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

CORPORATION COUNSEL SMITHS DEFENSE
NEW DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN HIS FAVOR FOR
WARDED TO THE GovERNOR-ERRoRs OF THE
MAYOR POINTED oUT-B. G. JAYNE AND THE
TAMAANY FRAUDS.
II was rumored on Saturday that Mayor
wickbam had received from Gov Tden the papers Tor
warded TO him IN the OF Corporation Counsel L.
Delahed Smith, and that the Governor coneurred WIN
Che Mayor in the removal Of that officer The Mayor
said the statement untrue, and it was not creded
by those who know tho Governors habiual caution In
matters of this kind. 1t deemed extremely unlikely
that he would decline TO wait and read the answer OF
the Corporation Counsel which he had been INFORMED
was in preparation, and which were forwarded by
special messenger Saturday copy Was also sent
10 the Mayor aud the printed pamphlet was also seen
ny others The greater portion Of the answer is gwen
below and as it positively disputes several statements
Of fact by the Mayor viii attract general attention and
help TO confirm opinion which has got abroad that
the Mayor acted hastily in preferring the charges and
IN declining to submit the evidence TO Gov. Tlden.
In ANTICIPATION that the Governor will unite in re-
moving Mr. Smith, the Mayor has resolved 10 appoint
William c. Whitney 10 the place when it becomes va
can't Wheeler II. Peckham strongly urged for the
place by Mr.. OConOr among others, but the Mayor de-
cned TO consider his claims Mr.. Whitney is strongly
uged by Judge A. r. Lawrence; lisa warm personal
friend OF the Mayor took active part IN tho over
throw of the Talnmany Ring and is thought every way
competent 10 fill the vacancy if there should be one.
Following is the main aud most interesting part OF Mr.
Smiths answer
SUPPLEMENTARY ANSWER OF THE COUNSEL TO THE
CORPORATION.
LAW DEPARTMENT,
EEw-YoRK, Feb. %. 1875 }
To Has Eyeeency sAMUEL j. TILDEN, G09eTI.or Of ne
STATE Of Net0- York.
SIR: After the publication Of my answer to pending
charges had placed it before every reading person.
sent you fairly printed copy For this am accused
Of improperly. and Of my two judges insists that
his opinion decision should form the only portion OF
fhe record which the other may Inspect submit that
ease If submitted to other eyes, could have suggested
course so unprecedented. am confident that no mod
ern history OF public accusation records charges less
eustaned by facts, dependent upon mistaken In
ferenoes or more thoroughly refuted. The law
ss Necessary operaton the Governor constitutes the
only DpsT' :s%s T. w. srIa nae t fsST
IbOuld have uninterrupted interview and op999ys
nifty for verbal exposition Of my case Expectng this
ments 10 Mace in his hands When the Journals nd
given me my first knowledge OF his decision, reminded
fsrrine 10 the pressure upon him. If except brief and
detached observations, which my calls upon him in re-
Iaton TO the public business have occasionally enabled
me 20 make have had hearing unless handing him
is 10 be regarded. therefore ask that In
which the Mayor has committed in assigning the
scause and reasons for his decision. and that also
nm, new and additional documents
THE RING SUITS.
First. (a) The Mayor again cites the recent decision
Of the Court Of Appeals that the city, and bot the State
AZ the proper plaintiff in these suits. He might with
equal relevancy, call attention 70 the still more recent
omission Of the Legislature to annu that decision by
statute The result in both cases has been greatly
GREETED And the counsel who pleaded for State
authority in both instances have under my retainer,
bad fun charge Of these suits o. The Mayor s misin-
formed supposng that any special or other act has
ever been procured passed giving 10y once any en-
larced control city snts OF this character The
appointed 10 December, 1877, and not, as the Mayor
states In 1871. (dJ II IS great and TO the public
misleading mistake 70 declare as the Mayor does
that I was appointed by any set of !;
uy appointment the single act Of one man. then
the Mayor OF the city, after his separation from his
former political associates. Ny acceptance was
ADVISED by eminent ursts and genuine reformers And
received aud now hold together with the Controller
and Others who appointed by the same Mayor
a new appointment by the action OF the Legislature
Itself supported by its beet and opposed by It's WORT
members without distinction OF party (e) IL lie hs-
,oricaly absurd charge that during the than
three years OF my ipcumbency OF this Office, have
made real progress in prosecuting these defend
ants 10 the first place, have held Office twoyeaIs. aud
not three 10 the second place those two years, and
before -four In alp have been occupied, until
few months past, by the prosecutions OF The State
counsel IN OF the State, and w the debera
ions OF iae the question as " who tstae or
city, was the legal plaintiff. =.
In addition to Others annex three important papers,
% follows: l. Letter roe from Mayor Mcktaln Feb
4 l7c marked j; 3 Ny rpy, Fob. ., is'o, married !