The New York herald., 1874-10-01
| Dose for Mayor Havemcyer- - Mr.
John Keily's Vindication.


Mr. John Kely's reply to the charges pre-
ferred against him by Mayor Havemeyer has
been made with remarkable and commenda-
bic promptness, considering the mass OF
figures to be reviewed and the length OF time
covered by the transactions to which they
refer. Mr. Havemeyers letter appeared ON
September 1S, and Mr.. Kelly did not return
to the city until September ~. 1t has, there
fore, only taken eight days to answer
a lengthy indictment, carefully and shrewdly
drawn, which is known to have occupied
months in perfecting and to have enlisted the
ability of at least one experienced lawyer ana
OF a number of expert accountants in the
Finance Department.. This is creditable to
Mr.. Kelly, inasmuch as it proves that his
accounts while in the public service must have
been accurately kept and that the records OF
his official transactions have been faith
fully preserved-a fact scarcely consis-
tent with official dishonesty, which usually
seeks by the destruction Of records to prevent
detection. As to the sufficiency of the reply
there will probably be no difference of opinion
among disinterested and fair-minded men, SO
far as the charge of official fraud and robbery
made against MIR. Kelly is concerned. The ex-
Sheriff appears to show conclusively that MIR.
Havemeyer's figures have been triclily and
deceptively arranged for the purpose OF afford
ing seeming warrant for such accusations,
unless, indeed, we may be charitable enough
to suppose that the venerable Mayor has been
purposely deceived or has been led into acci-
dental error by the violence of his malignity
against those who were instrumental in dis
turbing his favorite egg nest in Mulberry
street.
Outside Of it's personal bitterness and ma
lignity Mayor Havemeyer's letter contained
statements to which Mr.. Kelly was bound, in
justice to himself and to the public, to make
reply. The first and most serious of the
charges was that Mr.. Kelly, while Sheriff of
New York, had reported to the Secretary of
State and charged the county of New York for
about one hundred thousand more convic-
tons than had actually been had during
his term of Office. As the Sheriff is entitled
to certain fee on each conviction it fol-
lowed that if this charge was true he had
swindled the county out of large sum of
money, set down by Mr.. Havemeyer at nearly
thirty-fve thousand dollars The Mayor en-
deavored to prove the offence against MIR.
Kelly by showing that the returns required
to be made to the Secretary Of State by the
clerks of Courts of Record and OF Special
Sessions of New York gave during MIR. Keny's
two terms Of Office only twenty thousand con-
victions, while the returns to the same official,
required to be made by the Sheriff, gave
one hundred aud thirteen thousand. The
fact must have been apparent to all
who gave any attention to the Mayors figures
that the discrepancy between the returns of
the clerks of courts and those OF the Sheriff
existed only in the Courts of Special Sessions,
and not in Courts of Record. The explana-
ton is now afforded by Mr.. Kelly. law was
passed in 1889 requiring these returns Of con-
victons to be made to the Secretary Of State
from each city and county Of the State.
A circular was sent out by the Sec
retary Of State explaining that the object
of the law was to ''obtain such accurate sta
tistical information concerning convicts and
crimes as may guide intelligent legislation. !"
It was evident that to make these statistics of
any practical value the convictions in the
Police Courts Of New York ought to be re-
turned, as well as those in Courts Of Record
and Special Sessions hence the practice
was adopted by the Sheriff long before
Mr. Kelly's first term of Office COM
menced to include the convictions in
the Police Courts. This practice was con-
tirmed and legalized in 1861 by an amend
ment to the law of 1889, which provided that
'.all courts in the city of New York having
jurisdiction in cases where criminal con-
victions are had are hereby, for the purposes
of this act, declared Courts OF Special Ses-
sions, whether composed of one or more
police magistrates. The clerks of the
Cou,t Of Special Sessions did not,
however, consider it their duty TO
include in their returns to the Secretary of
State the convictions in the Police Courts, and
hence only reported the convictions in the
Court Of Special Sessions of New York
county. This caused the difference in the re-
turns, and Mr. Kelly proves by the record
that in the Police Courts the convictions were
during his two terms of Office more than
! four times as many as tn ose in the
| Special Sessions. Furthermore, Mr..
Kelly shows that by arrangement
with the Secretary of States Office
the names Of the persons convicted
in the Police Courts were retained in the
Sheriff's possession, where they now remain
open to inspection, while tabular statements
OF the number, nativity, sexes, ages and other
! information required for statistical purposes
were forwarded to Albany. Mr.. Kelly might
| have added fact which he has overlooked
namely, that in making up the statistics Of
/ crime the Sheriffs returns, and not the incom-