The evening world., 1893-12-07

of Mr.. Beekman. It will be seen that he
makes no reference whatever to Mr..
Beekman's. second opinion taking back
not SO much the question as what does
Mr.. Clark mean by writing one opinion
where the HerZog signal system. a
patented article. Is the issue. and writing
dozens of opinions on the same subject,
quoting the same section and putting
the very opposite construction upon 1t?
VIII nc explain why 1t Is that the law
department OF this city has one law for
the signal system to prevent a contract
from being awarded to a successful COM
pctitor, and another law for every other
s MhS, Under GT f tSese Very W Spinio me 'S hs
allows the city to drop behind every
other city In the country; that he insists
on policemen leaving their posts un-
covered while parading prisoners through
the streets, that he gives opportunities
for the commission OF murders and all
sorts OF crime? VIII he explain even,
where Is the politics of 1t?
at the many opinions which Mr.. Clark
has written in his time. but there is one
which n one who takes the trouble
the testimony taken before the Fassett
bered Exhibit 80. page 2.552.
1t is on the same question concern
ing the purchase Of patented supplies,
under the very section which in the
opinion above set forth, he says can
only be purchased after the Board of
Estimate and Ap~portionment has pre-
however, had been made by the Fire
Department, not the Police Department,
and no obnoxious Herzog signal system
was at stake. Read this:
NEW YORK. March IL. 1890.
Law Department. Once OF the Counsel to the Cor
The Honorable rheo, " Myers. Comptroller.
sir: | have received your letter of the Ith
inst. inclosinE advertisements Of the Fire Depart
t-ant for r,tNR tor Entukt ,AIS lI.al a..
hose, Maltese Cross brand also Eureka f!e.hose
brand. You also asked whether. in view Of the
such articles can lawfully be purchased without
conditions having first been prescribed by the
Board Of Estimate and Apportionment to secure
reasonable opportunity for competition. The sec
ton Of Consolidation act to which you refer pro.
vides especially to patent pavements and the re-
pairs thereof. Similar inquiries have been adj
dressed to the Law Department on prior occa.
sions, and 1t has uniformly been held BY my
predecessors that the conditions prescribed in the
repairing Of patented yemen and do not In
clude the purchase of other patented articles,
among others. are the opinions to which ! refer;
|. 10 Finance Department, Jan. &c, 1867 tJan.
20, 1876 A.. in relation to the purchase of patented
fire hydrants.
.. To the Commissioner Of Public Works, Nov.
80, 1871, in relation to patented ventila,ors.
3. 10 the Department OF Charities. Feb. 3. 1851,
in relation to patent valves and traps supplied
to the new insane asylum.
4 To the Fire Department. Jan. &c. 1873. in
relation to patent hose.
3. To the Board of Education. July 20. 1881.
in relation to patented furniture and copyrighted
articles.
1t will be observed that one OF the foregoing
opinions relates 10 the purchase of patent hose
by the Fire Department, and is therefore a direct
precedent for the purchase now proposed.
am not disposed to depart from the interpreta-
tion of the section In which my predecessors
you that the bids In question may be received
and the contract awarded without invoking the
action Of the Board Of Estimate and Apportion-
rnant Nn,trG rpsneCtfnIly
WILLIAM II. LARK.
Counsel to the Corporation.
BY comparison of the dates of the above
opinions 1t will be found that the last
Beekinan's first view of the signal sys-
TENS defeat. Mr.. Clark might say that
he was even wong on the opinion last
quoted. but even that loophole Is not
left for his escape. Since his opinion on
the signal-system question he has written
others. holding the same Interpretation
regarding Fire Department supplies.
1t was when these two opinions were
shown to Commissioner. McClave that the
latter held up his hands and said to an
Il know all about It. / have seen the
opinions. but what are we to do? The
Corporation Council is the legal adviser of
the Police Board, and We must take the
law from him
1t may be interesting to state here
that Mr.. Clark has positively refused to
near the HerZOg side OF the story. He
has been written to a dozen times in
vain. He has delayed explaining even
what the Board of Police should do under
the circumstances He has practically
deadlocked everything, ever refusing 10
answer letters addressed to him.
Here is the concluding paragraph Of a
letter written by F. Benedict Herzog,
Feb. 20, 1891, requesting Corporation
Counsel Clark 10 grant him a hearing:
This opportunity becomes all the more
necessary to u in view Of the fact that
we have reason to fear that your con-
tdenCe has been or will be abused to
our detr.ment, as the conspirators Who
nave e~ndeavored to blackmail us from the
beginning. and have from time to time
succeeded in obtaining the cooperation of
various city officials to that end, have
at the present moment an active agent
in your department in the person OF one
of you own assistants
How long will the city tolerate such
interference from, Mr.. Clark, or Is II that
Mr.. Clark is obeying the orders or
others ?
Can he explain why he failed to inves-
tigate a charge put before him in writ
ing before he wrote that famous signal
system opinion that there was a con-
spiracy to defeat justice, and that even
in his own office men were engaged In
that same conspiracy ?
Did he ever reply to that charge except
to indulge in a few choice adjectives as
to what he would do with certain per
sons II they ever dared cross the thresh-
old of hi2 office ?