The New York herald., 1874-10-01

Marine Court because 1t was done by my predeces.
sor, although you assert hs action TO have been "a
clear robbery OF the County Treasury will pass
by that W tn the single remark tnat my conduct in
this particular was based upon a written oplnlon
by eminent counsel san IN my possession, ana
dated April 20, 1889. You admit however, that al
though my predecessor charged ilty cents for tins
service charged but thirty ana In 1861 thlrty-nve
cents. For your caution III this respect yon more
than make up when you come u speak OF the
Jurors summoned To- the Oyer and Terrnlner. and
particularly OF extra jurors" As to the latter,
you assert "tbat OF the o3,60l extra jurors
terms ""ta" Of oaice mot A one Of then, @ a nad
any existence, and the charge Tor them
was merely pareiaced rauG." TINS I nd.
nanty denounce AS nareiaced iaisehood. Every
Juror ior whom ! charged Was regularly druwu,
and stand prepared 10 produce hts name. lnter
the wholesale 81 stem OF excuses prevalent III the
courts prior 10 1870 the first panel OF juors was
soon exhausted in civil as weii a5 IN criminal
courts. An extra panel'' would then be ordered.
returnabIe sometimes the very next day. These
had to be summoned often in great has:e
work untll late AT night. Yet you connle your
statements as To the Jurors ior which l Was
entitled to charge ior the General . ses,
Court, and, with your usaal facility Tor
olundering. omit oil reference 70 Tue
jurors. | have certlfcate from the county
Clerk that the DooKs in his office are defective as
The panels the onice VI the Commissioner OF
Jurors or the entire jury year, whcn runs from
tive; consequently the figures you nave Obtained
from these offlces are utterly worthless as eyi
delee as TO the humber oil jurors drawn Dy me.
have III my books copies oi all panels drawn by
me. with the name and residence OF each Juror and
how he Was served. The lollowlng Is taolc OF the
number of panels, AS well as petit jurors sum-
moned and charged for by me In 1865 1866 and
1861 and also OF those appearing by the recoras OF
the County Clerk. as certified by him:-
DRAWN AND CHANGED
Panels OF grand jurors. ........... .......... 70
Panels OF pen 3oI
Number OF pett jurors 63 U95
CERTIFIED COUNTY CLERK.
Panels Of petit jurors. 56d
Number OF petit Jurors .63 %!
THE GRAND JURY CHARGE
This disposes Of ABOUT all your allegations in re-
gard TO jurors. Your assertion that u Sheriff can
only charge iOr Grand Jury, not a panel is with
out authority. BY order Of the Court tue Snerlr
summons thirty.siX men to serve rs Grand Jurors,
ior which he is paid $40. Ii the legal number are
not sworn III, either because they are excused by
the presiding Judge or do not attend. the Court
orders tue Sherlr TO summon a new panel. Can
there be any doubt tnat he Is entitled 10 be paid
Tor doing sos Certainly no one but yourself ever
thought there was any question about IT. These
Charges were the same III all respects us made by
my predecessor, with tue exception that III 1867,
the last year was In once, the Board OF supervi-
thirty-hve cents winch, as IT occurred when Con-
molly was Comptroller. you attempt to insinuate
was done through him, although you cannot but
know he had nothing to DO WITH 1t. in regard TO
the statute referred to In your letter as 10 paying
for juros not personally served, as usual you
have misquoted its provisions. While the act
OF 1853 makes 1t the duty OF all clerks OF
courts to certify to the Supervisors when
the majority 0i panel Is not personally
served, ana IN which case only no lees are to be
allowed the Snerlr, the act has always been con-
strued to apply only TO the criminal courts, and,
according to the best Information can obtain,
there Is no instance known where any clerk OF
any court but the Gen eral sessions and oyer and
Terminer has made such report. In the case OF
the regular panels. wnen the fun time was given
to the sheriff. majority oi the Jurors were In
var1ably personally served But In the haste re-
quired in summoning extra jurors 1t was impossi-
Die TO make personal service, although the Zee
personal service was made. having been
1ase'Sna was not the shers ~ fault d'p0Se, ior he
was but Obeying the Oraers. OF the Court and as
this was well known, the stringent rule Of the
statute Was not enforced. | have not charged
Tor 713 more panels as you allege or for any other
NUMBER than were drawn. You have omitted from
your statement the panels actually drawn Ior the
civil Courts.
THE EXECUTION FEES.
You also wllluly mlsrepreSent me IN regard 20
my charges tor capital executions In my second
Term OF office, as compared wlCil my first great
deal of the difference arises from the great IN
crease or values caused by the war. For the same
scatIold, which includes a large platform and par
tltion, that cost S32 u lii 1860, l PAID Samuel
Atkinson $l9l O7 in 1867, for which have his re-
ceIpt, as l nave Ior all the other disbursements
charged Tor In my bills. and which you and the
puDllc can inspect ut any time at my ONCE. My
charge for the board ol prisoners Is open to no
CRITICISM. Many OF these remained on my hands
Tor long time alter their sentence-Frery for
year and half, Ferris little longer, OBrien
Tor nine months ana Wagner for seven. During
this period IL was customary, as 1t was humane,
fare. paid Mrs. Fostei the Prison MatrOn 81 q
day each for their board, ior which have her re-
ceipts, the following Uetng a table OF the anoun Us
paid Ior and during eacn qnarter:-