New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1872-04-15

receiver aud the approval Of cdo bond to Judge Brady
A. For 80. nreferred this receiver should
, no a s;.i....o;a-should be Bixby.
30 Would lot Judge Brady have appointed MIR
Bixbyi A. I do MT Junk he would"
The applicatons to fix his fees were always
made to Judge CardozO,' and MIR. Nathan
admits that they were Often made In the
famous Room No. 10 in the CITY Hail. where
this eminent Judge used to hold little prl-
vate court of his own.
The Committee tried to find out in Tow
many cases Mr.. Gratz Nathan had been re-
tanned as counsel by the Cardozo receivers, and
how much his fees from such cases had
amounted to within tho past four years, but
the ingenious young gentleman was too shrewd
for them. He kept no account, and he had a
shocking memory. One of the most important
of his check books was lost, and the others he
would not permit anybody to examine. He
could not give the remotest idea of the num-
Der of cases. He had not the vaguest
conception of the sum total of the fees.
After long cross examination, the
Committee had to give up this point. In
their inquiry as to references, they were more
fortunate. Mr.. Nathans memory, to be sure,
was again at fault, but from other sources
they ascertained that in 1868 Judge CardozO
ordered no references, of which Gratz Nathan
had 90; in 1860, 100, of which Gratz Nathan
had SO; in 1870, III, Of which Gratz Nathan
had o.; and in 1871, 60, of which Gratz Nathan
had Ga. The profits on these little operations
are not stated, nor can we tell how much Mr..
Nathan received from time to time to appear
as counsel before the Judge with whom his
personal relations" wero so notorious and so
profitable. He admits, however, that he was
frequently applied to by sutOrs in CardOzO's
court Gin consequence of the idea that he
"might have some undue influence with him."
and he is inexpressibly shocked that the in
Temperance of the press in these days" should
have encouraged such an ideal
The exposure of the bank accounts of Car
dozo and Nathan, already published, throws
strong light upon the pecuniary settlement
which followed the transactions in Court and
in Room No. 10. Nathan, for example, draws
out of the Mechanics Banking Association, on
the I'd of July, 1863, $500 in Bills on the Sd
of July, Albert CardOzO deposits that exact
amount in bills in the National Mechanics
Bank. On the 1st of August, Nathan draws
1926; on the 9TH of August, Cardo{o deposits
1926. On the 10th Of October, Nathan draws
$50; on the 18th Of October, Cardozo deposits
$3.50. The same extraordinary parallel is kept
up to the end of the chapter: the amounts vary
ing from S67O7 to $2i5, all the checks paid in
bills, all the deposits made in bills. Mr. Nathan
testified that he and the Judge sometimes bor-
rowed money of each other, but there is no
record of Nathans ever putting CardezO's name
upon check and if the sums so singularly
drawn out of one bank and paid within a day or
two into another were loans, there is excellent
reason to believe that they were not repaid.
Equivalent amounts never figure aftcrward in
the deposits to Nathan's credit, and never ap-
pear on the checks drawn by Cardozo against
his account in the National Mechanics Bank.
On the contrary, it is shown to have been the
Judges habit to transfer his surplus funds to
the United States Trust Company as fast as
they accumulated, and careful examination Of
his bank account fails to show single instance
Of "amOunts debitod to him as drawn from
his account" which correspond with the
amounts deposited in bills and presumably re-
ceived from Nathan. The proof of course is
not strictly conclusive, but the inference Is
irresistible.