New-York tribune., 1874-02-12
RING LITIGATION.

| RIGHT AND POWER TO SUE PUBLIC oFfichiS
| FOR BREACH OF TRUsr-ELkBoRATE ADDRESSES
I BY CHARLES oCoNoR AND SAMUEL J. TuDEN'
| ALBANY, Feb. 11.-There was large attend
at the Court Of Appeals Chamber this morning To
listen to the argument winch II was known would be
made by Charles OConor behalf Of the people In the
Tweed Among those present. were Samuel j. Ill
deu Wheeler II. Peckham, and Charles OConor In be-
half Of the people appellants and Elisha Root and Wn
Fullerton for the respondent Ingerso, impleaded with
| Woodward. Tweed and Garvey. The case came mp on
the reargument Of the appeal from the demurrer to the
complaint The turns mainly the point whether
the money taken from the National Broadway Bank the
| subject matter OF the suiD was the property
| OF the city OF the county. ID an extended
and elaborate review Of the local government OF New
York. Its character and the various changes which had
been made, Mr. OC0nOr sought TO show that since Inc
incorporation the city Board Of Supervisors or So
| called county government very little more than
| nominal power The respondent, 1t is true, claims
great power authority for that Board which, how
ever has real existence in any respect The Board
OF Supervisors previous to 1870 was, he insisted very
small affair." and by the charter passed in that year. at
the instance OF Tweed himself II completely shorn
power whatever tho functions Of the City Gov
ernment being lodged i'm numerous commissions which
q part OF tho grand scheme set on foot by Tweed
| and his compeers.
He contended also that the Board Of Supervisors OF
EewYork was in sense corporation, notw1thsand-
|
| and possessed corporate powers whatever. They
could not even be for any debt county charge
Under the acts passed with great facility by the Legs
| Iatire this mock government authorized 10 con
demn lands belonging TO the city for Courthouse pur-
poses and pay for them In bonds which absolutely
| worthless; for the authority which gave them was
though quasi corporation, mere sham. Ii had been
established that they had not, like other Boards OF
| Supervisors, the power 10 levy annual taxes TO
carry on the government. In this respect u
! was on n par with the Mayor, Aldermen, aud Com
monalty of the city. The money IN question
| IN this suit issued on bonds OF the
county sIgned by Connolly Controller The Issuance
Of these bonds gave title to the moneys raised upon
them in the Board Supervisors 1t could In no way
come INTO their hands, and no suit could be brought
against the Supervisors for their payment Tor they had
not dollar any treasury, and possessed no property
which could be levied upon. The ScooOo 10 question
was never the hands OF the County Treasurer The
bonds are be paid by the taxpayers and not by the
| Supervisors
lie then went on to say that, after the bonds
| issued and the moneys paid, some sort OF an
act was passed which attempted TO provide
for their payment, but they have never been paid.
They were included in the consolidation acts, and are
| not payable until 1891 Mr.. Connolly given sov-
ereign power in the matter The system OF bond issuing
was perfect, and under the legislative acts passed by
the Ring any OF bonds stock IL was
termed authorized TO be issued and fastened upon
| poserily.
| Ehn Root followed for the respondent, taking the
| ground that the county of New-York
| corporate body under the revised statutes and
| as the money in question was In the pos
| session OF the Board OF SUPERVISOR they are the
owners thereof and responsible therefor The presump
ton arising from possession he said cannot be over
turned aud fact OF their existence az corporate
body is beyond cayil. The money not in the pos
session OF the Controller but in the County Treas
ury IN accordance with the law and he had nothing to
do win It, lie said the Supervisors could
debts they had incurred from the large revenue which
they derive from other than taxation. He pur-
this line of argument al considerable length, and
| the Court then took n recess
The Court reassembled al p. M, aud Mr. Root I'm
nished argument for the respondent. The closing
argument the appellants made by Samuel j. III
den who appeared for first time in this before
the Court of Appeals He began by saying that he had
listened 4, hours to the argument with an anxious de-
sire to discover points which doubt existed
in the minds OF court i" possible" to address
himself exclusiyely what In order to
eucidate case He asked the attention OF the court
i'm the instance, 10 the sixth proposition In the
printed points which he had submitted TO the court for
the purpose the outset OF defining the issues 1t was
| as follows:
Sixth Point. The conclusion deduced from an examina-
OF tho arrangements OF our ciyl poty and me prn-
cipcs Of our jurisprudence s that the right OF the peo
pie 10 by action in the conrts Tor the preven-
on or redress breaches OF trust by officers having
eHss in three classes OF cases. Isf Where there Is
fnlt Of ony other authority capable OF suing Second
Where another authority been endowed by law with
the capacity to sue but the primary ana preeksthg
rght OF tho people has been taken by the
press words necessary implication OF statute. and
That right remains concurrenty. Third: Where another
authority has been vested with primary right TO sue,
hut defaults the exercise OF that rl.h by Couson or
| neglect.
He said that questions upon which the court had
ordered a reargument pertinent and essential only
in the embraced in the first subdivision The real
question was whether right OF action behalf Of the
public exists under the first subdivision. That right
would only exist In default OF right OF action In any
other authority but 1t important TO decide whether
there was q right OF action the county. But under
the second subdivision right Of action In the county
would defeat exclude right OF action In tho peo-
ple nor the third subdivision would 1t do 30 IL
there was default neglect the OF the county
TO exercise its right He then proceeded to the
origin of the Jurisdiction of tho court and tho right OF
action in the people. The following is summary of his
points which indicated tho line OF argument:
First: BY the ancient and existing customary law Of
England every public officer having the trust or dis
posa application custody OF public money or prop
erty for breach OF trust In an action ny
/. Commissioners appointed by an act Of Parlianent
were subjected this rule IN the Brighton case com
mssioners elected under act OF Parliament In the
Kipgston case officers OF the city or other uniepai
corporation the Dublin Liverpool, Leeds Poole and
a The liability held 10 be joint and several on the
part of all the officers participating in the breach Oh
whole liability, and any could be sued without Joining
the Others ne 1 tbs BShton ease IS we're made
In the Leeds case the Mayor who had gone
ont ofiee and four out OF IL former Aldermen and
omt of "a forner assistants were defendants In the
belfast case Aldermen and counselors out Of 40 were
3 The officers Of a municipal corporation chargea-
be In their for the breach OF trust In
which they have participated although tue act was done
simply as public ofcers The corporate body, II made
| with