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

cssa,ngs in those suits for Ave months there
after. This charge specific and precise IL has ,n
dicated ave months between June aud November Q,
1874 nor the slightest complaint made against tne re-
nor 70 u uDr y s The true inquiry G was the
prosecution Of Tweed neglected for the whole OF ne mso
mont alluded tot" Mr. OCopor admits that TINS anes
ton hnges what done In the case OF the sIper
ors against Tweed during those i've months. ne says
bearing In mind that complaint L. MADE aeaInse
the respondent for the nonprosecution OF Iweod at
time prior June 1874, It win readily De m n
that the correspondence ana transactions, related ia us
answer and occurring prior that date have at mos.
but incidental relevancy TO the nat!er IN nann a." d
that merely on tho point Of motive. III cannot Do w
ned owever that they exhibit the Thoroughly nostle
attitude of office toward Tweed before June ana
they therefore cast before them very ssnnceh' e'
ing upon the events which followed.
Tho truth r. that in the carly part OF juno urged him
TO expedite SUITS and he OF course replied tnat n
should In the latter part OF me onIn ton ,no Se
tried before October), said TO him that he need NOT
bring the ring suits for was gong as Of my eX
pected erraud South Carolina, which supposed was
known 70 h,m bus of which be has since said he had
not then been informed Mr. Barlow refers to 1t IN the
last words OF his letter dated June Is, 1874 annexed
letter those words are had no intention
Whatever OF stopping the preparation Oh tne cases s
months The time of this date in June) is
fixed upon memory because IL was lust oeore iele
SION Mr. Peckhams aoors is demonstrated by his ac-
count in which his services during the Summer months
are charged for against the city The bin was certified
by me, aud paid IN the Controllers office, where
IL remains flied. (See copy marked =, and MI Peek
seen, the bill was presented not later tnan October:
When the services rendered as 10 tne tw W.,
ne was working uuder the retainer OF the Attorney
General the State suits. and the city suits iay IN
the services were rendered between June 0 and
Oct 2? The idea rs utterly ms oatss a Setween
June and November. 1874. / suspended e. q, inc
preparation Of The Tweed Eg sq ee mai
answer and his letter OF Nov TO- 1914 hereto appended
marked Al From these letters appears t l s mt
against Tweed, was a long and arduous matter, ana
for trial. Mr. Peckham contemplated trying the c@ses
against County Auditor Watson FIRST.
NECESSITY OF COUNSEL
have heretofore alluded TO the fact that the business
OF this Office exceeds by at least 30 times what 1t ever was
before That part of it, which the Corporation Counsel
should depute tuch as the preparation OF
opinons), renders physically impossible his personal
attention preparation OF suits for trial Tne en-
poyment of counsel is therefore pam necessity ,n mr.
have not sanctioned ana signed; WINE MI. lech-
t nun evil wi suits under my retainer as he was in
the criminal prosecutions under that OF tne Dlsuiet
ATTORNEY. Their consultations with Mr O'Coaor lsee
MI Peckham's ACCOUNT regarded my own as in effect
they were. The retainer OF mr.. OC0nor IN December,
1872 has, OF never been revoked. See H. ana
NJ original answer) Oh sOth of December super
seeded Messrs. Pecknam and Barlow, retaining In their
places Mr.. George ncknor Curtis and ex-Judge John r.
Porter They bear witness from what occurred be-
Us, in this change expected not TO retard
but to advance by cooperating efforts, tho prosecution
OF suits. Tie counsel thought that whether they
continued not the former counsel should be pr9ugnt
back Ny personal examination OF the cases led 10
the conclusion. hal no FEELING that WOu!u NOT
yield to whatever might seom wise or right SATISFIED
that white had acted cOnscientOuSiy and naturally
had yet labored under some msapprehenslon necuea
TO renew the retainer OF MI feckhs anu IN ni, ,h @
out for only few days IL Is sufficient That
did n mot n but asf not adSi,
bic to mention here. could be gwen to
yo%r kaoW to oeTeS poo and they a6and
autly explain this matter without Tesortng TO un-
Of the sentence quoted by Mr. OConor from opinion
winch he nentons 1t therefore does not concern, nor
such jnIiss a. Mr. Curtis and ex Judge Porter
one hand and Mr. O'ConOr on the other.
FINAL JUDGMENT.
T. In the concluding paragraphs of Mr.. oConor's
paper, published separately from the nFst portions II
appears that in his Judgment" my removal Is not now
required by the public interests nor desired by him.
CONCLUSION
removal "for cause" in the nature Of penalty.
II Inflicted unjustly personal wrong Is not only per-
petrated upon an individual, but tho public
may also be injured by Increasing the growing
aversion with which men OF character and SEN
sbility regard the public Service seek a
judicial decision from statesman who untes to that
nigh name the more exalted character OF just and
accomplished juris In transmitting the charges TO me
you VIII see as You examine them, that the Mayor at
adopted them his own, and at the same time,
before any hearing had become possible, not only
argued that they perfectly conclusive, but abSo
lutely and repeatedly declared In advance that l
"ought to be removed" His general character as
a lust man s, Of course not questioned; but he
certainly disqualified himself At the outset to
aid fair determination OF my case The sole I'M
biased arbiter appointed by law and he is the Cover
nor OF State But hope that mis- Honor the Mayor,
examining this supplementary answer aud the entire
case will yet unite with your EXcellency In the just
conclusion that these charges. being Insufficient in them
and thoroughly disproved, should be dismissed
shall send to Mayor Wckham 4 copy OF this cOmmun
cation am, honored Sir with great respect your ODE
dent servant, e. DELAFiELD SMITH
Attached arc a large Dumber Of exhibits the contents
OF which are sufficiently indicated by the text OF Dir.
chi