The New York herald., 1873-07-09
THE BOARD OF ESTIMATE AND
AfPORTIONMENT.

An Apportionment to Cover Expenses
Sought For by tho Clerks OF tho Old
Election arding n Per-
emptory Manda m us and Possible Conn
mitment for Contempt.
Under q special act Of the Legislature the old
Bureau OF Elections was organized by the Board
of Supervisors the CLERKS appointed and their
salaries fixed. 1t was pre-eminently good thing
for the clerks. Cornelius Carson notable as one Of
the aides-de-camp Of william M. Tweed being ar
the head Of the Bureau. Matters went on very
Rgreeaby for the clerks-that Is to say, they drew
their salaries with most punctual regularity-unti
the close Of 1877, when q storm cloud cast
Its s0mbre shadow over the horizon Of
their hopes. An appropriation failed to be
made to cover their expenses for the
coming year. Notwithstanding the little obstacle
OF not getting their pay, the clerks stuck till the
9Th OF June, when the Bureau was abolished snd
It's duties transferred to the Police Depart
ment But the clerks were not disposed to let the
matter drop here, so one Of their number, Patrick
McMullen-this was designed as q test for the
claims OF al-brought an action recently in the
Court Of Common Pleas, before Judge Larrem0re,
to compel the Board Of Estimate and Apportion-
ment to make an appropriation TO cover the ex-
penses OF the defunct Bureau OF 81 ections from De-
cember 81, 1871, to the Sd OF June, 1872. The
answer to this was that the Board Of Estimate and
gipportonment had no power to make the appro-
tTtatt0n. After having lengthy argument the
proceedings being in Chambers, Judge Larre-
fuore granted writ Of peremptory mandamus
TO compel the Board to meet forthwith and ascer-
tain the apporti0nment needed to meet the re-
qdirements OF the rolat0r On the return day OF
mandamus; but on their behalf several reasons
we're urged before Judge Van Brunt, to whom
the matter was made returnable, why the
writ should not be Obeyeo. Judge Van Brunt yes
terday gave his decision in the case. The folio W.
ing is his opinion in full, which, owing to the
important principles involved. Will be iound to be
JUDGE VAN BRUNr's OPINION.
1t was claimed upon the argument that this re.
turn was sufficient because Judge Larremore had
simply decided, upon the application for manda.
mus that 1t was necessary that the relator should
present to the Board Of Estimate and Apporton-
menr his claim ior them TO act upon before we
could take any action to compel Its payment; that
q mandamus Should issue to bring the Board TO-
getner SO that the relator's CLAIM might be pre-
sented to the Board Tor action that being neces-
sary preliminary step 30 % urtnsr action upon the
was intended that the Board should be compelled
to DO in order to fully comply with the require
whether chapter ITO OF the Laws OF 1873 authorized
the Board to make the appropriation asked for was
mandamus Itself It viii be seen that this cannot
have been the decision because the recitals OF the
mandanus are VI variance with 1t. After reciting
fhe various acts and proceedings upon which the
relator has founded his claim the mandamus
cites as follows:-"And whereas our said relator
has applied to the said Board OF Apportionment,
acting pursuant to the provisions OF chapter 95 oi
the Laws OF 1874 and to the said Board OF Estimate
and Apportonmcnt to estimate and apporti0n the
amount required to meet the claims Of our said re-
1ator as above set FORTH with the interest thereon,
pursuant TO the various laws above set forth, and
that the said Board have failed and neglected or
refused so to do, as we have been informed by the
complaint OF Patrick R McMuilcn which we have
adadEcd sSe,e 70 &c true' as appears TO % OF record
forthwith to meet as o Board OF Estimate and Ap-
portionment and reconsidering, revising and re-
determining the estimates heretofore made .
TO consider, take action upon and determine the
amount to be estimated and apportloned TO meet
or provide for the salaries, &c" 1t Is thus seen
that the Court has adjudged that the relator's
DULY PRESENTED TO THE BOARD,
md that the Board have failed, neglected or re-
fused to apportion the amount claimed, conse-
quenty there was no necessity that the Board
should meet in order TO give the relator an oppor-
tunity to present his claim because ne nad al,
ready done so. The Board having failed neglected
or refused to make the apportionment, the relator
came to the Court to compel the Board TO 90 so,
and this Is the application passed upon W Judge
Larremore, as appears by the mandamus. A COM
plete answer to such an application would De QI
the fact were sol that chapter 77s OF the Laws OF
1S73 did not allow the Board to make such an ap-
bortionment and that therefore, they have failed.