New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1886-06-17


-------------
THE ATTORNEY-GENERADS BLUNDERS
Mr.. O'Brien, the Attorney General, has given
ont an interview with himself which is in some
sort a reply to the charge preferred in these
columns that he is using his Office to hinder and
not to help the speedy and proper settlement at
law of the various disputes arising out of the
Legislatures annulment of the Broadway Sur
face Railroad Company. His statement Is
really confession of all that was alleged, and
not a clever confession either. Designed to be
a defence, it practically acknowledges that he Is
engaged in an attempt TO take out OF the CITY
hands the functions imposed upon 1t by what Is
known as the Consents Act, and to place them
in the hands of that other Mr.. OBren, the
chairman of the Dem ocratic State Committee
the general contractor, the Aqueduct builder and
the receiver of the Broadway Company, so that
this Mr.. O'Brien can secure harvest of fees,
commissions and other pckngs from the pro-
ceeds for the use and sale Of the franchise,
which otherwise the city would obtain without
expense.
The Attorney General makes two blunders.
They would be bad in layman, but they are
inexcusable when coming from the legal olbcer
of the State, who is being slyly doomed for
Judge of the Court of Appeals. He says that
" the moment the bill annulling the franchise of
" the Broadway Surface Railroad became law
"a its property passed into the custody OF the
State" to be administered upon and dis
tributed to whom it belongs that To this end
u the court has appointed a receiver OF all It's
"prpperty," and that among the parties in inter
est is the city of NewYork If Mr. OBrien
really believes this, he should lose no time in
reading the laws recently passed, for he is
wofully misinformed.
The first act simply killed the Broadway
road 1t dissolved the corporation and re-
pealed its charter. In other words, it executed
the criminal, and then the question arose as to
the disposition of his effects. The Legislature
proceeded to divide the property into two
classes The first was the franchise, commonly
called the consents 1t is more or less gen.
orally supposed that the franchise was annulled,
but that is a radical error. On the contrary it
was preserved, and the second act passed pro-
vided that it should be in way impaired, but
should "be sold at public auction by the
municipal authorities" The Attorney General
will please observe that in this act there was
not word about a receiver. The franchise
was returned to the city and placed in the GUS
tody of its officers, who were directed to sell it.
But the strangled corporation had other prop
erty besides franchise. 1t had cars, ties. rails,
and other things. Seven days after the Legis-
lature had disposed of the franchise it pro-
ceeded to take care of this remaining estate. 1t
directed that the Attorney General should bring
an action I" to wind up and finally settle the
affairs of the company; that receiver should
be appointed who should cause an inventory of
| A. offoc TO no a1n hat he
should sell them at public auction to the high
| est bidder, pay the cOmpany's debts, and having
done that, be discharged by the court. 1t takes
no vast lore to see that this property which
the receiver is ordered to inventory and sci
does not include the franchise, because that
had been handed over to the city seven days
before with explicit directions for its final dis
position. So that when Mr.. OBrien, the
Attorney General, says that the other Mr..
| O'Brien has charge of all the property to which
the city is party in interest, he makes ridicu-
| lous blunder.
His second mistake, also the result of igno-
rance, is in miscOnceiving the purpose and
effect of the city's suit with which he presumed
to interfere. Elsewhere we print an interview
with Mr. Lacombe in which he rather brusquely
exposes Mr.. OBrien's misconceptions and leaves
the reader to wonder what sort of an Attorney
General this is who goes about meddling with
actions the papers of which he has not even
read The city's suit was in accordance with
its duty and concerned the franchise which be-
longed to it and over which the Messrs O'BIien
have no more authority than street boy. Let
Mr.. OBren, the Democratic chairman, content
himself with his aqueduct, his contracts and his
five maroon colored cars, and not try to grab
| what does not belong to him.