The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1875-02-24
THE MAYOR And THE GOVERNOR.
Mr.. Wickham's Final An
swer to the Governor.
CHARLES O'CONOR'S VIEWS
The Testimony in the Cases of the Corpora
ton Counsel and the Fire Commits.
sioners Sent to Albany.


ernor argued to show that his request LOT the
testimony in the cases OF the Corporation Counsel
and the Fire Commissioners VINO were removed
by the Mayor was Just and proper one. With
this answer the Mayor not only sent all the testi.
mony taken In the cases OF the removed ofncias,
but he enclosed a letter addressed TO him by MIR.
Charles O'Conor, in which that eminent LAWYER
gives his opinion upon the defence made by Mr..
Delaned Smith against the charges preferred
against him py the Mayor. A portion OF MIR.
O'Conor's letter was made public some time
ago, but that part which referred to the case
OF the Corporation Counsel has not heretofore
been published. The following is the letter.
MR.. CHARLES o'coNoR's LETTER TO THE MAYOR.
NEW YORK, Jan. 49, 1876
Hon. WILLIAM q. WICKHAM, Mayor OF the city OF
New York;
SIR-Having perused the answer Of the Corpora
ton Counsel, proceed in compliance with your
desire TO communicate such suggestions thereon
as seem likely to be useful. For brevity, may
use the phrases 'Ringn and ''Clty Ring" now
grown so familiar. They are not necessarily re-
proachul or offensive. The VOID "kng,'' as used
in political parancc, means simply united circle
Of individuals engaged in some object, enterprise
or pursuit In TINS communication 1t refers to the
four persons who controlled our city government
IN 1871. great distinction may justly be made
between them, for 1t has never been established
that more than two OF them 1rauduenty received
any public money or had actual knowledge Of any
such fraud or even cotempora neous notice OF its
commission.
!. The respondent once held a writing which
distinctly onered $4,000, 900 Tor release OF certain
offenders. This paper should be Immediately
called for and placed In sale custody SO as to be
accessible to the CITY authorities.
2. The ordinance governing in Starkweather's
case allowed TWO per cent Tor assessments re.
turned as unpaid after "two personal demands for
payment have been made by the COlect or or
Deputy Collector" Starkweather divided with
Tweed, Barber and Others his fictitious deputies,
$3.50 900 as commissions on assessments that were
not and could not have baen made the subjects of
personal demand even once. much less twice.
Aside from other objections this one is lnsuper-
able.
The amount was received from Comptroller
Connolly, aud the respondent insists that 1t
not be recovered back. the result Of proposed
suit can never be more than matter OF opinlon,
and consequently no more can DO said touching
the Respondents proposition than that 1t seems
TO be erroneous. The counsellor wlom he con-
suited ceitlfes that, as Connolly knew all tue
facts and paid voluntarily, he thinks the city is
concluded
il this oe law, all prosecutions against the Ring
and their associates, except perhaps Connolly
himself, should lie once abandoned. But
the authorities cited by him do not sup
port his position, and IN 7. G. Fields case,
page 81, the Court OF Appeals distinctly over.
ruled 1t. Inc principle that bar resultssrOm
voluntary payment with knowledge OF the iacts
IS sound aud we'll established but, as against the
government, 1t does not apply to payments made
by pubic ofncer without authority or IN CONTRA
vention OF law. UNITED States VS. Hunter, s
Peters r., 1877; Johnson VS.. United States, s
Masons r., 440 441.)
Starkweather's enormous and unlawful draught
from the city Treasury, as q subordinate, was d.
vtded by him with q set OF fictitious deputies
one OF them being Tweed, chief III the existing
and VIGOROUSLY corrupt city government.
That Connolly, another oil these corrupt Chiefs
knew all the facts and yet paid voluntarily, could
hardly be defence, II the common law has any
Claim to be esteemed ''tne perfection OF reason.u
In MS official letter OF November 10. 1874 to May or
HaVeneyer, the respondent argues That STARK
weather received TINS mOuey In good Ialtb. that
position does not seem TO be now insisted on.
