New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1879-03-18
GUMBLETON REMOVED.
Continued from FIRST Page.

found in the undenable fact that the citEens Of New
York who present these charges made repeated Efforts
to see the books during business hours in the clerks
Office but were permitted 70 see them until
" specimens" Of them, Us stated In the answer,
were produced upon the hearing of this case The
made by the clerk in his answer for his refusal
TO exhibit them are wholly insufficient ana CONSIST
almost entirely aspersions of the motives OF The gen
tIemen who asked 10 see the books charging upon tu
political intrigue against himself know OF nothing
in the case to warrant any such impuIaion
been made by behalf Of the clerk himself
II dur to the committee say that so far as have
KnOwledEe. and 80 FAR as the proceedings before me
are concerned, these structures are wholly without
foundat The committee had most ungrdciOus task
70 perform Ih'y had 10 grappIe WIN ABUSES "H'Ou
had grown MP through many years OF endurance. 49,
the cbsrgns drectIy or ndirecv single suggestion
10 who what manner Of man should take me place OF
the allegations ~ the clerk in this respect were all true.
they would avail nothing against the paiH language OF
tn law II would give hin No right 70 SIT I'D JuHsm1h'
their motives in seeking to examine these books
Tie CLERK does the books. nor the Office when
lac holds. The oce and its contents belong 10 the pe0
pie OF tn whole county without distinction of party
Every citizen Of the county has the right under the IL"
an ofi - il,sbtd oot 10 oeneft its occupant but To
accommodate The whole public. Il any one believes OF
Suspects that the clerk IS IN any resptGs
De'rAynE MS .uSI b as Tuon 49, IVES nm no
right thai be l. neglecng to account Tor them a. to
law provides, any such person Ma a r.Eit AZ an" i,,a r.
during business hours examine those books Inc re-
usa to allow INN 10 do 80 lest lie should use the 'Oi
NATION winch he may ACQUIRE asalhst me eT gb a. boot
are correct and the o0uduc OF tue clerk has right,
le m re They arr examined the better for HUI The re-
faI - exn6 them IS therefore only violation Of
the also suspicious circumstance III ltseH'
EvAsIvE RETURNS.
81 Does the clerk unit to the Controller monthly
transcript Of accounts required TO be kept by him
verified required by section ten chapter 43-' o.
the laws Of 1547 above quOtedi
The facts presen both by the charges and the an
swer, show that this requirement is habituay Glst-
garded The accounts and their yerihcauOns whlch Ar
nd fgf ar Al
clumsy Of the law. The clerk. hnseii' III nis
answer, dsclams all responsibility Tor I4e iaItg
phraseOlOgy in which they are expressed lie claim,
that are due the person wAO held TIE once OF
Controller III 1868, ana mat me same Iofw
and yer hcatIuu nave been raJned DOtn Dy
the presrn Controller and his immediate predecessor
The r-~I.bnIy cannot thus be shifted from the clerk
to he Controller, who only authorized To direct tne
form the accounts. with the Ytrncatioh 'Hr SVl-
troler has nothing to do. It's substance is fixed by
law, to which the CLERK bound to conform. Be
sides, such affirmative ratification by tue Two CON
roers last PANIED is shown, and 1t is incredible that
there should nave been any assume that thslr alte
ton was called to The form ana VerlncAtiOn OF
these accounts which at the best mere tIaNesty vi
the the statute and afford no Jusluca
non o. any cork. The verhcatiOn Is NOT only III dIect
oi the Jaw but 1t i SO eyasye as TO Lhg
mpo,s convict The person making 1t OF perJury'
however fa.sc IL may be.
ILLEGAL CHARGES
4lh Does the clerk habtuaily charge and receive
greater fees than are allowed by law for fling, index
ing ana recording notices OF tendency Of dctionsi
1t appears from the papers before me that such no.
