New-York tribune., 1899-07-29
WHERE THE CONTEMPT LIES
ALDERMAN p TECUMsEH SHERMAN ON
THE MANDAMUS PROCEEDINGS
AGAINST THE ASSEMBLY. 4.

ALDERMAN P. TECUMsEH SHERMAN ON
THE MANDAMUs PROCEEDINGS
AGAINST THE ASSEMBLY
To the Editor OF The Tribune. III
Sir: I request the favor Of being allowed ~
say few words In your columns in regard to
the pending mandamus proceedings against the
Municipal Assembly, concerning which the pub
lie rests under a complete misapprehension. At
the meetings Of the Council and the Board OF
Aldermen Tuesday last there was served on
each body a peremptory writ Of mandamus
commanding them and each Of them and their
members to vote forthwith affirmatively on an
ordinance authorizing the issue OF certain bonds
to pay for work on the new Hall OF Records
The writ was by It's terms returnable August
q. The ordinance referred to had originated
in the Department OF Finance Uhe Controller
offce). had passed the Board OF Estimate and
Apportionment. and was pending In the Council,
where II was held up" 1t had never come be-
fore the Board OF Aldermen
do not know on what grounds the Council
men opposed IT, but there were ugly rumors
floating around concerning the contract for the
work and the action OF the Corporation Coun-
sells department in the matter, and. as a men,
Der OF the Board Of Aldermen. had determined
that when the matter came before us I would
demand some explanation and particulars. and
II the same were not furnished land particulars
and explana tions are practically never given to
us by the departments). TO vote against IT, This
would perhaps. have been Illogical and tech
nically wrong as we have nothing to do with the
contract But one does not like even Indirectly
to approve OF what appears to be fraud.
To return to the Municipal Assembly last
Tuesday The Council is not composed of law
yers; they did not give proper weight to the fact
that the mandamus directed them to proceed
forthwith. but thought that they had until the
return day, August 81, TO act. They accordingly
adopted resolution calling the writ extraor-
dinary. as It was requested the advice Of the
Corporation Counsel. and directed him TO move
to set IT aside. This resolution subsequently
passed the Board of Aldermen. and has been
signed by the Mayor. Surely there was no de-
liberate contempt OF court in this
In the Board OF Aldermen the condition was
still more extraordinary When met did
not know that this writ applied 10 us. as the or
dinance was not before US; 1t was therefore q
dramatic surprise when. at the opening Of our
meeting this peremptory order Issued on the
consent Of our counsel. read. commanding
us to forthwith vote affirmatvely ordi-
nance not before us and on which could not
lawfully vote We could not originate or
dinance then and there. for the charter pre-
scribes that such ordinances must originate in
the Department OF Finance. be approved by the
Board Of Estimate and Apportionment. and
only thereafter and when transmitted To us can
vady vote thereon For us TO have drawn
up proposition in the terms Of such an ordi-
nance and voted on IL would only have been
trifIng with the court. for such proposition
could never become a valid ordinance. but
would have been absolutely void and useless.
The Corporation Counsel, our legal adviser had
favored US with no advice on the point. but had
left us to our own resources: to have applied
to him then for advice would have been useless.
for his department has never promptly respond
ed to our requests for advice.
We therefore did the best could. and adopt
ed a resolution requesting the Controller
promptly to prepare and forward to us a proper
ordinance to enable us to comply with the man.
date Of the Court. In all our debate and pro-
ceedings there not word OF disrespcct OF
the Supreme Court. There was. however. con-
siderable contempt expressed for the Corpora
ton Counses department. in which expressions
heartily Joined. | believe that it was probably
proper that such mandamus should be Issued.
and find no fault with the attorneys who applied
for It. But It was not issued upon the Judgment
or OlSCrellOn OF the tOuIt, Dut upon inc SVHEhe
of the Corporation Counsel We do not trust
the judgment the motives OF his department.
IN such matters We do not believe that he
should have allowed this writ. commanding US
instantly to do an impossbty, to descend on
us with his consent and without consultation
with or notice or warning to US.
His department either knew that this matter
was not before US or could have learned the fact
e,,lt finp ryft /
knew it. believe that their failure to consult
with and to advise us was breach Of the duty
which an attorney owes TO his clients. From all
the circumstances OF the case am forced TO be-
lieve that the Law Departments action In this
matter was dictated by improper motives; that
the object was to create false public impress
sion as to our conduct, to hold US up 10 puoilc
odium and to subject us to personal annoyance
and inconvenience. It was simply piece OF
personal political byplay to the galleries Ana
the members Of the Board Of Aldermen. without
regard to party or personal character. educa-
ton or ability, resent IL accordingly.
do not mean to say that the members or tne
Municipal Assembly are perfect or are all ac'u-
ated by proper motives. do believe that 'he
Municipal Assembly should be deprived OF many
Of its present powers and one branch OF II aoo'-
ished. But do not believe that II is fair TOT
the public to sympathize with the Law Depart
ment in this matter. And II they do so am
sure that it is in ignorance Of the facts, ana
without a correct idea as to what are the de-
partments OF the city government in which tho
greatest opportunities for corruption and wrong
doing really exist.
The Law Department is one of the most dan-
serous departments In the city government. IL
deserves, therefore. TO be carefully watched'
and not to be placed upon a pinnacle ana Hs