New-York tribune., 1896-04-02
PLAYED ON FOUR JUDGES.
MIsREPRESENTED AS FAvORING THE
OBRIEN CLAIM BILL
JUDGES ANDREWS PECKHAM. oBRIEN AND EARE
QUOTED IN SUPPORT OF MEASURE rHn
PROVISIONS OF WHICH THEY PROBABLY
NEVER KyEw-THE BILL HURRIED

PROVISIONS OF WHICH THEY PROBABLY
NEVER KyEw-THE BILL HURRIED
TO THIRD READING
tyRoM THE REGULAR CORRESPONDENT OF THE TRrBUNSl
Albany April 1.-Some extraordinary letters
were made public here to-day They are from
eminent judges, and they favor the payment Of
John OBren's aqueduct--york claims. amounting
to s6500000 against the city of New-York.
They from Justice Peckham, OF the United
States Supreme Court, recently Judge Of the
State Court OF Appeals and Chief Justice An
drews, Judge Denis O'Brien. and ex-Chief Judge
Robert Earl OF the State Court OF Appeals.
It Is obvious that Judges Peckham, Andrews
O'Brien and Earl have been lured into approving
a bill which they would not understandingly
support The judges may we'll feel that they
have had their confidence betrayed. Apparently
they had in mind Just settlement OF o. Brien's
claims against the city. The bill In question.
introduced by Senator Burns. OF Yonkers. and
Assembiyman Horton OF Wayne County. and
not by representative Of New-York. does not
give the city an opportunity to defend Its in
terests up to the court of last resort. The de-
csion Of commission OF three persons to b
appointed to consider the Claims OF o Brien Is to
be final. The city cannot appeal to the ,2urts
against any unjust decision Of the Commission.
THE BILL "RAILROADED."
The judges referred to also have cause to feel
aggreved over the way In which the lob" con-
taned in the bill has been pushed in the Legisat-
ure Senator Burns presented the measure on
March 20, and managed to have It ordered to
third reading the same day. The bill then went
to the Committee Cities. but being on the order
Of third reading 1t could be passed Immediately
II the committee should report II favorably. In
the Assembly, also, II been rushed to the
third-reading order.
In the mean time the authorities Of New-Yorh
have analyzed the measure, and to-days New.
York newspapers contain a strongly worded pro-
test against the BILL signed by Mayor Strong.
Corporation Counsel Scott Controller Fitch,
President Duane. Of the Aqueduct Commission:
President Barker, OF the Department Of Taxes
and Assessment, and President Jerooman. Of the
Board OF Aldermen They protest against giving
a commission of three persons, appointed by the
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court abso-
lutte power over ss5OOOoo of claims against the
city.
The Senate and Assembly Committees on
Cities heard arguments In fav.f Of the bill yes
terday from ex-Attorney-General Tabor lately
a member of the firm of Tabor & Sheehan Cwill.
lam F sheehan), and from o. L. Kellogg Of
Cortland. The bill, OF course opposed BY
Corporation Counsel Scott. Neither committee
made any report.
JUDGE PECKHAMs LETTER.
Assemblyman Horton said to-day: Il should
not have introduced the O'Bren Claim bill ex-
cept for the letters Of the Judges OF the Court OF
Appeals In its favor" Judge Peckham's letter
Is as follows:
Supreme Court Of the United States.
Washington, d. c.. March I, lS96
My Dear Sir: My examination OF the OBrien
aqueduct case, when was in the Court OF AppealA
led me TO think that while the judgment below was
undoubtedly right the law and would have to
be affirmed. still / not at all convinced that
the contractors had claim In equity, not In the
strict OF that word, but in the sense Of .
claim TO the fair consideration OF the city for
pensaton for work performed. although by strict
construction of the contract the city had legal de-
fence to all claims The contract ironbound
one. and left all to the decision of the engineer Of
the city. 1t did to me that there might be q
calm for some work which, In fairness the city
examination OF the facts by competent and fair
commission appointed by some impartial tribunal
Work done in the aqueduet @ but ali that WAS remeded
by the contractors as md 1t. under direc-
vestigaton of the matter rs proposed;
To the Hon. George s. Horton
WHAT JUDGES ANDREWS AND O'BRIEN SAN
Associate
O'Brien wrote the following letter:
State OF New-York, Court Of Appeals
Judges Chambers
Albany. March 9, 1884
Dear Sir: In reply to your inquiry. we think 1t bot
fair 10 say that in the recently before the
Court involving claims against the City of New.
York by contractors for constructing the aque.
duct 1t was apparent that they had done consider.
able work for which they have never been paid.
The majority of the Court OF the opinion that
no relief could be given them by reason of the
stringent provisions Of the contract. While the
courts were powerless In the matter, We think the
claims sought to be enforced, some OF them at
least, OF such an equitable nature as to war.
rant the Legislature in looking into the matter in
providing for such relief 10 them may seem just
and proper. Very truly yours
CHARLES ANDREWS.
Chief Judge OF the Court OF AppeaiA
DENIS O'BRIEN.
Associate Judge OF the Court Of Appeaia
To the Hon. George S. Horton.
LETTER OF JUDGE EARL
The following letter received by another
member Of the Legislature from ex-Chief judge