tees usually contain three TO five oliOs. The law
authorized the clerk charge ten cents per fOlo Tor
T.cors tle.u lis uniform charge notices OF the
number OF lOios above mentioned Is one dollar III eacI
case Instead thirty, forty or MY cents when Is he
Inc CLERK the purpose Of tustyng his cnarge ior
record NJ Offices OF the pcnieuey oi actions cas ,e
rigAt chtr-e nineteen cents Tor hung dud hdtAls
sucu note - twenty-five cents Tor certificate. As
the certificate, II is never req uIed aud never given,
there law authorizing the euaI re IoI HIIuE al
ib0exng For the purpose OF 1hsWeilLE ID par ~
charge ID regard u illegal fees Tor ming, III
dexlng and recording notices Of the pendency OF
actions. The cerA refers 10 the OLD ehauc.ry
practice, the court OF chancery, ana the lee
bill Of that court as Originally tL'aDlsntd IN .ne u
vsed Statutes. IL is conclusive answer 10 any such
cla IN rucs OF the court OF c1ahce) were due
uy the chancellor hmseiI; ana VIII nS -, We
abolished by tine Cun,tllutOn OF 1870 us powers
aud dut les Transferred 10 the supreme Court WAlch
made lis rules in lieu Of those established by Inc
chauce Tor, and tHereupou the cnancery rues became
pendlng Ia the OF chaIcery necessarily followed
The fate OF court, and was aDohshed with IT, Tue
charges winch may aVtully be made Dy any cieik IN
any vii action nXed section 3IZ OF Tie COde as
fOliOws: ,,.
On every tral, the party bringing II on, one dol
lar on entering judgment by ming transcript, Six
On entering Judgment, fifty cents except in courts
where salared officers ana IN such courts
lie shall receive no other fee for services what
ever ever 81 IN 1 e cents for every hundred words
The fee-b provided Tor III tne feVlsel 10
People ex rel. Williams against Supervisors OI Monroe
Tie charge Of ten per folio for recording notices
is fixed Dy the statute OF 1854, requiring Inc
record and no other fee authorized Ibe
statute gives cents per foil0 In addition 10 any
tees now allowed by law, for filing, lnde1lDg and
certifying the Butthere was NO such Zee allowed
NV law Is apuears the section OF the Code above
aloted, and If the charge Tor ming ana hde&lng
Tere allowed claimed the fees charged Dy the clerk
won d, III most cases, be nearly double the amount
AS ts matter Is submitted upon the charges and the
answer do not consider tn cIar-e tAa t11 Gleih To
cevrs "a COMMISSION on all moneys deposited IN court
and makes Illegal charges Tor administering tne
oath aud gyl 81 cerAes " puDie' iCi the
reason that find It difficult to determine whether the
answer 10 admIssOn OI the lacts aeseu VI
Inc fees which clerk may charge in any action are
those Superficial named and ne Is forbidden To receive
any other fees whatever III such &c lou. Inns pam
Simple and direct No one can nisunderstand IT, Much
has been said about tie uncertainty ana confusion IN
the law il regard 10 erks Iots HHu no sucn Ger
taInty. me whole difficulty comes from the vain and
useless effort find law TO excuse Illegal charges
Tlere II no sucD Jaw. anu II TiieIAD, S S t
themselves the fees fixed anu allowed by tue
statute, tney viii get into no CONFUSION. Inc
only exception To TINS remark reld'es 10 the ices
lor searches. regard to wnch there mas been and
some division opinion. The case OF Curtis against
Mon r 6sth n y, was referred 10 as EXPRESSING tIe
opinion Court Of Appeals tbat the law was very
obscure and unsatisfactory IN legad 10 the charSes
which erks had riut make But that case related
simply ana entirely 10 hs one question IN reeari 20
searches and upon that question the court was divided
the decslOu elhg pronounced ~ u.s.,
Allen RapaO dissenting TIE case mas not the re-
Much stress laid upon the allegation that the
clerk does charge more and in some cases not as
argpd Whether this be OF not Is not material III
The disposition OF this The question not what
he law justify Inn. Nothing can be- worse than TO
excuse official abuses ground that they nave ben
lo praclseG SuCH practices never correct ut nselVes
They grow worse as they progress. Renewed rom
fine restraints newcomer Is Jrhpted 10 ltn-
prove upon the Illegal txactous OF ms prrdece' sOTs he
transfers allegiance rom the law 10 ms poo ket ana
drifts further and further from the Restraints OF MS ON
cial oath II pubic officers sworn To obey the law am
TO discharge their trusts ~ accordance with liz
provisions Wllfuly and STEADILY dlsubey 1t for selfish
ends obedience to II be expected irom c1tzen>
VINO art office 7
"a BOLD AND HABITUAL vIoLATOR.r
Its not claimed that any officer. any more than any
citzep should made suffer for any trihng, casual
or unintentona infraction of law But where public
officer stands out bold and habtual vOlator If the