The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1872-07-17
A Formal Decision Suggested
by Judge Miller.
CHARLES O'CONOR'S REMARKS.
Opening Argument for the "Boss''
and Ex-COmptrOller.
THE CHIEF QUESTIONS
Can the State Sue and What Would Be-
come Of the Money!
ALBANY, July 10, 1879.


ALBANY, July 10, 1879.
Pursuant to the proclamation OF the Governor,
the Supreme Court met in extraordinary General
Term Judges Miller, Potter and Parker presiding,
OF the Capitol to-day, to hear the arguments in the
appeal against the decision OF Judge Hogeboom
overruling the demurrer in the case CT the People
OF the State Of New York VS.. william M. Tweed and
others.
The following counsel appeared for the defend
ants David Dudley Field Edwin W. StoughtOn,
william Fullerton, John e. Burrill John II. Rey-
nOlds w. o. Bartlett AMI Eihu Root.
The following counsel appeared for the people,
Charles O'ConOr Samuel j. Tilden and Wheeler II.
Peckham, who now appear as respondents, the de-
fendant having appealed from Judge Hogeboom's
decision against the demurrer. The demurrer was
that the State had no right to bring the suit.
Messrs William A. Beach and Samuel ]. Courtney
also appeared for Connolly and Fields.
TIE CASE OF WILLIAM NJ TWEED.
The case OF Tweed was called, and Judge Miller
suggested that as the case was to 60 to the Court
Of Appeals the Court make formal decision.
Mr.. d. D. Field said there could be no appeal to
the Court Of Appeals without an order of judgment,
and asked what was to be done as to Judgment.
II the Court Of Appeals reverse the decision here it
will order new trial, and there must be trial and
an investigation now, in order that the Court of
Appeals may have something to act upon.
Messrs. W. A. Beach and w. o. Bartlett put forth
similar views referring to the decision Of Judge
HogebOOm. who was too sick to examine the matter
and render an opinion.
Judge Miller said the Court would hear argument,
and referred to the fact that the Court below,
Outstanding that the case was going forward in
any event. had rendered formal decision.
Mr. d. d. Field said that, though these cases have
been up four or i've times, no opinion had really
been received as yet
Mr.. w. A. Beach said that he hoped an arrange
ment could be made whereby these cases could be
carried directly to the Court of Appeals for final
action.
D. D. Field-Certainly. Let Judgment for
nominal sum be fixed upon and NOT entered on the
record OF the Court, and the case be thus carried
Judge Miller said 1t seemed to him that that was
the best way. 1t was an excellent suggestion.
What do you say to that on the other slider
STRONG OBJECTIONS TO STIPULATION.
consideration as the argument progresses. We are
dealing with numerous parties and numerous coun-
sci, and how far we may agree with the stipulation
belief that it is duty push this case on with
out listening to any form Of proposition lon! from the
as% when sverg,nIns was done tns
He felt that he and his associates had done well in
not letting single one of the defendants escape.
He felt that they had done the public service In
otherwise he would advise his associates not to
ter He said Counsel might talk and com is talk for
long time on both sides, but he insisted that there
was no doubt respecting the points raised. He was
willing to stake his reputation on the declaration
that when this reaches the Court Appeals not
single Judge will feel any doubt, and not one will
The counsel was proceeding in this manner when
Judge Miller reminded him that he was
DISCUSSING THE MERITS OF THE CASE.
W. A. Beach-That Is 30, and hope we will be
heard In reply.
D. D. Field claimed the right of replying.
Mr.. O'Conor insisted that he was only protesting
against magnifying these points
D; d. Field rose to reply and demanded the right
The Court consulted and said the counsel would
be given abundance of time to answer In his argu-
ment. Some conversation ensued between the
Court and counsel as to the time to be occupied in
sss%sr a'F was nay agreed AtHso give We
Tweed and Connolly cases together, as they are
similar, and in the meantime the Court said they
hoped the counsel would consider the proposition
MIR. sTOrGHToN OPENS THE ARGUMENT FOR TWEED.
Edwin w. stoughton then proceeded to open
ferring to the fact that AN appeal in all
cases is provided for, he said the decision
here took the form OF Judgment, and proceeded to
show the Importance OF a Judgment when rendered
by this Court He said this q suit at law, seek
n f S
can the people, on the complaint made, maintain
an actiOnY and he turned to an act entitled "An
county Of New York. He f read the act to to
show that the officials named therein were
empowered as county officials to issue bonds, raise
money on them and deposit the money with the
County Treasurer. "Does this not show he
asked, ''that there were county authorities to do
all acts therein specified, and who owned the
money deposited with that treasurer? Has the
Court any , doubt on this point, That
and to answer disposes OF it. In ordi-
but this was suit brought by the people of the
State OF New York to recover this money. 1t was
nowhere averred that the people OF the State
owned this money, nowhere averred that they con-
troled It while in the hands of the County Treas
urer No Court has yet determined that the peo-
pie OF the state owned this money raised on bonds
issued by the county, and for which the county
pledges its faith.
The counsel then proceeded to detail the pro-
ceedings OF the Board of Audit. He also quoted
the law autlrOriz ng the issue OF the bonds, and
then asked IL this Court would allow o county to
set up as defence that Ii could not pay them be-
cause all the money raised upon them mad been
wrOngIuly used. Would this Court say that
the county was not liable, but that the State was
and could pay when 1t pleased, because orsooth
the Legislature OF the state had authorized the
this Court wonld not let him detain the Court much
longer on this point. The county officers had d.s
posed OF this money and the county is still liable;
BUT WHO OWNS THIS MONEY!
the county or the State n in this case it belongs
to the state does not the same idea apply 10 all
other counties of this State and II so, where Is the
authority The counsel then argued at some
length the obligation of the county to pay these
bonds. He asked, could the state assume the
obligation to pay these bonds and called
constitution said about the state assuming
such obligations. He referred to the averment
that the suits brought by the supervisors are col
subsequently brought by the state. 1t would, as
the Court knows, make no difference how many