New-York tribune., 1874-08-12
LOCAL MISCELLANY.
THE CONTROLLERS LAW BILLS.

CORPORATION COUNSEL SMITH DENIES ihAi ~"
EVER AUTHORIZED THE EMPLOYMENT OF phAIhH iH'
A. HAwKINs-THE OPINION of i"o"''
CORPORATION LAWYER =,
The attempted indictment OF Coh'rohc.
Green still continues the topic OF conVerSa'on ao"
the City Hall There is much division OF sentiment ."
70 the defense OF the Controller II Ia also questone
whether he was authorized by Corporation ooun'o, "
DeaHeld Smith to employ Dexter A. ha"Ai"s "i'o' 'n
of the present Charter at the close OF the ses
sion ~ 1914 TRIBUNE reporter called ye-ter"n on
CORPORATION Counsel Smith. and quesuone" n'..
tive TO the action OF the Grand Jury. lie s''ou
would be manifestlv improper Tor hlh W io,o"' ".
testimony which he had given before tne ur''u 'u.
Ths he could say that he had never authoriZeu 'e
noYnt Of Mr. Hawkins by the Controller, nor had he
ever said that he had done so. Inc ptiu0u
that he had done were Incorrect.
An Official who claimed to be conversant Win 'ne
facts in the case stated that the whole question Vi ~
Controllers defense turned on whether thero wa.
contract made between the Controller and Mr. HAWKINS
70 90 TO Albany and watch legislation aneetihs ' u"
toroas of tho Finance Department OF the CITY ""ins
~, .ossion For 40 years the Controllers OF inc Guy
baye been in the habit OF employing counso' " ~
Albany and ondeavor TO prevent injurious -.
r,ument before committees and IN other ways "p'o
,bro NAV NOT have been any law expressly authorizing
the employment OF counsel IN this manner ou''o w
made il almost IA good as law aOrding continuous
tior NJ a contract with Mr.. HAWKES. the
Constitution OF the United states and OF the STATE
NewYork provides that no contract small po inl"'i'
by subsequent legislation. II the Controer empoyeu
Mr. Hawkins watch the Legislature during the ses
sion he did not think that the passage OF the new char
er late IN the session. would vitate the contract lt
would still remain In force. and the Controller could
hiring IL forward as q good defense He was reminded
that the bills rendered by Mr. Hawkins and paid 10y the
Controller lwere apparently separate under different
dates and not the form OF one bill, with specified
items He acknowledged the truth of this, but thought
that the Controller could still claim that these might be
rendered under general contract There was law
empowering the Controller to employ counsel IN street.
opening eases 1t was question whether tins was re,
pealed by the provisions OF the charter whether 1t
not in forcs until explicitly repealed. There
another pbase OF the question He thought that there
was no doubt but that 1t could be shown that Mr. Hdw
kins was engaged part OF the time III Albany lobbying
against Corporation Counsel Smith ana Commissioner
Van Mort. 1t is true that compensation Tor these ser
vices does appear III the bill 1t would be necessary
TO show that there secret understanding between
the Controller and Mr.. Hawkins, that payments were
made romnally for services rendered in preventing i'm
proper legislation but really for promoting Mr. Green's
private interests and couneracng legislation by which
he would be removed from office. He doubted whether
this could be shown, II such an agreement had
been made.
prominent lawyer, well versed in laws and ordi-
relating the city, gave as his opinion tat
there was nothing either IN the old the Charter
to warrant the Controller employing any one to visit
Albany to look after legislation. The Controllers duties
were TO take care OF the financial interests OF the city
and audit and pay bills. He had no more right To en-
plOy any one to go Albany, than he had to send all
agent TO Washington. There were representatives OF
the people at places to guard the interests OF those
whom they represented II absurd to say that the
Controller could make contract with person to watch
h ctys interests for entire session. The Controller
hiinss might have been egislated out when the new
Charter was passed. Will any one cOnyetsant
W. the law pretend to say that,
e.. -, the Controller lcgisated out OF office, Mr. Haw-
.ins would sill have and performed the services
for which he has rendered bill OF more than 500
against the ctyi II 1t Is claimed that Mr.. Hawkins
was employed FOR the session, why he allowed to
charge and receive $500 each from the Department Of
Parks and the Board OF Excise for services rendered
during tue session, and Why did he claim 10 be EN-
pioycd By the Council OF Political Reformi The fact is
that In this matter the Controller acting without
warrant OF law and explauatlonwil justify hs action
IN this particular No official can be justified IN acting
without warrant OF law, no matter what may be his
motive. This principle was recently set forth very
clearly In a decision given at the General Term.
II understood that the Grand Jury. at its session
today will aglln take up the question OF the indct-
ment OF tho Controller and dispose OF IL way the
other