The New York herald., 1877-10-02
FAIRCHILD TO CoyKLING.
The Attorney General Returns the
Rochester Fire"
A FIERCE "OPEN"LETTER
Giving the Lie Direct to the Senator-
Money Recovered.

Denial or Incapacity and Ex-
travagance.
ALBANY. Oct I, 1877.
The following is tho open letter Of Attorney General
Farchild TO Mr.. Conxhng, which was given to the
press this afternoon
OYricK OF THE ATTORNEY GxsERALl
or Tug STATE OF NEw YORK.
ALBANY, Oct. !, 1877
TO the Hon. Roscoe CoxkLISG.-
srR-ln speech, now famous, made by you to tho
atc Republican Convention held Rochester you are
reported TO have used these Just words:-
The props.y Of dsnonneias d,, ana o.rpns at a%n'rs
eve to- be unus, - pnSc ocias II 10 n nbc pS
officers are en,ed 10 prssmmpons In tnsr favor and
cug, never 20 be coudemnca unit! they and their
You chairman OF tho Committee on Resolu-
tions OF that Convention, and such chairman re-
ported certain resolutions and stated that tncy had
becn unanimously adopted By your committee There
upon tho Convcntion, doubtless trusting your Wis
dom and usual accuracy upon questions OF nc adopted
tho resolutions so reported by you, and they be-
the platform upon which tho republican party OF
the state OF Now York stands. The ninth OF tho
words
The sea rspS,' p Of the p" .orHsy made
4oooc in cs,ra foes prosecutions in which
return any made s.ss-s record S ~SieS sS
merits public rcbukc dem apds be placed
In more capable and successful hsnos.
Tho statements OF facts in those words are
false, anu thor alsehood viii Do by any ono who
DO found in Assembly document No 81 OF the Assem-
bly, OF 1877. Further, were the facts assumed To he
enc. that It is oes,gnei shall 10 drawn rom them
would % s..!l be aise...aas , inference being ,ha.
OF this whole sum Of "ncarly $4O,O00.n IL
may be said that your resolution docs not
state that the "prcscnt Attorney Gcncrap rs rcspon-
sible for This expenditure OF 'neariy $40 0O0.n IL
does not but tho intention clearly is that tho ordinary
reader shall understand Tho writer OF the resou.
ton evidently chose his words that II might bo 30 un-
dcrstood while tho language did not literally say 80.
For this have that inference that IL Is
designed shall be drawn from this resolution IS ma
icousy false This careful construction Of tho rcso-
luton shows that II was not ignorance which prompted
this lalsehood, but willul mnlicc.
EXPLAINING ACCOUNTS
rho Attorney General replied to tho call OF tho AS
account ~hich showed every cent OF money that had
boon paid by ths State during the two years ending
no
The total OF this amount Is $39,oo5 TO- IL
shows that not moro than $4,000 was paid to coun-
sol retained BY the present Attorney General
that not moro than 900 was paid 10 counsel Tor
services rendered in any TO the present Attorney
General, no matter by whom those counsel re-
tanned; that than $4,000 paid 10 counsel
to assist the present Attorney General OF pre-
manner connec,od Win the oiice Of tho Attorney en-
crai; that not moro than ST.. 900 OF expense
Cured BY tho present Attorney General In all for
counsel fees experts foes and tho OF ali
In conducting tigations and prosecutions the most
complicated and difficult that the Stale has ever
been engaged In. This includes all tho canal sus and
prosecutions, proceedings against county reasurcrs
savings banks insurance companies and corporations
Of all kinds; In short, all the expenses which tho
Attorney Generals office incurred at time whom tho
business Of that onico has beon many times greater
Or 70 bs IN many Of hoss
ings AZ illustrations OF tho falstv OF sho inference
sought 10 bc drawn from tho false statement oi fncs
call your attention to Of tho items which
make up this account
SAMKs AND DATES.
