The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1899-07-12
half a Million from Taxpayers.

When the present State Constitution OF
New York was amended In 1894 new and
more efficient methods against improvdent
legislation were provided. No bill could be
passed by the Legislature unless 1t had
been printed and put upon the desks OF the
members, in final form, Eat least three
calendar legislative days before It's final
passage" In instances Of local meas
ures, imposing obligations or establishing
regulations In which the members OF the
Legislature generally might be expected to
have but little concern. 1t was further pro-
vided that after such bill had been passed
by both branches. the house In which 1t
originated should Immediately transmit
certified copy to the Mayor OF the city az
fected for n public hearing, and he should
return it either approved or rejected.
Under these circumstances 1t Is dlsquiet-
ing discovery that since June there should
have been filed with the Comptroller OF New
York $26, 900 OF claims for reimbursement
OF counsel fees and expenses incurred by
officials in defending themselves against in
dctments which were dismissed, and these
claims put forward under the terms OF
law OF which the legal and financial repre-
sentatives had no knowledge and the Mayor
was never enabled to approve or reject,
law which seems to have been adopted
somewhat surreptitiously Still more dis
quieting Is the knowledge that other suits
OF still larger amounts have heen filed. and
It Ia computed that the city OF New York
under the terms OF this law may be mulcted
without recourse for from $500 900 to
100000 for the alleged or allowed ex-
III n a ~, "a
Ahearn law so-called.
When public official in the proper dis
charge OF his duty had been unjustly sub
jected to the costs OF public trial on charge
Of which he was acquitted, 1t may not seem
unreasonable for the city, whose servant
he is, to be called upon to reimburse him
for his OUTLAWS in justifyng his course or
defending his title. In great majority OF
the cases where claims for reimbursement
have been filed, however the defendants
were clearly culpabe and their expendi-
lures were made for the purpose OF evading
trial In some Instances the statute of
limitations was found to be operative in
others, the defenCcS interposed were wholly
technical in others still, the absence OF the
complainant was relied upon, and in yet
others, because OF the complasant act OF
District Attorney in moving dismissal Of
the indictment without trial. the liberty Of
the accused was never put In actual
jeopardy. In one fragrant case the viola
ton of law was undisputed and the accused
was relieved from the penalties attached
only by the Intervention Of a succeeding
Legislature.
The dismissal Of a criminal indictment
found against delinquent public official
may be fortunate matter for the accused,
but it does not Justify the shifting Of the
burden OF his expenses upon the taxpayers
OF the city II private citizen is unjustly
accused, and Is subjected to expense in
defending himself. there Is no provision Of
law whereby the community should be
taxed for his counsel fees and disburse-
ments, and there appears to be reason and
wisdomNin the intention ascribed to the
Corporation Counsel and the Comptroller
to resist by lawful means the payment Of
these claims by the city.