New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1877-10-25
THE PROCEEDINGS.

THE PROCEEDINGS.
Senator Hamilton Harris, of Albany, was
nresent until Mr. Taintors examination was begun yes
tcriay and went away soonhiterward Alderman cow
ing opened the proceedings by saying; Senator Hhrs
has left his home at Inconvenience TO be present
and meet such accusations as his unknown ana uh-
named accusor shall bring against him.
Mr. Cole Mr. Tweed at the last session after having
made some allegations concerning Senator Harris SAID
that those allegations could be susantiated by man
whose name could he handed up 10 the committed Inc
name was John Brilccford, OF Albany subpoena was
served Brdgeford in Albany, and he came ~ TINS CIV
last night. him, and he then Informed me that he
had been advised By his counsel IN Albany moi 10 appear
before this committee at TINS time He said be would
leave statement in the form OF letter to the COM
mttee"
rrho letter of Mr. Rrdgeford is addressed to the COM
mftee and states that by the advice OF Henry " smith
ana Mr. Moct. attornies ut Albany he declines to
appear for the present but by the time OF the next se-
sion ne will have collected the af layts and figures
going TO show that tine money which he received from
contractors was divided the commissioners, ana
will furnish proof that will fully cOTobo!ate all that
Mr.. Tweed has said relative to the Capitol Commits
sion]
The committee directed the procuring Of an attach
m,nt to secure Mr. Bd3gcford's attendance.
Mr. Taintor was then called. He testified that he bad
been emooyed by the Finance Department TO inycs'-
gate the ring frauds and reheaIsed many pifllcurs
dence IN tic hands OF the prosecution ""u' nave SHOW
that Peter g. Sweeney participant IN these frauds
Fully so 100000 bad been stolen from The treasury
during threc years ana = nan III "plO. tt' ms
nuurisncd. lie gave tue following lst of suits De-
Against the Broadway Bank, Thoma, W. Roe & CO.,
Joan O'Dounell, Alexander Brandon, Morgan Jones,
Archibald Hal. r Daniel Bcrran, Edward Mariner
and auotA,r (1lrnor Is sine dcccaseG Geo = Nil er
and Wn. VI. Tweed Jointly James 4. Monaghan, ID
ward Jones * Coz and VIM G. Rogers ~ Co. jointly;
VIM. Haw, H., Edward \. Moore, and Forbes HoIlnd
Henry ". Gcnet, tue estate 81 Cha' Nanlcrvoort VIII
It,iYI 4 al
ward, the estate OF Watson, Cumming H. Tucker Peter
D.. swecuy j. W. smith, Conou, and Walsh;
When asked what lawyer rcurrsenieI the People or
dhe Maio t AZ e,cn' 1 I ZEN rsc and the '.cs
were in tho lands the Coz po.dtlon Counsel Mr. Car
mad TIE ease against the nroad"ay BanH Mr. Peek
against O'Dounr Archibald Hall ir aud .iandon ihe
Corporation Counsel nat against Morgan Jones ana jr
Carer was retained associate counsel Mr. Carter
was retained IN tn suits agdnst Berian, Georgr :.
Miller and WIN. NJ Tweed. Ia me CASE against Mona
gnlu. Peter Starr counsel In the Mayor against
Edward Jones don't know thai the complaint was ever
smith, In TIE ease OF the People against VIM. q. Rogers
il was counsel. In the People AGAINST
Moore and FORBES Ho land 1t was Nh Peck
cam. In the or the People against Genet
il was john L. Parsons; in the Mayor a-alns' Wand
voorl, Mr. Peckham in tHe same against j. W. smith.
TM, Ri a Gn red Mr Pcc&an aud Mr. Garter
counsel Ibceve IN che SUIT oI the People against
ha; IA tue People agnsi Tucker Barlow &OIney rcope
against Sweeny, Ms Peckham aud . /. Nash; fcople
against Conan. discontinued day or two agO, BARLOW
A Olucy; People against wheeler, sane: People against
Connolly, and People against Woodward MI ftcAiiaih
PRESENT CONDITION or TIE SUITS.