The respondent properly comedies that ais iudg-
ment ought not absolutely TO control in tns
matter; and ne, therefore. offers to bring suit II
is accompanied by u suggestion that. IN srcn
event. otner counsel must be designated by you
and paid oy the city to perform his otcial duty IN
conducting the suit and IN advocating 1t.
This seems an acknowledgment that he could
not act as counsel Tor tie city this large case.
Tue inference Is irresistible; his ereat intelligence
could not lall To recognize 1t. Tns TACT alone
would seem to render MS removal necessity.
3. In respect to the Baird case, nut one OF the
facts stated III your etter is questioned ana that
Is the appropriate coincidence 10 time between
the release OF the Ieieree rom the Jones case ana
the m0lon TO reier tae Baird ca Q. Your state
ment IS strictly and literally true; the attempt TO
impeacn IT lalls totally. Tue RESPONDENTS before
mentioned letter 10 Mayor Havemeyer expressly
states Jnat the motion 10 discharge That reeree
IRON ,he Jones case was heard January IA, 1874.
Notice vi the inOiion w reier tue balrd case was
given on the Sth OF tnat same mouth or the i9tn.
the coincioence Is perfect. What inie ences are
deduclbie from II or rom any other undened or
luily proven circumstance Is for your consluera.
ton.
4. Not as one OF the charges; but incidentally
your letter suggests that Mr.. Harvey, wnlle nolG.
ing. by the responde is gilt, public Office I'M
der the CITY government was chosen referee m
seven cases me respondent has SHOWN quite
clearly that one OF these seven was referred
prior TO the time OF that gentieman's appointment
TO ONCE. 1T Is not perceived, however, that your
objection 10 thlS brancn OF the respondents prac-
tlce Is thereby materially weakened. Inc diner.
ence between six and seven. IN sucn connection,
hardly deserves notice.
8. Inc only otner charge is that the Court OF
Appeals having, ON June 9, 1874, denied the ex-
lstence OF any judicial remedy against rweeo, ex.
cept the suits tneu pending III the respondents
department. he Jailed u take any proceedings In
those SUITS iOr I'VE months thereafter. ms charge
Is speclfc and precise. 1t is easily understood,
ana any man OF common intelligence wno will Keep
MS attention liked upon the designated period
must see That 1t is compile ey suosiantlated. 1t
mas no relation whatever 10 auy time except the
lhdlcaged i've months between June ana Novenl.
Der y, 1874; nor rs the slightest Complaint made
against TIE respondent Tor any supiueness IN tnis
respect at any time prior to Jane O. 1874. In COM
meutlnK upon the eva>ive policy OF the Ring
rema keu That the local suits gotten up by them.
serves against themselves were quietly ''nursed
along" wnle the states suits were strenu ,usly
resisted Though TINS was deemed su taoe as an
argument against leavinV their dppointee 10 con.
trOl OF Inc department winch was charged
with tHe prosecution OF the suits against
tnem, IL had no connection with the
speclnc charge assigned cause for the re.
mOval. II tue respondent intended TO vlndlcate
sneir motlNes anu repeI ms imputaion upon them,
MS acts ana MS correspondence with the Attorney
IL mi lima Al IS-
might be relevant, and persons VINO ala not give
very close attention 10 the whole history OF this
business might reach conclusion mat tue Ring
poHcy was greatly ana crueiy misrepresented
But these prior acts anu correspondence are
wnoly irrelevant, as a deencs nf the respondent
from the specific and only charge made against
MIN III this conneclion-to VII, tnat rom the time
II became proper and necessary Tor nm 20 prose.
cute iweed he wholly laled 10 do so.
bearing IN minu tnat no complaint Is made
against the respondent TOR the non prosecution OF
tweed at any time PRIOR 10 June o. 1874, 1t will