCK and he had not done so, and
therefore would not pay the bill. The act was man
datory in its character. Having exhausted this
branch OF his argument he urged that the Comp
oeI Sro Se nroceeds Inc bin IN Question:
He referred to the case Of McSpedon Baker
vs. the commissioner OF Records, wherein the super
visor was compelled to raise the money ard then
pay the bill In lltigation-a ruling OF the present court
where the evidence that the funds In the hands
of the Comptroller applicable to the Court House
are exhausted He submitted that the Comptr0llers
saffidavits were no answer 10 the present apphca.
ton. He thanked the Corporation Counsel for MS
surrestIon OF remedy, but GAINED that the reme-
DIV suggested could not be mace servceable in their
case. he answered the assault on the Dill or the
Messra Cornell. 1t was refreshing TO know that
such q dt of economy had come over the Court
House Commissioners. His reply to this was that
no contract could be so minute In Its specifications
that some extra WORK would not be included IN the
Snissioners had no right audit this BILL the same
having been audited and approved by the Board OF
Supervisors their predecessors IN control OF matters
point at length ne insisted that mandamus should
issue against the Comptroller - -,
.eVhat KIND OF u mandamusN interrupted Mr..
I"The one that VIII bring the money" answered
Mr.. Lawrence. .
"MOre than Oney
"a voey OF Them"
ape careful you don't you get too many"
''Grapcsnot is often better tnan cannon ball. and
more tatai." .
Mr. Lawrence resuming, reviewed the affidavit OF
Mir. Conan, which, no submitted, was only rehec'
tiOn on the past integrity OF the BOARD Oh super
yisOrs the Mayor and Financial Bureau OF the city.
In conclusion he urged that tnev were entitled TO
nav direct from the Comptroller. or II there was any
fechnical objection TO this thai the Court House
commissioners be directed TO make q requlsitlon
upon the Comptroller for the amount, and that the
latter be instructed 10 raise the required sum. Sue
Ceedng HIM was long
REJOINDBR BY MR.. o'GCRMAN.
He assumed the argument tnat The contract c0u Ia
not be considered complete until paid for, by asking
Ar a qentemans toilet could not be considered com
plete until the tailor had been paid. lie reiterated
ms assertion that mandamus against the Comp
rrocr would he OF no avail, as the Comptroller had
no funds applicable to this case AS TO the COmiiis-
f,loners making requsition on the Comptroller he
declared THIS could not be done now, as two OF the
commissioners were absent = .
'rnc argument lasted TIL after three p. NJ, wher
rhe Court took the papers promising TO give It's de
Clston on Monday.