The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1872-07-18
THE TAMMAM TRIALS.
Arguments Continued in the Tweed
and Connolly Suits.
Why the Corporation Does
Not Prosecute.
The Six Million Dollars, if Recovered,
Will Go Into the State Treasury.
Mr.. TILDENS VIEWS.
The Case of Thomas @. Fields
Taken UP by the Court.
Mr.. BEACR'S BANISHNENT PROGRAMME.
His Client Acted Merely as an Attorney
for the Firemen.
| Mr.. TILDEN's VIEWS.
The Case of Thomas G. Fields
Taken UP by the Court.
Mr.. BEAcH'S PUNISHMENT PROGRAMME.
His Client Acted Merely as an Attorney
for the Firemen.
ALBANY, July II, 1872.

Sumeu his argument. lie Hciu lilut IL was d 4aiSo
issue which had arisen between themselves and
the defendants. Though the Board OF supervisors
may be a corporation, it is not such corporation
as exists In the several counties OF the State All
the corporations OF New York are now wrapped up
In what Is known as the city charter, under the
head Of departments One portion OF our argu-
ment yesterday, and which the other side attempted
to controvert was tile question relative TO the pro-
perty held by the Board OF Supervisors as a cor
pOrate body. The truth is they held no property
which they controlled as to dispose OF by sale or
otherwise. The counsel on the other side cited In
their brief to prove the validity OF the Board of
Supervisors as a corporate body the fact that the
Court House was county property; and Mr.. O'Conor
referred this Court TO the opinion Of Judge Leonard
in 40 Barbour page 314 where the story OF its pos
session by the county is very truthully told, and
how it was accomplished through legislative enact
ment for certain purposes Yet he denied the
right OF the Board of Supervisors to sell this or buy
other public Institutions. II was strange that the
Mayor took no action toward redress Tor
the numerous frauds committed against the
people until proceedings were instituted by the At
torney General He referred to an opinion OF Judge
Bronson for distinction between the Supervisors
and Mayor and Commonaty in which that Judge
holds that neither body had right to levy tax,
either special general without direct legislative
tain the argument. He also cited other authorities
to show that
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Of New York was not sueabe for debts; they sat as
judicial tribunal to pass upon claims, and when
allowed to levy tax to liquldate claims eX-
hausted their powers. SuppOsing that our theory
is correct, that the tax payers and commonalty OF
New York cannot sue tire county to recover, to
whom does the right belong9 Why, to the State,
through its representative, the Attorney General.
Indictments for crimes and misdemeanors
constitute one large class Of Illustrations.
Bills to restrain and prevent public measures
Afforded another. Actions against public officers
and pubic corporations for breach OF trust
neglect of duty another. Instances might be
adduced al i,,inatum, but this plain proposition is
denied, and even il the right OF action he In the
State Is eontendeG that the phraseo9gy adoptea
law as to the duties OF the Attorney General, has
so restricted the powers OF that officer that
we mentioned in the complaint. very
able answer to the defendants on both grounds may
The Mayor, &c, in U. Duer's Reports 6e6, which
very clearly defines the powers and duties of the
statute which makes it the duty Of that oIlcer to
prosecute and defend all actions, on the event OF
the Oh e sn sia' scons be he
necessary party. From what has transpred in
this case they say that no Judge could he found who
could decide the question argued that no Judge
who was versed in the proceedings of the case had
indicated the possibility of doubt relative to the
rights OF the state IN the case. IL IL true
JUDGE LEARNED uEsITATED
on q decision; yet Judge HOgeboom, who acted
upon his determination made after hearing the ar
gument, rendered decision unhesitatingly; but
Judge Hogeboom had rendered decision previously
on the same subject, which was refnting that
the Attorney General enjoyed the right to prosecute
in the interest of an aggrieved people. Admitting
that the Mayor and Commonalty were the proper
parties to sue, we hold that they failed 10 their
and the State has the right to interfere and attempt
to get the money back, and have 1t APP
intended. lie claimed that the State had
the same jurisdiction to interfere in this case
corporation had undertaken to use Broadway for
public purposes. This question Is asked III the
S m9eg m DC that
he asked what would the Board OF supervisors do
with it. In case they recovered it, they had no
the State recovered it, it would go into the
Treasury as money unappropriated. 1t could not
hands Of the supreme power. there to re-
main until the Legislature, by enactment
shall devise W mw and BY 5 means It.
mate with Justice He here said ne would submit
the case, claiming that he had the right TO argue
the question without entering into any stipulation
with the defendant and he hoped that the Court
would render decision on the question at issue
without delay and let the people OF this great State
know who are the defendants IN this case.
ARGUMENT BY SAMUEL j. I'll DEN.
Mr.. OCOIOr was followed by Mr.. Samucl j. Til |
den. Alter referring to the manner In which he |
had been introduced 10 the case, Mr.. Tdcn inquir-
eo :-"who will prosecute State onicersf Is it the
Board OF supervisors Where are they to get
such authority Where derive such commits
s!on9 Again, who is the party iniuredS II Is
the peep ana th hs upon the
the duty TO prosecute.n He cited from several ai-
thoriHes on the equity Of Jurisprudence In answer
TO the argument the brief Of Mr. Curtis the prn-
cipa object OF which was TO establish the duties Of
the Attorney General.
Mr.. Fields interrupted Mr.. Tilden during his cita
tons by the inquiry whether the case which he
cited was an action OF law to recover money for the
Grown, or whether it was case OF equity, and
whether this case was one OF equity?
Mr. OConor answered that this was one for the
recovery Of money, which in England would be
Mr. Tllden continued by saying, in all cases of
cqpity there is decree to pay back the money, and
intimated that the counsel on the other side ex
bbiteG bad taste by attempting at this late day
to endangcr the case Of defendants by making the
interrogation whether the case WAS one OF
LAW OR EQUITY.
Mr. Fields asked Mr.. Tilden If lie could cite suit
where the Crown ever recovered back money from
Mr. Tiden replied that IL is in Just such cases that
the Attorney General ateps In and acts FOR the peo
pe. The funds OF New York were raised by gen.
cra levy for the public benefit and rEoUld not have
tcen misapplied, by donation or otherwise, by the
ousscdians Of those funds. On concluding his eta
tons he said he had very little TO say IL addition.
They embrac all that he dcsired to say on the
question, which was that public trusts were subject
to quit for recovery by the Attorney General
PERMISSION TO TAKE VI FIELDS CASE
Mr. Beach made request to take up the Fields
case at the close OF Mr. TdeD's Argument to enable
him to proceed 10 Saratoga, whe!c he has an en-
gagcment In the barnard case tomorrow and the
Court, by the consent Of the COUNSEL granted the
request.
When Mr.. Tlden concluded Mr.. Beach took the
floor. lie said that this case had been presented
SO often and so fully that in his opinion II had lost
Its interest. AS far as his client, Mr.. Fields, was
concerned he was wiling to leave IL with the Court
on the views he had already expressed, and
which views he alleged, remained unanswered.
Whatever
argument he would, without fear Of denuncation
by thel opposing counsel, discuss the question at