The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1876-03-29
LAW DEPARTMENT,
OFFICE OF THE COUNSEL To TUE CORPORATION,
A.-.. d.

OFFICE THE COUNSEL To TUE CORPORATION
NEW YORK, March ~, 1876 J
To THE HONORABLE THE ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE or
GExrLEMEy-I have the honor to acknowledge the
RECEIPT OF certain resolutions adopted by your honor
able body upon the 9TH OF March, inst, making GER
tain inquiries with regard 10 the reasons that infu-
quenty introduced into the House, entitled can act
relating assessments for the construction OF sewers
and drains in the city of New York. F"
Before answering these detail it rs, perhaps de-
sirabe that should explain the circumstances which
render the passage Of this bill expedicnt The theory
OF The law, as doubtless well understood Is that In
the construction of sewer the municipal authorities
agents for the owners of the particular property
benefited, and not agents for the property owners
OF the whole city. The city advances the necessary
and the work TO be done expecting TO be
repaid bv the imposition of assessments under the
property benefited and IT, for any reason, the assess
ment falls the taxpayers in general bear the loss In
respect to the question has quite recently been
raised for the first time, whether ordinance OF the
Common Council. authorizing the work in each case,
has been necessary the validity Of all
for the construction OF entered into
passage OF the charter OF 1870 The practice in this
regard has been loose IL never having being supposed
that ordinance was necessary.
The assessments Tor sewers now outstanding and
collected amount TO S2,0I3,479 "a. The amounts
which have been advanced upon contracts for
in progress or in which no assessments have as vet
been imposed reach the sum OF 1894 O42 20 making a
grand total OF SO 2G7, 52l "a This amount the city
has expended Tor the payment of which the assess
ments Tor sewers are the only security very large
proportion OF this whole amount would be lost the
city IL should be held that ordinance OF Com
mon Council has Tor the last five or SIX years been
necessary
Upon my accession to Office in August last advised
the Commissioner OF Public Works that the question
had been raised and, while entertained the opinion
thai ordinance not required still that Il
desirable, with regard to future contracts TO incur
such a risk. He concurred with the importance
OF changing the practice Of his department. and no
contracts have been since that time made am in
formed, which we're liable TO this objection. After
conierrng with the Mayor and Comptroller upon the
subject J. at their suggestion, drew bill with regard
TO these sewer assessments removing the doubt This
bill copied after the acts Of 1872 and 1874 with ref
erence to assessments, which acts. models have
this merit that they have been fully sustained by the
Court OF Appeals.
II is true that It may he said that these assessments
legal and need act and It is possible that
the courts may finally hold; but there IL at
doubt and the city will be compelled TO 60 through
OF litigation before II Is settled, unless the Lcgsla-
turc shall remove the doubt
Already a. many as forty proceedings have been be-
gun a single day 10 vacato assessments upon this
ground Before drawing the bill the subject OF the
pending and uncomplcted contracts was fully consd-
cred With regard 10 them this situation exiss:-Tho
city had made parlia payments upon these contracts,
amounting 10 several hundred thousand dollars before
the question TO The necessity Tor ordinance had
been raised but, when the point was taken, further
pay mcnt upon these contracts stopped until the
question should have been disposed oi Unless they
arc legal the city never recover back the money
advanced and they have all been let 10 the lowest
bidders al public letna after ADVERTISEMENTS know Of
no reason why they should not be lcglzcd The only
crit cIsms that have upon these contracts
10 he elect that some Of them being prop
orly performed but toe proposed bill would have no
bearing effect upon the question OF performance
With this preliminary explanation Of the circum-
stances out OF which ihs II has grown | proceed to
answer 30 detail The inquiries addressed to me
The nrst inquiry ls Who SUBMITTED the bill 90 me
and upon whose application made the ndorsementg
Answcr-lt was'submitted TO me by Mr. Cole, my as
sisiant IN charge OF assessment business and who
TO have some action BY the Legslaure at his
request Endorsed IT,
The second inquiry is Whether under the recent
decisions IN the cases Of Brown vs. The Mayor and
Nelson Jr vs. The Mayor. The effect Of this bill. "
passed a low, would not be 20 authorize tho Com
missioner Of Public Works 70 procc' Of his own mo-
lion IN ali works relating " sewers drains and cu-