The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1872-07-17

need By referring to the declaration made by Mr..
cont raised by the defence, that they were frivolous
Counsel maintained that Mr.. O'COnnor was entirely
m sIsn r. ana CITED the opinion OF Judge Learned
ss also tnat OF Judge H0geb00m. The former de-
ciared II to be one OF grave moment Counsel read
soid % so Learneds opinion to sustain what he
tant case as this on the mere dicta Of the coUn-
seller S upon ii the es cry Of Thief thiefI ~
as published by the Associated Press before Judge
Hogeboom, saying that It was the Correct rsnort
other side, W. H. Peckham. few DAYS alter va n1
was incorrect. He read this report to SHOW that
important-so important that In his condition Of
health he could not consider upon and render a
carried mo- 50 e 4 be
time for the counsel on the other side and the pub
lie press to cease their clamor that the points
raised by the defendants were OF no consequence
AS to the case of Mr.. Connolly. the complaint had
not been verified by even N nj
TIE FATHER OF ALL THE COMPLAINTS,
Mr. Tilden. Counsel, then stated the case Of Cen
molly and claimed that ~ time it would be clearly
en s ne wa ssns
right Of the State to step in and bring suits such
~ aned this .n S and
IT. he found no authority given TO
these gentlemen by the Corporation Counsel
ence BY which it was proposed to institute such
proceedings as would secure the return OF this
ceeding s. have been instituted The only cSafges
against Connolly were that he had neglected his
official duties, and the amounts are SO large that
there Is suspicion Of fraud. In answer to this, we
say,
coNNoLLY's DUTIES WERE OFFICIAL.
governed by statute, and insist that the people
Of this state have no right to call him to account
for neglect OF Official duties even were he guilty Of
1ns e Ss snss the
brought to recover money lost by his neglect Of
to Ss1@ this oe %sns so city
county Of New York. Then by what right do tho
S n st s S Is w1S The are @ y Ss
State No; 1t Is the people OF the county of New
York and they the ones then the only ones
them is to come from the taxable inhabitants OF the
city and county of New York. The people Of the
he asked the state RECEIVERS this money what Wi i
do with Y ? This was one Of the questions which
eventually become OF the meneyS Who viii get
it,. Where viii It 60 TO- and ask, where would It
used in improving its canals or other great
public improvements The counsel referred to the
effort made to legitmize this action by introducing
duced by Mr.. Tilden, a member Of the House, and
this action, counsel said he had anticipated. H9
had said it would be done, and ne was assured II
would not be yet it was done, and ne declared that
this was o0S0 q ns cf that their action
| SO FEARFUL, SO CONVINCED
were they that they could not sustain themselves,
they were obliged to resort to the device Of secur
Ing an eT post fhctO law to assist them. The bill
failed, however; it never became law. Counsel
then referred to law which appropriated $4,000
Ths Ss% the y eans s pa
interest Of the people of the State in the matter,
| citing numerous authorities. He would not discuss
pervisOrs OF New York, leaving that to the counsel
to follow him. Counsel concluded with an earnest
appeal to the Court to pass upon the question with
that impartiality characteristic of 1t.
MR.. O'CONORS REPLY
Mr.. Charles O'Conor followed saying he agreed
with the counsel on the other side, who proposed
to leave out OF discussion here the matter concern
| ing the Board Of Supervisors Us unimportant and
irrelevant at this time. BY so doing the Court
would find themselves rid OF much perplexity. He
would therefore ignore all relative to that matter
bonds, explaining it's provisions as ne read The
Comptroller, who Is not the County Treasurer, was
to pay this money raised on the bonds to the holders
Comptroller who was to pay out this money. The
bonds were issued the money was VAS raised and the
fraudulent claims. When Mr.. Courtney. alluded to
for the fees Of counsel In these cases, Mr.. O'Conor
stated that he did not receive any such money.
Mr.. Courtney replied that he did not say he did,
but the bill was passed making that appropriation
nevertheless
the money, neither did Mr.. Tilden. Their services
had been given gratuitousv.
Here the hour for recess arrived, when the Court
! took recess till four O'Clock p M.
Afternoon Session.
| On the reassembling OF the Court, at four p. NJ,
| Mr.. OConor continued his argument After ex-
who was to suffer from the misdoings in the mat
ter 1t was not nor would be the bondhoder, be-
and the bonds were issued to him by the proper ON.
GERS and under authority Of law. He would be paid
fully Then who was It, he asked again who was
be the taxpayer when and as the bonds became
due. He contended that this money was never in
| the county treasury, and II 1t ever had any
STsSsSss ssn: Of H.
money raised upon them, and that money used to
pay certain claims. The Comptroller was to pay
post it In the county treasury, and therefore that
department never had any possession or control
over 1t. He then returned to the question as to
VINO WAS THE INJURED PARTY,
and that was the tax payerapers.ons perhaps now
e %ho are 81
bonds. The bonds are to be paid by taxation only.
He asked Then is any body any entity, to be in.
then, he said, 'no individual taxpayer can bring
suit to recover this money; no one can bring this
suit but the people Of the State, represented in
their sovereign corporate capacity"
Mr.. stoughton asked who 1t was that owned this
Mr.. o'Conor said II such question was relevant
he had but one answer to make, and that was that
state 1Ss Of w
from the people OF the state. Counsel argued at
length the point as to whom
thus Agents Of the State were authorized to raise
say 100000 They raised instead $e,ooo,Ooo.
| The State says, 'YOu have
TAKEN MONEY FROM THE PEOPLE
who cannot get 1t back again. but will step in and
| make you give IL to me. 1t Is my money,
| which you raised through my authority.
| Local governing corporations, he said may,
| like all other corporate bodies defend
| actions brought against them and prosecute
| actions in defence OF their corporate or Official
property or rights. But they do not In any gene
| raj legal sense, represent the local population or
the local taxpayers past present or to come, nor is
! it their duty, nor have they any authority to In
! stltute suits or proceedings to preserve or
vlndicate any public or private right
| Of such persons to sustain this claim.
| He quoted various authorities, and he,
therefore, asked II the State has not the right to
! bring this suit who has He held that the county
was only liable the servants Of the State. Every
dollar was to come out of the tizens OF the State.
! Counsel then discussed the organization, powers
| md duties of the BOARD OF SupervsOrs holding