The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1874-02-21
THE TENTH NATIONAL BANK.

dam as Against the Board OF Apport1on.
ment-Both Sides OF tho story, with
Some Flat Contradictions.
The case Of the Tenth National Bank, and which
promises soon of being worthy of being catalogued
In the class Of irrepressible cases, came up again
yesterday before Judge Donohue, in Supreme
Court Chambers. Forming the basis Of the htlga-
ton is an application on behalf Of the bank for
peremptory mandamus against the Board
OF Apportionment to compel 1t to issue
ponds to pay $252, 900 on account Of alleged adj
vances by the Court to the new Court House Com.
missioners. AS heretofore the Court was repre-
sented by ex-Judges Edwards and Davis ana H. Il.
Anderson, and the Board Of Apportionment by ex.
Judge Porter and John s. Strahan. The fusilade Of
an1davits seems to have come to an end, probably
from exhaustion Of ammunition. Two stray shots,
however. were fred from the Comptroller's bat
terry, in the shape Of two anidavits one nom
Deputy Comptroller storrs, setting forth
that the Tenth National Bank was
never designated as depository bank to
the city and county departments undor the statute
OF 1885, and the other from Mr.. Taintor, that the
bills referred to by Mr.. Palmer, the President OF
the bank, were never submitted to the Board Of
Supervisors
Mr. Edwards asked, with an evident look of sur
ever chosen as one OF the city repositories.
Mr.. Stanton said he denied 1t, so far a. the de-
partments were concerned
ARGUMENT FOR THE RANK.
Mr. EDWARDS now proceeded to argue at length
sons why the mandamus asked for should in not be-
granted. The claim, he insisted was a perfectly
valid one. the advances by the bank to the New
Court House Commissioners having. as stated In
their affdavits, been made In good faith He took
up the answers to these atidavits The great bur-
Green could obtain no information as to
the claim from the bank. The fact, on
Green ofiering to Show him the documents. The
Comptroler's frst answer was that he had no
then a AEa ne TO n to am him to
that the vouchers for the $500 advance OF which
the $242, 900 now claimed is the balance, should be
placed IN his hands for examination. This could not
be DONE but an offer was made that counsel would
wait upon HIM any time he appointed. and let MIN
made any reply. "This Taintor," as he called MIR.
Iaintor. took very good care not to go near him
well that these documents were in his handss
and that he was ready to exhibit them to him.
Two , other offers were also made to produce the
documents-once when application was made Tor
ana sSs once before the rslerss and yst
had been allowed no opportunity OF ascertaining
the particulars OF these advances. Taintor made
soil personally. There was not word Of proof OF
this statement The proof was that the advances
With regard co the afndavlt Of Mr.. storrs that the
commissioners OF the New Court House were not
county ohicers the statement, be insisted, was un-
true, and the General Term 80 decided the ques-
ton. Even the afidavit ofNorrQn, brought forward
lor sensational purposes, proves that they were
Department contains no records OIL these pre-.
tended advances" AS to this, there were 900
partment. and by him paid out. II the Comptroller
saw ut so to conduct the department that ne has
no record OF such sums, that was no reason why
the bank should be defeated In It's present claim.
Again, writing 10 Mr. Tatntor ne said that the
iatter,s atiidayit that he applied Tor information in
RS1i o 4ss sy s
bank was, he said, a Islander dragged in where it
had no business, oy way of argument that. there
the money now demanded. He referred again TO TO
the AFFIDAVIT OF "that fugitive from justice. Mike
Norton" as he now characterized the absent ex-
wanted to save the county $242 900 at the expense
OF the bank. or to make political capital, or to
cover the remissness on the part OF 0fcers OF the
REPLY OF Mr.. srRAHAN.
An extended reply was made by Mr.. Strahan.
He began with recltng the leading points Of tho
controversy and insisted that the facts clearly
show that there was no substantial solid basis for
statutes creating the New Court House Commits
sioners and settug forth their duties. No possible
v va OF money in the manner manner. alleged,
tS Sn coa6s could
repayment He cited large number Of cases up
holding as he insisted this view OF the case The
Glst OF MS argument was, first, that there was no
vallS claim against the county on the part OF the
Denk because neither OF the acts OF 1870 and 1871
me only acts relating to the Commissioners VI the
ponrt House. gave them the power to borrow
money or TO charge the credit oil the county In any
way Tnis power was to complete the Court House
OUT OF moneys given them by the Comptroller. NOT
Vas, was mere , any legislative confirmation OF any
loanln9 py them Chapter OF the Laws OF 1872.
wnicn was rened on as doing so, did not under.
take to legaze illegal loans but was at any rate
unconstitutlonal, as was also chapter 20, which
WAS an amendment to II, because, being q local
Oil, II purported TO deal with two distinct SUB.
jects-the debts OF the city and the debts OF the
county--a londer OF subjects expressly forbidden
by the constitution. His second point was that
surprising these acts constitute nal, and was q
legalizng OF all actual loans BY bonds to the de-
partments stu tne bank should not have
was in the nature OF demurrer TO
the return admitting it's facts to be true, but
entitled to this writ In this case tine return at
hnrth thnS there wAs no money luHned to tina oorh.