New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-03-01

Mr. Pe,,kham July Is 1873, marked L. Mayor Wfekhan
tse tho unanewers6ie evidence here for the first tune
produced. To you, sir, whose legal aoumen traced 70
mnnioipai robbers-ro YOU need not argue THAI the
existence of these papers completely negatives an evi
noiptment They demoustrate-i. That not directly.
but through third person, was sought IN the propo
siuon for settlement, an officer thoroughly IN lhe
Guys interest and not as one from whom
any favor to the defendants could DO annc,-
the proposer. elaborate arguments to the
effect that the city was TO be benefited oy
were considered necessary to induce me TO entertain
the idea at ali; g. personal interview followed by
written argument addressed 10 me; That even thea
/ extended no favor any settlement whateVef ana
much less TO the s0o0OCo proposed for portion OF the
deiendants That at once placed the mater IN tne
hands of my counsel, Mr.. Peckham's letter show
By nv own voluntary acts. from the day OF entering
this Office to the present time, have placed nyse nd
toward these that all doubt of my fidelity 10 tue
city cannot for moment stand before etner ih'ess"
ton reflection.
THE sTARKwEATBER CASE
Second My reason for prosecuting this case was
that recovery was, in my Judgment. Impossible; ana
therefore would lay myself open to
By involving the city in useless COSTS allowances anu
counsel fees The controlling grounds of my Judgment
were twofold:
al That assuming (which not clean that tho laws
and ordinances under which Mr.. Sarkweather received
money from city ought to have been 80 construed s
70 deny 10 him part OF his claim yet that the entire
sum had taxed and allowed to him by tne Supeo
Streets that the time Tor appealing from these judg-
ments had expired; and that the same could not DO
who had received the money taxed and allowed.
Since my answer was gwen tne GENERA ts. view
of tho law in Pittman against the Mayor G Inc me
opinion is by Judge Charles Danies-Jadges Noah DAVIS
and John T. Brady coDcurriug (See the case annexed
marked ~ Pttman sued the city Tor abont NOOo,
which had long before been taxed 10 nn ny we M
Court as one OF the commissioners IN proco1us W
open a street. The defense that the taxslon was
Illegal and in inc face OF an s e.s Ss thn
This defense true in point OF fact ana tho
Donohue j. presidng) gave judgment tor the plaintiff
This Judgment the General Term affirmed upon tho
staTkweat6er case. II follows that not only could no
recovery be obtained against starkweather but II ne
had received the m"uey he could now sue TOT anu
recover It from the city. SUCH have been the uniform
decisions OF eminent Judges for years.
% The second OF the grounds was that the payments
to Mr. Starkweather were voluntary payments by the
city, and not recoverable; They were made 70 INN
by the supreme Court. TIE then Controller, as the
show received no part OF the money which mas
spraey is made in The complaint against Mr Srn
Counsel was CONSULTED before each p.yuont;
Mr.. starkweather's services were, recoghizSa
a she supre&e CoaF in the ,axson and allowance
ferrod to- The suggestion that the defense OF yonn-
apDR 10 the "Rng Suits" Is admissible, for those
all not only OF fraud and couson but OF con,
spracy TO which the financial officer was party. WHICH
was the at all in the starkweather payments.
REFERENCES.
Third The last OF the Mayors reasons 4" relates to
this subject He is mistaken as the statute book shows
in supposDg that there has been any amendment OF
the law allowing me certain discretion" in this matter
The code Of practice does not except city suits from
the general rule that all may beand those III
yoiyng accounts must bereferred for trial III IS
rights or interests of the city in this other re-
spect have never consented to nor omitted 10 resist
any reference which ought 10 have been defeated INC
Iocai and approprate tribunal is not always jury.
In my answer have demonstrated that had never
manifested any facility whatever IN either consent
ing OF submitting 10 references, and produced sats-
tics showing that had so managed tnst curing
on,v 60 had been referred OF the latter. four small
cases might possibly have been kept in court me re-
maiupg 50 went to referees by force OF the law NO
Amounted referee was selected or proposed by my
opponent as charged by the Mayor. In 1acI, tae
original charges complain that nominated referees
myself it is there alleged as ground OF suspc,on
that my opponents accepted them ne ruin i ,n n
both of these inconsistent accusations the FORMER anu
the presently utterly deprived OF all loIce by inc sta
tstics Nor has referee been appointed VINO was ever
ask careful consideration OF the nrst, second Iuru
W S sh had aoyea they
would by this time have borne ira5 ana ce o.
LSee Postscript, subdivision 81
PosTsCRIPT-ME. o'CoNoR's OBSERVATIONS
In the foregoing remarks and dispositions have re-
viewed the grounds alleged by the Mayor for his de-
cision Since they prepared have seen the LOB
servations" Of Mr.. OConor upon my original answer
What follows relates to them.
Upon their face the charges Of JAN showed that he
prepared them under deep prejudice, which Is ex,
planned In the annexed document marked .. me
altered and certain positive expressions or MS
present observation" demonstrate that the preju
dice referred to s now diminished If not destroyed and
indicate that If the allegations urged TO OBTAIN my re-
moval were pressed upon him for the first Time ne
would reject them. Under an absorbing msapprehen-
sion he became my prosecutor and OF course nc now
comments upon the case under that embarrassment,
although manfesty with convictions materially moor
fed.
MOTIVE AND CHARACTER.
Mr.. O'Conor says: Neither tho private morals nor
the personal character of the respondent could be sue
cessfuy mpeached. In these respects he stands I'M
oueslonbly Justly, the high place. in pub
lie and private esteem as every one OF the professional
gentlemen referred by him" This Is no ordinary
language. 1t s followed by The PLAN lntlmation OF Ms
own conviction that, Gin that High JUDGMENT which
"Of any Objectionable intent" lie adds to the Mayor:
Should you think fit to remove the respondent from
Office will doubtless consider the proprieW OF eX
pressing your order to that effect ths personal e&cu
PATTON. In another part OF his paper an credltea oy
Mr.. O'Conor with "great ntelligence;" but this Is
more liberal than just IL will thus 10 perceived that
upon grounds both moral and intellectual assurance Is
given Of NY general fitness for the position which
hold 1t only remains for me to proye-as certainly
shall not only your but also 10 his satiactl0n-hat
are not as he supposes When have done this, there
win be nothing left but the question whether Corpora
ton Counsel ought 10 be removed because after CON
sulting with eminent counsel, he has. in one or two
other lawyers. will now take up the Observations
III their order.
THE THREE MILLION OFFER.
l. This and my action In relation TO it, Will be found
in the documents hereto annexed, marked and X.
THE sTARKwEATHER CASE AGAIN.
O. II should be remembered that as Counsel to the
Corporation its legal adviser, am frequently
ouired TO advise and determine whether. upon given
facts a suit will lie. II think not, must give my
opinion to that effect But this does not disqualfy me,
the Cys attorney, TO institute the suit II thought
Esgf e make the experiment iu that case uneomnlted
ySsSsr- - called In. and the suit be practically
left TO his guidance yr.- $500. NY
offer 10 cue and 10 leaSe The nomination OF eoGhsei 70
the Mayor little discuss The offer was made TO