New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-08-24
c0NTR0LLEK HOPKINSS 4lSSAIL4NTs.
THE ALBANY JOURNAL II REPLY 70 IHE UTICA OBJ
sERVkR-ALL TIE CHARGES DENIbD.
From Tie Albany Journal (AcIj

From Tie Albany Journal (ArPj 1900
The very full statement which we published
on Thursday in explanation Of Controller Hopkinss con-
nectiOn with the several appropriations referred TO- IL re-
conclusive There are. however few exceptions. inc
rroy Tirses and The Ctco Obsere are not satisfied
T1e Timer still receives a fact the charge that IN tno
case of the New-York ard Canada Railroad Appropria-
ton the agents % me SodRny wgpe rge" ~ tc te
right kind of an opinion from the ATTORNEY -Dfnerai,
b riroad Mr. Hopkins sci Mr. Davis service,
for which the railroad paid Nj. DAVIS $1,000
In anljcp.finn OF a formal document from the repre-
IN II! az re En- which will alrear i'm due TIME
we can only meet this statement OF The Times ~ an
explicit denial, which make upon the very best a-
51Jty The Controller had nothing 10 do with the
employment OF Ar Davis in this ease than lad te editor
of The Times. II he was employed Dy the company rep
resentaGiyes, they employed him upon their own
motion. II matter which in no way concerned the
T51 Ttca Observer makes several specific charges which
are equally unioundcd. Among them Is tAis mat me
Controller mad the verbal opinion OF Inc Attorney eneIl!
I'm favor of the Baxter claim, while he was holding such
conversations the following with the gentleman to
whom the claim had been assigned;
Contr Her HopknsI cannot ASK the ANNOUNCEMENT or
li Nj 1l" Van pyck-How then sit be obtained
Controller liopkns-Io mgnt:se IL t0dSh m frlend MI
p1 NE have the utory Of Mr. Hopkins saying that
Mr. Van Dyck, or with any other person. This denial
should be received conclusive. The obserrer adds
FINALLY Mr a NAN ai IT ranc y Thayer or s The
untrocr Mr.. Nelson H. Hopkins or by nOlh htsr olcrfs
tsi he could reasonably hope 10 get his money un o
The only ground that me Observer can nave Tor this
statement is. that from the time the Controller discOv
cred that the act did not contain the appropriation
ause ne had SAID that he would only draw his warrant
fr this Baxter appropriation under OF two cOndi
ions either the written opinion OF thh attorney
General that the law valid. or after the law was
nrudd so as the doubts which existed In his
mind in regard it's validity. II the amendment hal
becn waited for the could not be paid until after
II Wos so amended. But the favorable written
npniOD of the Attorney it could be paid AZ
The onniou was giveR and Of course delay ensucd.
What is there in these facts 10 justly this assault UpOn
the personal and official integrity of the Con-
IrOlcri
The Observer says further;
thai when the Attorney General IN
formed herein narrated lac sought te
Controller Indignantly charged HIM with circulating the
Islander that his official could 10
rure pecuniaTy considerations and that aT
~ X Judge Pratt not been speaking terms with Mr.
Hopkins. ~, 80,
" e DO not of course, know from whom The Observer
has derived lis Information Du tic Controller
himself conscious Of suc interruption Oi intercourse
To all appearance the relations of the two gentlemen
remain ms they ever been. 1t IA certain If the
feels AT al indignant At anything the
Controller has said done, that he has never yet given
expression 90 his Indignation.