O-Do YOU know the present condition of either Of
these suits, and when they besuni A-Thc Mayor
against Broadway Bank begun IN July, 1874. don't
think IL has progressed great ways. The SUIT aga nst
f. W. Roe & Co. was commenced IN the same Summer. aud
u'arY ready for trial, believe: The M1'Or against
OD1unel was commcuc q about the same Time thInK
it h"cu found unpronabie 10 pursue the caso-ot
from lack of evidence bus merely from The expense Of
the thing ana me lnpCuudiy character OF me Gcitd
aut. The Mayor against Brandon begun in 1874 That
is sufficient evidence to base the claim upon. ani
/ think tie defendant is responsible. The case of
the MAYOR against Morgan Jones vas begun Nov mbcr,
1874, ana sunp"se " VIII soon ne rcAP ior lllt IN
the ~ the Fcnuc against Hail. ir. tie defendant is
.I,,,t'- -iIc, no b.-lufIps OF th, .f i'm 1874 In
The sut Of The Mayor against Bcrran. commenced at the
Ire ,r'' evidence upon which the city based It's
claim has been or VII be used in defcn-
siye proceedings ON behalf % the city. There is
au offset claim, winch Bc.an brings. Tie ,UIt AGAINST
Edward Mariner and another fwced wa- begun in 1874
aud Manner dIed 90 the rlIlug of 1,96. dunt know
whcor De- lcfay estate or not he STOLE enough money
sourtiug left Ia tue siit a. ,a.,rea Miller
ana VIM. VI. Tweed some arrangement vas made with
an '.rr,p5epent 6v fbr Al 0rrrr Cirn.rtif =
Yes or those representing lin. think That salt
based dpJu certain frauds connected with the aqucGuct
Tre amount m suit j. sjOOoOO The .ut o, the Nayor
aan9f james 4. aona.hir was tcsuI in ISL and 50
far as / am concerned II II ready fOf rial. Monaghan
undrr So 900 bonds t. the civ In the other case
against r W Roe a Co., the defendants are under 5000
bonds jointly In ,hc case u t1c Mayor against Edward
Jones < Co. the summons was served in tho Autumn Of
1874 II the hands ~ the Corporation Counsel and
he IS defending brought by them to
more claims Of ne came cai'cer IL Is The same VITA
GLOW about the case against Nm. A. Haw. Edward
Moore aud Forbes HoIandi A.-Tnat wa, begun in
August, 1874 don't know why nothing has been
done III that rae evidence 'ss been worked mp.
Genet was begun, TANK, in 1874, but d. t know
wnat mas been done. think n MAS an inquest There
was 40 appearance on beuaii ~ Genet ana JUDGMENT
was rendered Mneihcr tlecty ever covered ANYTHING
from uIs property at Harlem DONE know. In the
of the Mayor ag Naudevoort, the evidence against Van
dcyuO.t been used } tlr rlit IN ls defence against
proceedings brought by his administrators. aud don't
think II hts bccn utl4ed ~ thc way 81 pr"srsShs thai
action. The OF the Mayor agt j. w. smith
gun in 1872. II is matter that should nave been
pushe, FAR as can judge but what the egal mpedi-
Is are don't know. lhc case oil the P.op" agt.
Allen IL stevens begun last January. I'm the case OF
the People AIT The Estate ~ Watson, there was OBJ
tnnei, by settlement, 800 I3J %.
Q-Was not there some more To he paidf A.-No, sir.
Ci.-Has II all been recoycIedi Ayes. sir.
Q-IloW much OF hat amount was actually paid over
S32 900 understand the rest was all paid over 10 the
cty mink II paid over IN Two instruments by ihe
AttOrne! General
COST OF TIE SITS To THE CITY.
Q.-This statement. which furnished me from the
Controllers Office, reads as follows:
January a. From estate 1875 "a
January g. From Woodward on accouDt.-.. 100 900 90
Less payments for expense by Attorney j263 81
Amounts paid INTO CITY Treasury SOS 2J7 %
Less payments Tor expenses by city ...--- 'hG'7 -
Actual amount recovered. 49, 80 IS
Statement Of The amount Of moneys paid Tor abilities
counsel fees expenses ana otherwise IN the " King
suIts:'
Payments from City Treasury from March Is,
Is72. 10 Match ?, 1876 ......tl 1908 ~
Payments by Attorney General from March IL 10
September 10, 1916. ......-............. 32Gl2 -
Total payments. III "a
Total tIu,Sgg
TOTAL pay .@',TIl %
Balance. g. l3S IS
o-What does ha' which is here spoken Of as payment
expenses Of the city OF NeWNOrK meant Al mink