The New York herald., 1875-03-01
DELAFIELD SMITHS DEFENCE
SUPPLEMENTARY ANSWER OF THE COUNSEL TO
THE CORPORATION TO TIE GOVERNOR

TdE COhfOhAVlON III TdE GONERNOR
NEW YORK Feb. g. 1875
To His Excellency SAMUEL j. TILDES Governor of the
State Of New York.
sIR-Afer the publication OF my answer to pending
charges had placed before every reading person.
sent fairly printed copy For this am accused Of
improprety and OF two judges insists that his
opinion and decision should form only portion Of
record which the other may inspect. submit that
consideration but apprehended weakness of the
case II submitted to other eyes could have suggested
course unprecedented. confident that no mod
history of public accusation records charges less
sustained by facts dependent upon mistaken
ferences, or more thoroughly refuted.
The law makes the Mayor both accuser and judge.
Under its necessary operation the Governor constitutes
the only impartial element in the double tribunal
From the first the Mayor mas repeatedly assured me
that should have an uninterrupted interview and op-
portunity for verbal exposition OF my case. Expect
ing this quite recently told him that had additional
documents TO place in his hands When the journals
given my first knowledge Of his decision reminded
him OF the anticipated interview, and he replied
by referring to the pressure upon him. Ii except brief
and detached observations which calls upon him in
relation to the public business have occasionally
abled me to make, have had no hearing unless hand
ing hin my answer is to be regarded.
therefore ask that in this paper may point
unquestonable which the Mayor has committed
In assigning the "cause and reasons" for his decision
through you before him, and additiOnal documena
frsccal The Mavor again cites the recent decision
IS the proper plsnaa in these suits lie might. With
equal relevancy, call atenaon to still recent
statute The result ii ot6 has pee sreay regret
thoriy in botn Instances have under my retainer had
m IN saae @ s or ahe eSe saySc
@ 81 syas his % any a.
December ia72 ana not the Mayor staies, in ISL
a mi IN adj mi
take TO declare The Mayor does. appointed
Of Of aay the aSD Of he e pHs his
nse rom s Srnes political NY
formers. And wtnin three months aier Inc original
.hG Snss s9s 2 ss
9 I The the by BY m the ses aeS n
opposed by It's worst members without distinc.
charge during the mors @sr'qH Hsn aO;TIa e
years oi my lncnmoency OF this once have made no
rs nave years.
Ia % hRs BEEN u SeSTs e
IN the Of the snd SS the " deSefaon OF
the courts on the question as to who state or city was
fhe best service could render to leave that four
men WIN the st.ts Counsel as choice oi AGENCIES
ans % with all 3. is
Office At Their command and undoubtedly With
would permit while nave diligently worked upon the
snssns the day when The zane Who
procured the criminal conviction Of Tweed under III
employment Of the District Attorney should obtain civil
Jud dgments under my retainer.
Real progress" has been made. he of Tweed Is
ready trial. the fruits OF diaent and udicous
IN the lands OF the capable counsel " the very
determination OF the order OF trying them The prepar
auon Is now complete, trial Immediately attainabe
and The leading case in position 70 De pressed.
that the Mayor should actually charge In these rea
what did not appear in the origipa charges at
allthat have improved what opportunity have mad
to shelter the defendants from pursuit." lt an Official
duty and personal satisfaction to concede that IN max
ing this startiug accusation the Mayor Is unqueston.
ABLY the victim either of sheer inadve rtence
or OF mendacious and malicious statements
by unknown persons whafever may be
be ITS origin (which cannot be the Mayor himself and
not Mr.. U'Conor. know the highest authority,
te documentary evidence attached both to my original
answer ana 70 this tsee postscript subdivision 81
in eonhding these eases to Mr. OConor and his associ-
sses io2wed the precedent given ey Mr Pratt The
a. the time the prosecutions were nrst insii.
tuted. see postscript subdivision 8, Necessity
OF counsel" u removed from ONCE tor any
alleged cause relating 70 these suits The mistake and
which viii hold their place the legal history OF the
papers, as follows-l Letter 20 me from Mayor wics
ham ,Feorsnary 1875 marked u Ny reply, February
In behalf OF Tweed and others July l2. ls7s marked
| isi3 marked 1. MAYOR wieSSsm Is no. Z
LAWYER and however inte gent may not penetrate the
To SIR whose legal acumen traced TO their deepest
hiding places the ndden gains Of the municipal ropber.
10 yon need not argue that the existence OF these
psfs sompistsly assS1vss an sui insrsness dsnvsd