New-York tribune., 1875-02-24
important parts Of tho letter OF Mr. oconor VINO" ro'r
to the Corporation Counsel;

r.
rae Hon. WILLIAM Ii. WIcKHAh Mayor OF We wy |"
Neu- Fork
SIR: Having perused the answer OF the Corporation
Counsel, proceed. in compliance with your desre' 10
communicate such suggestions thereon As seem key 70
be useful. For brevty, may use the phrases nink
and City Ring" grown 90 familiar Iney arc nos
necessarily reproachful or offensive Tho word hne'
as used IN rotical parlauce means simply united
circle OF individuals engaged in some object enterprise
OF pursuit In this communication 1t refers 10 tne io"
persons who controlled our City Government III is'I
great distinction may justly be made between 'ne"' ~.
II has never been established that moro than TWO VI
them fraudulently received any public money or had
actual knowledge OF any such fraud OF even oo'o"P
neous notice OF its commission
l. The respondent once held writing which distinctly
offered for release OF certain Offenders LUIS
paper should be Immediately called for ann paceu Ill
safe custody SO to be accessible to the city au-
thorities.
THE MODE OF COLLECTION OF UNPAID ASSESSMENTS
O. The ordinance governing in sarkweathers case al
lowed two per for assessments returned as uhpau
after two personal demands for payment nave oeen
made by the Collector or Deputy Collector STARK
weather divided with Tweed Barber, ana others' DIS
fictitious deputies $4,000 as commissions on assess
mens that were and could not have been made the
subject OF personal demand even once. much less
twice.
Aside from other objections. this one is insuperabe.
The amount was received from Controller Connolly
and the insists that cannot be recovered
back Tue result of proposed suit can never be more
than matter of opinion and consequently no more can
be said. touching the respondents prop9st%oh, DILL u 10
that il seems be The counselor wnon nc
consulted certes that Connolly knew an tne iac.'
and paid voluntarily he thinks the CITY S,s
position, and IN c. Feldss case page 81 tne 0ona &
appeals distinctly r1o paVment WITH knowledge
the sound and well established But as agast M
snbc ocer without sutbority or In Of
law. united States vs. Hunter, Peters NJ Io' 'on"
son United States. Masons h. A0, tll
ought absolutely TO control In this matter ana ne
therefore offers to bring you request It, Rightly
and necessarily this offer is accompanied by sugges
ton that in such other counsel must be
by you and paid by the city TO perform his onea duty
In conducting the suit and in advocating it,
This seems Acknowledgement that he couio ho' "o'
The inference is iTressi6c his great intelligence
could not fail 70 recognize IT. 1ecasssv @f So' '0"0
REFEREE CASES.
In respect TO Baird but one OF the facts
stated in your letter is questioned, and that Is the ap'
proprate coincidence in time between the release OF the
referee from the Jones AMI the motion TO reer the
Baird case Your statement is strictly and hterany
true the attempt TO impeach 1t fails totally. The re-
spondents before mentioned letter to Mayor have
meyer expressly states that the motion to discharge
tLa, referee from the Jones heard January H.
1874 Notice of the motion to refer the Baird case was
given on the sh Of that month for the l9h. Tne
coincidence perfect What inierences are @
from it or from any other uhoemeu or iu'i' po'ou vi
cumstance is for your considerauoh ,...u .
Not as one OF the charges; ha D9I Soldna Sy the
respondents gift, a public office under the City GOV
ernment was chosen referee ID seven hst one Of these
seven was referred prior 10 the time Oh tat gehto
mans appointment TO ONCE srnnc nTu of ibe
dents practice is thor reby materially weakened. Inc
difference between six and seveD III such conuecuon
| hardly deserves notice.
\
The only other charge that the Court OF Appeals
having OF June Q, 1874 denied the existence Oh any
judicial remedy against Tweed, except tho suits then
pending in the respondents department., he failed 10
take any proceedings In those suits for hve mohths
thereafter. This charge is specific and precise 1t Is
easily understood, and man OF common Intelligence
who will keep his attention fixed upon the designated
| period must see that 1t is completely suOstantatea'
| Bearing In mind that complaint is made against
the respondent FOL the OF Tweed at any
time prior to 1874. 1t will readily be perceived
answer prior to that date have at most
but an ineiden'a 10 oaH Even a. to that
their tendency admits observation Their real office
formed in all cases. BY prox recitas of irrelevant cir
cumstlnces They Overtask attention, draw u away
from the true point inquiry and embarrass minds not
intimately conversant with the subject IN al lts details
Approaching then the true inquiry was te prosetm
alluded 10 1t is TO be observed:
Department on the 9th of June, 1874 had been com
menced by his predecessor in October; ISL one was
by the city No step has been taken in that suit
beyond serving summons, does any step in IT ap.
pear have been necessary or proper Ine uecslo o
he highest court so often referred indicates that
the suit by county only that be success
| fully prosecuted All that has been said or shall be
here said touching prosecution prosecution
of Tweed by the Department subsequently to June
1874 relates to the county snit Conhnng ourselves
| to this last-named suit will conduee TO cearness
| ASSOCIATE COUNSEL DISMISSED FOR MOVING IN THE
| CASE
On June 1874 the county suit at ISSUE ready for
trial and on the calendar Mr.. Peckham the only per-
son with whom the respondent conferred in relation to
this suit states that immediately after The decision in
the Court Appeals in June 1874 he proposed to bring
it to trial. and positively forbidden to do 30 by the
respondent the slept OF course until at some
date not precisely ascersned but certainly subsequent
TO the 9th Of November 1874 correspondence took place
between those gentlemen, seeming to authorize Mr..
Peckham to proceed BY its terms this did not necessa-
r refer to the case agao IN Or nenae eep ony be
matter OF conjecture. Mr. Peckham construed as re-
Dceber 1st he took steps to push the case against
Tweed trial Almost upon the instant the respondent
tber bnsipess Of the Law Department THIS was late IN
December, 1874. the respondents acton since your
charges served upon hin cannot properly DO no.
ticed.
O. 1t will be seen that with exception all the
resnondence with any of those concerned in the State
suits annexed 10 the respondents answer bears date
prior June g. 1874 or subsequently TO Nov 1874 or
corse each letter refers TO the condition things
pg at its date That exception is the correspond
ence marked Sam. T. between the respondent and Gen.
Barlow dated June "A and 49, 1874 Its inception was
GEN Barow's letter of June 1874 which the respond
ent has produced That correspondence related 10
set of suits for what are familiary termed |" Ring
frauds" the against Stark kweather being one OF
them That correspondence originated In Gen Bsrow's
desire to prosecute those particular suits 1t did not
relate TO the suit against Tweed consequently that
respondence does touch the point Ia hand Its only
use show that TO the suits against Starkweaer
and others, not including Tweed. Gen Barlow cvinced
the same readiness to prosecute that Mr. Peckbam
hbted In relation to the suit against Tweed Their Off
ciousress was treated with the most unexceptionable
inpartIaty. Both were dismissed at the same lime,
/. C., Oh or after Dec. 80. 1874.