The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1879-12-31

Total. II, $50
The presentation of the above led to lively dis
custom Mr.. French inquired II the Board had any
power TO pay such bill. Mr.. Hawley replied that
no moneys had been appropriated for such purpose
for several years. Mr.. French remarked that he
thought 1t proper the bill should be paid and moved
to have IL transferred to the Board of Estimate and
Apportionment, with the Endorsement Of the Police
the manual which covered the present case. Mr..
Hawley expressed q different opinion. The practice
had been to defend by counsel an indicted member
OF the police force, II Counsel to the Corporation
tho Police Board thought the peculiar nature
of the case warranted such proceeding. Mr..
voorhis inquired il Captain Williams had asked the
Board to supply him with counsel. 10 this Captain
Williams replied that he had requested permission
from the Board to employ counsei OF his choos-
ing. This granted. In the civil action tho
Board had referred the papers to Mr.. Whitney. Mr..
Haw,ey said that formerly there had been appro-
priation to cover such expenses. Mr.. French moved
that Captain williams communication be referred
10 the Board of Estimate and Apportionment with
request that sufficient amount be provided to
cover and defray the bill.
POINT.
Captain Williams stated that his analogous
60 that of the Board OF Excise Commissioners, when
Messrs. Merkle and Morrison indicted and tried
at the Court of Oyer and Ierminer. The expenses
of their defence were betrayed by the Board OF Esti
mate and Apportionment. This was also true In the
case the indicted Board of Aldermen. From
such preccdcnts Captain Williams argued that
similar disposition should be made of his expense
account. He official of the city government,
also indicted and also honorably discharged and he
thought 1t but just that he should be refunded ut
least portion of the expenses attending his Defence
He did not include the expenses incurred during his
trial before the Police Board. To this argument
Mr. voorhis replied that lnasmuch ms Captain WILL
Jams had neglected 10 have his referred to the
Corporation Counsel that he might DO furnished
with legal assistance In his defence, and
the Captain having taken the responsibility
OF employing private counsel. he (Mr. Voorhis)
thought IL would be opening the door for abuse to
grant Captain williams demand for remuneration
for legal advice and other expenses during his
cent trial. II such course were taken like license
should DO granted to patrolmcn and captains and
other police officials under similar circumstances.
Mr.. French dissented from these opinions. Ho
thought the present one o peculiar case. Mr..
Wheeler inquired of Mr.. voorhis II he tMr. voorhis)
saw any difference between Captain williams case
and that of tho Excise Commissioners. This inter.
rogatory was met by Mr.. voorhis replying
that captain of police requiring legal SER
vices had a counsel paid by the city to APP
ply to in such cases. MIR. French replied
that that argument equally applied to the Excise
Board. Mr.. MacLean said there wide differ
ence, rs the Excise Board not chartered body
and therefore could employ private counsel Of their
own. Mr.. French replied by saying that he
garded Captain Williams case exceptional one in
every respect. In the first place public opinion was
manufactured against Captain Williams to an extent
never known to Mr.. French before. With him it
was of life and death. He therefore pressed
his motion to refer the bill to the Board OF Estimate
and Apportonment, with request that sufficient
sum DO provided to defray the expenses therein
mentioned. Tho motion was lost AIessrs. French
md Wheeler voted in the Affirmative, and Messrs.
voorhs and MacLoan In the negative.