On the 18th of May, 1875, there paid 70 d. Rum
scy $3.50 services rendered upon the retainer OF
Attorney General ChampIan during The years 1865 10
| 1871 Thore was pad 10 William j. Hadisy ami n h
Hoxss in June ana july, 1875. Sa572 Is ior costs IN
actions brought by Attorney General Champain and
! which tho courts had decided were not well brought
before either the ''prcsent Attorney GensraI' hts
predecessor In tho Attorney Goncrai's oncc md
which costs the Legislature Of 1875 made appro
priaiion There pnr 10 Hon. Henry Scudder on he
18th OF November 1875 900 for counsel fees In two
suits 10 United states courts 10 ascertain the boundary
y ens,s epa IN
al the request Of Hon bradford Prince the
zcns VI Long Island and specific appropriation
made for hts payment BY the Legislature There was
paid 10 Hon. ". H. Hughett, Of Auburn on January T.
1876, $500 for services before certain commisso
appOnscd by resolution OF tho Legislature relative
10 prison dam at Auburn. Mr.. Hughelt having been
employed by the State Prison INSPECTORS, believe:
certainly the .present Attorney General" knew no,h.
1876 TO Henry r. Mygatt, t522 SO; Mr. Mygatt having
been retained by the Commss' oncrs OF Land Onioo
In 1870 certain proceedings connected with the
Binshamton Incbriatc Asyluua and appropriation
having oceu madc for his payment by tho Lo
So, ,l2S II for recovered in tho action oi
People vs. Wearo c. Little, and appropriated by
tho LEGISLATURE OF 1915 This action was brough,
cldod that the action was not wcll brought. and
with this action tho present Attorney Gcnernl
had no connection whatever, except after rho
State had been mulcted these costs, Ia trying, as
Deputy Attorney General, 10 got them reduced and
mtcc Ways and Means OF the sisla, ,ure OF 1876
that In his judgment this amount OF costs was enor
mously excessive, and that an appropriation should
not DO made for such amount bat that commit
In ITS wisdom did, however insert such an approprM
tion into the supply oiI 50 minglins with ap
preparations that could not be vetoed Certainly TO,
this the "present Attorney General" cannot ..meri
pubic robuke" OF a very severe nature.
Smith Of this city services s"o a. Sn nepy
assist tho District Attorney OF Albany county upon the
trial OF Charles Phelps, tho dcfaucr IN tho State
Treasurcrs ONCE, Mr. smith having been selected and
appointed BY Governor DIX. On inc same day there
was also paid TO Mr.. smith 81, 900 for assisting the
District Attorney OF Cayuga county upon the trial o
Michael Donohue tor murder; both these sums hav-
Ing been specifically appropriated TO Mr. Smith by he
on the 10th OF May. 1875 there was paid to Hon.
Francis c. Barlow 81 900 Tor services counsel
timed BY Attorney General Pratt to assist the District
Attorney Of Suffolk county In tho Kelsey murder case,
this sum having also been specifically appropriated TO
General BARLOW by tho Legislature Of 1916 On tho
2bth OF May tncfe was fJ,OOO 10 H. H. AnureWs
John Cndman, retained by Attorney General Pratt
at the request OF the supervisors Of Columbia county
IN the cases OF People VS. Acker, People vs. Rodgers
and People va Moore, and specifically appropriated 10
| those gentlemen by the Legislature OF 1876.
| There was paid to D. NJ x. Johnson on May 81,
1876 368 80 for rendered upo3 the retainer
o, Attorney General Pratt In trying certain charges
against George Benedict Shcrn OF Oneida county this
sum also having been specifically appropriated TO hr
| johnson by the Legislature OF 1876 These sums
aggregate ovcr 500 600 Of tho contained In tho
Attorney Generals account and for their expenditure
lstx~ f.ane nS a
Than are YOU SIR, and the account In question shows
that he Is not.
THE ''LrE prREcTp
There nre many other smaller items In this account
OF tho same character which all go to show the Iasyy
of the intended inp cation Of your resolution, That
the record OF tho present Attorney GeBeraP Hmcrits
public roDukcD because OF these expenditures, evcn
tho statement OF the resolution true, that this
report ,sshows the olcc oi tho Attorney General
besides its regular costs has expended nearly $40 900
/ In extra fees prosecutions in which not one Of
lender has been punished not ono dollar recovered
and no return OF any Kind made TO toe Statc.b But
tins statement Is false. not only IN IT'S implication, but
also literally fnsc.
/ onlv fcv AZ tl,o xrk,