The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1875-02-24

been necessary or proper The decision OF the
nenest courl, so ouen referred TO, indicates that
successfully prosecuted. All that has been said
OF shall be here said touching the prosecution
ment subsequently, to June 8. 1874 relates 10 the
county SUIT Connning ourselves to this last
named SUIT Will conouce 10 clearness
on June 8, 1874, the county SUIT was at issue,
Ieaoy of trial. ana on the calendar. Mr.. Peckham,
the only person with whom the respondent con-
erred IN relation 10 TINS suit states Immeai-
ateiy alter the decision IN the Court Appeals IN
June, 1874. ne proposed 10 bring lt to trlal, aud
was positively FORBIDDEN TO do so By the respon.
dent. Here the case slept OF course, until at some
daie not precisely asceri AIMED, but certainly SUD
ence took place between those gentlemen, SEEM
ing TO authorize Mr.. PecSham TO proceed. BY It's
term terms In,s ana not necessarily refer to the
dent s. understood 1t or intended can only
be matter OF conjecture. MIR. Peckham con.
prohibition, aud IN December, 1874, he took steps
To push the case against Tweed to trial. Almost
IRON all connection with that or any o.ner ousl.
ness o. me Law Department Tnis was late IN
december, 1874. The respondents action since
your charges were served upon him cannot
properly De noticed.
I'd. 1t Will be seen that, with one exception. all
IN tne state SUITS, annexed to tue respou cuts
answsi, pears date prior 10 June 1874, or subse.
Litter refers 10 T. condition OF things existing at
its date. That exception is the correspona
marAed 5 ana 4, between the respondent ana
General barlow. dated June "a and 25 1874. Its
inception was General Barlow's letter oil June 20,
1914, winch me respondent has not produced.
Ihat correspondence related TO a set Of suits Tor
what are lamillary termed "Ring lrauds,n the
case against Stark her oelng one OF them.
That correspondence orig IN General Bar.
lows desire 10 prosecute those particular suits
IL dd not relate TO the SUIT against lweeu, couse-
quenty that correspondence does not touch the
point IN hand. Its only use is 10 snow thai, as 10
the SUITS AGAINST STARK weather and Others not
Guiding Tweed. General Barrow eylnced The same
readiness to prosecute that Mr.. PecKnam eXnlb.
lted III relation TO the suit against Tweed. Tier
ot1clousness was treated with the most un-
eXcepllonaoe impartlallty. Both were dismissed
80, 1874.
TINS IS the whole case as to the specific charges
serted by you IN reference to these charges Is
drawn In question, SO far is the most careful
scrutiny could discern any attempt or the kind IN
the answer, the proof VI each TACT asserted IN the
charges is ABOVE shown to be absolutely perfect.
respondents motives are all aened by MIN;
and men may Wen differ in tue question
or duty 1t does not seem necessary to main
tain any OF them. Neither the prlvate morals nor
tne personal character OF the respondent could De
stands uAquestlonably and justly on the same
hisn plane IN pubic and private esteem as every
one or the PROFESSIONAL gentlemen referred TO by
him. Circumstances leading 10 ana even war
ranting an uniavoraoe conclusion may, aud not
unlrequentiy do exist In Cases wnen mat High
Jud smenl wnlcn sees all things and csunot err
acquits the party OF any Objectionable intent
from office you WIN doubtless CONSIDER the pro-
prety OF expressing In your order to that erect
this personal excupatOn.
1t is fit to say here that except by letters ap.
penoed to his ans wer, all dated prior TO June O.
1874, never MAD ATTY interview with the respon-
dent or any correspondence with him, directly or
Indirectly from the time vi his appointment until
your charges were served, at or IN wncn any
business matter was or could prop rly nave been
TO any Sucn consultation as IS suggested IN the
letter oI Mr. PecHnam and myself dated January
%, 1879
The respondent makes the folio wing 81 atemen It =
"Wnen the Court Of Appeals dismissed the STATE
low ana PecKhaui) were continued my COUNSEL
Without pausng " observe on the singular ldea
tonaoIe use OF tue possessve pronOun, must say
that 30 lar this statement refers to me 1t is not
accurate. subsequently TO tle decision OF tue
passed between enc respondent aud my
self, directly or indirectly, on, any sub
IRON considering me mis- counsel az this his
stage OF Inc business tue respondent, pre- paratory
10 us dismissal OF Messrs. Barlow aud Pc lknam,
aavlsed Mayor Vance, in an ofical communlca.
tlon dated December 80, 1874 that, by my "practi-
cal wltLdrawa!." he has been let "witnout a
senior COUNSEL" In It's entirety and IN every one
OF It's elemental paris this statement Was without
color. 1t IS NOT meant TO intimate. nor is 1t be-
heved. lnar there was any wliul misrepIesenta.
ton. The iacrs, however, are precisely the re-
verse.
aware that nad Withdrawn IRON general prac-
lice ne could not larry nave supposed that nv
cindtlon or abity TO serve the puoilc gratuitonsy
III tnls business was diminished by tnat clrcuu-
stance. Its manifest tendency was TO increase
BOTH
In connection With the dismissal OF General Bar.
low and Mr.. PecKnam, IN December. 1874 a lew
Iacts not noted In your letter, nut lucidently
throwing ls ht upon the question now before you,
established offence was tnelt vi 5000 U0O commonly
caned the Court House fraud. ms was one vi
Ia IA m
when but little professional ingenuity vas re-
CURED TO frame plausible argument against the
IN 1884, on the tidnus that suits by the were
imminent the Corporation counsel, who bad re-
piicated t. sue himself and tue others two very err,
eminent aud mighty respectable members OF
the Bar were consulted by him. They united
III an opinion whlcn ne printed anu extern.
siveiy cirou lated. On Its tenth page, IN arguing
against the rigat Of the STATE. the .arned gentle.
men SAID that the Iacts constituted ~ fraud or
misconduct In respect to which action must
have accrued TO the people OF tine county, n 1t be
aor ~ a tns ast pe anat tne
whether there was any remedy Whatever con-
tlnuea to be ASSOCIATED Win the Corporation
as appears by letters annexed to his answei,
the respondents withdrew tnelr retainers ald
and U'Conor. During the two years succeeding
tins da e one OF the latter gave attention 10 the
states clvi suits suits. anu two Of taem, Nj: pecknam
ment with SUCH zeal, vlgor and success thai
leading coconsplrator was sent TO the State
Prison, Tweed was sent to the Peniten cIary, aud
the rest o. the known officials were arlven Into
exile. These iacts being distinctly ueiore the
MUD the two classes OF associate counsel
between whom. on December 80, 1874,
the respondent d. minated. lie formally dis
missed rom any agency IN the Ring prosecutions
Messrs. Barlow aud Pecknam, the cUunsei VINO
nah thus efficiently pursued the consplrators and
substituted IN their place tue very gentlemen VINO
had promulgated their solemn 1Oubt whether any
action a. AL cOuiu be maintained against them.
lnese Facts cannot anu WIZ not be denied. In
view OF them IG l. Tor you To decide, In the whole
case whether, consistently with your duty, you
eau leave the respondent In charge OF the suits
against Tweed aud MS fraudulent associates.
Very respectfully, Gu. O'CONOR.
MAYOR wICKHAM's ANSWER.
The following IL the Mayors communication 10
the Governor, which accompanies the above letter
and the testimony in the cases OF the offcia S
against whom charges have been made, and upon