New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1896-05-20
,[p FITCH MANDAMUSED.
ur PRYOR GRANTS THE WRIT
'V' .sxEp BY THE POLICE BOARD.
ONLY FORMAL. HOWEVER, AND REMAINS
- ,r1vE TILL. THE APPELLATE COUNT
lNV'N -. TILL pOINrS AT ISSIrE.

-, ALIVE TILL. THE APPELLATE CoChi
PASSED ON THE POINTS AT ISSUE.
pryor. in Part 1 Of the Supreme Court
Jus, granted an order competing |oh'roner
fe' % issue his warrant for Ss4lo % IN FAVOR VI
fich " r,r Of the Police Board The order Is
the .orrnal as Justice Pryor announced that IL
neTen .o,n inoperative until the question at
soua "a 10 determined by the Appellate Division
issue r..o,oe Court He declared that he granted
o. p - 90 that an appeal might be taken at once.
pe .roceedings before Justice Pryor were the
Inv ~ the controversy between commissioner
o'art and Controller Fitch over the transfer OF
aoose n,,ice funds. Assistant Corporation Counsel
man represented the fo0e ~
n.sring the Controler'
w 49, 49, directed the Controller to make a trans
p0'|r an amount unused in excess OF what was
J" "a under an appropriation In lSsZ' ana OF an
S which was insufficient to pay certain ex-
'p.as IN 1895 chargeabe against 1t, to the con-
-. fund OF the Department. Controller fltch
ices 10 pay the amount over because 'he airec-
do co was made by majority Instead OF
ION :" vote and because the Board Of Police in
Tn ball. =. use this money for the payment OF illegal
gnu. The money was for the purpose of paying
nl-.sicb had been incurred in obtaining evidence
,a, d,sorlery houses. The Controller says that
s,,s are not lawful obligations OF the city or OF
I' no,ca Department, and that they were incurred
',,or was made for this expense the Controller
alleges tha' d ''0'"'
committed -
JUSTICE PRYOR SURPRISED.
uner o, items in one Of the bills of expense
n nh,o,npg evidence against disorderly houses
rssa 10 Justice Pryor. and he inquired: do
w. mean 10 say that any city official would audit
Wv Nils as those that have been read here? 1t is
Limos, impossible for me 10 believe anything 80
pseposterous' ~,
ia THAT Is the reason why We are here. This
80 q wanted for that particular purpose. 1t is
""oa.s.rv that policemen should do a great many
.sIrss which may not be exactly NICE but that is
.h onIv way in which to obtain evidence in these
.as.s The manner in which the money had been
nepded has nothing TO do with the legal aspect Of
the case.
aamus in order that an appeal might be made at
oncs TO the Appellate Division He would like TO
have further considered the matter. but in view Of
ina fact that a speedy determination of the matter
,s necessary, he would grant the motion.
n response TO Mr. behring's application for stay
r,l the matter should be decided by the Appellate
ny,son tho Justice said the mandamus would re-
main imperative until the question was finally
settled.
Controller Fftch's answer to the Police Boards
spplcat!on for a mandamus shows in detail the
Controllers legal objections. Briefly summarized
they are as follows:
F!rst-That the bills for the payment of which 1t is
desired to use the moneys We're not lawfully in
CURED BY the Police Department. and are not valid
OF awful Claims against the city or that Depart
sscond-That the Board Of Estimate and APP
porionment has not the power to appropriate any
moneys s h he y 81
'Thrd-That the resolution acted upon by the Board
Of Estimate and Apportionment did not receive the
o members
and that concurrent vote is necessary for the pur-
pose Of making such a transfer;
'Fourth-Thai the Board of Estimate and Appor-
Torment has not the power TO transfer approprla-
tins made In one year the Police Department
Tor certain specific purposes TO other purposes In
subsequent year.
THE CONTROLLERS SIDE.
In support Of his contention that the bills are not
hs.l obligations OF the city, he shows that they
we incurred in violation of sections 46, A. and ~
die Consolidation act, because there was no ap-
rwiation to cover the same; that the Board OF
race has no authority authorize officers Of the
police force to expend moneys in obtaining EVIL
dence against disorderly houses. and even II 1t had
such power 1t made such authorization; that
officers Of the police force have no right to incur
liability behalf Of the city, by expanding such
amounts as In their discretion may necessary,
10 obtain evidence by aiding in the commission OF
crime. In connection with this, copies OF vouchers
were exhibited in court TO show that large amounts
Of moneys have been expended by certain oihcers
OF the uniformed force in helping 10 violate the
Excise law, in abettng the commission of lewd and
vile acts and in paying large amounts TO disorderiy
women for improper purposes. He also shows that
in the case OF certain supplies furnished. such as
photographs Of criminals, contracts have been
made, as required by law where the amount OF
an expenditure exceeds 81 900 and that in the
Of many items Of less than 5000 the necessity for
the expenditure not certified TO by the head OF
the Department before the mourning Of the ex-
pense, required by section "a Of the Consolidation
act
The Controller further contends that no action on
the part of the Board Of Estimate and Apportion-
fnent can legalize these expenditures.
AS to the contention that the alleged resolution or
the Board OF Estimate and AppOrtionment was in
valid because IL did not receive the affirmative
vote Of all the members. the Controller shows that
the Consolidation act requires the final estimate
10 be concurred in by all the members OF the Board
Of Estimate and Appointment, and that II IT were
10 be held that after the making Of such final est,
mate the Board by mere majority vote couId
change the character OF the appropriations, the
sautary restraints Of OF the most important
sections OF the Consolidation act upon extravaganza
and official carelessness would be destroyed
Other objections Of more technical nature were
also presented 10 the Court.