The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1898-06-21
COLER AND WHALEN.
Comment on a Pending Law Gaze.

To TIE EDITOR OF The SUN-Sir: The
difficulty which has arisen between Comptroller
Coler and Mr.. Whalon. the Corporation Coun.
sci, concerning tho claim of the westchester
Water Company against tho city Of Now York,
which is to be determined In court this week,
brings into prominence, quite opportunely, a
matter that has been awaiting settlement for
some time. 1t is this: Is tho Corporation Coun-
sci. tho law officer of the city, an advisory or
executive oflcer7 Are his functions exercised
subject to the wishes of his client, tho city of
New York, or 10 ho q public official superior to
his client. represented in the disputed wnter
case by the Comptroller, the city's financial
oflcerl The charter says:
Tho Corporation Counsel shall have charge and
conduct of all the law business of the corporation
and its departments and boards, and OF all law bust.
ness in which the city of New York is interested"
Comptroller Coler refused. as the city's hnan.
cial representative, to audit a certain bill
brought against tho city. and thereupon tho
Wcstchester Water Company took proceedings
to collect, and Corporation Counsel Whalen
confessed Judgment as tho city's legal officer.
reasonaSly, 'f' thInk. Il that ty Il t Gee e ne nfSs; Sni of
the several Gepertments can be set aside and
ter becomes in fact an executive officer, and,
really, the only executive officer, q sort OF des.
potic court OF last resort. For a number OF
years this has been q disputed point, md there
has been no practical settlement of 1t, though
there seems to be ono likely now in the deter
minntion Of this case. Usually IL has happened
that the Corporation Counsel and the CoInptrol.
Ter were in accord. but such docs not appear to
be the case now, and a judicial definition OF the
powers. and the limitation Of the powers, of the
Corporation Counsel is therefore probable.
1t seems TO nethat tho powers OF an agent can
never be broader or greater than those OF the
principal. IL u private individual waA sued by
a water company and he engaged q lawyer 10
defend him, alleging that he did not owe the
amount, and the lawyer. undor tho retainer OF
the defendant, proceeded TO confess Judgment
for 1t. l am strongly of the opinion that the view
which the courts would take OF his action
would not BIO favorable, and his proceedings
would be regarded as unprofossional as
well as unwarrantable. Wherein, IL at
al. the Corporation Counsel, who has the
torney who has a private individual for his
client. remains n question for official determine
ton. but the fact Is to be considered that there
arc many thousands of persons in each year
having business with the city OF New York and
dependent upon the Comptroller's office for pay
ment. II. Comptroller Color Is correct in his
view Of tho case. as quoted. those persons who
have claims difficult to enforce will not be
barred from their recovery by the refusal OF tho
Comptroller to pay, whereas IL Mr.. Whalen is
correct 1t might serve the interests of all claim.
ants to accept the Corporation Counsel, rather
than the Comptroller, as the city's real disburs-
ing officer. A. NJ.
NEW YORK june 90.