New-York tribune., 1907-01-08
JACKSON BEGINS SUIT.
SEEKS TO GUST MAYOR.
.McCIoLans Counsel Calls 1t Start
OF Reign of Riot"

r Hearst was legally entitled to the same
The difference between this proceeding and the
one brought laet week, in which Mr. jackson
was en5oined by order granted by Justice
Fits. OF the Supreme Court is that It is brought
IN the name OF the people Of the State of New
Ycrk. whereas the other was in the name Of Mr..
Eearst It also differs from the preceding action
In the important respect that If Mr. Hearst had
lost his case IN trying to oust the Mayor the
expense OF the proceeding would have fallen on
him, while now IL will be saddled on tbe Stat.
OF New York
Eugene Ii Richards, jr, counsel for Mayor Nc
Clellan, said last night that a quo warranto pro-
ceeding to count ell the ballots would cost the
State Of New York 100000 Mr. Richards
charged that the Attorney General "forsoo,s III.
dignity Of his Office" and violated his oath ~
once 10 maintain the law, and inaugurated a
reign Of riot"
summons and complaint in the action were
served on the Mayor yesterday at the Citv Hall
by William A Deford who was one or NJ
Hearsts political managers in the 1as+ cav,
palsn- MT Deford is a deputy attorney gem
eral uhoer MI. jackson. having been APPOINTED
on the personal request OF Mr. Hearst
DECLARES HEARST WAS COUNTED OFT.
The complaint declares fatty that at the cleo
ton in November. 1905. Mr. Hearst was duIv
Of Ner
York 1t is further alleged that ballots legally
marked for Hearst were counted for Mcclellan
ny the inspectors Of election. and that these mis-
counts formed the basis of the returns NJ tba
vote. 1t is charged that men rot entitled n
vote were allowed to vote for Mcclellan and
mat IN many other ways the election laws were
violated at the 1905 election. Votes cast for
Hearst. 1t is declared, were not counted in a
number Of districts
Ian and the legal votes which 1t is asserted
were not counted for Hearst greatly exceeded,
but by precisely how much the plaintiff is un-
able TO state, the difference between the votes
for the defendant Mcclellan and the said
Hearst says the complaint. ''Notwithstand-
ing the election of said Hearst the complaint
concludes, George B. Mcclellan has usurped
and intruded into and unlawfulIy usurps
and holds the office of Mayor"
II is demanded that Judgment be rendered
upon the right Of Hearst to the office and also
upon the pretended right of the defendant Nc
Clellan thereto. and that it be adjudged that the
defendant Mcclellan has just legal right
70 hold said office. and that he has had no such
right since January 1. 1909; that the said Will
lam Randolph Hearst was duly elected TO the
Office Of Mayor and has had since January i.
1906, the legal right hold the office for the
term OF four years from that date"
The final prayer is that George B. Mcclellan
Be ousted and excluded from said office. and that
the plaintiff Ghe people of the State Of New
York; may recover of, the defendant the costs
and disbursements of this action" The COM
plaint is signed by Attorney General Jackson
Mr. Richards of counsel for the Mayor. when
seen yesterday afternoon at his office. in Will
lam street, made the following statement:
An eloquent partisan at the recent Buffalo
convention said that. 81 the present condition
CioverToc impending. tn making A choice De-
-v,a.n Totferre4s cd riot re preferred riot.
To riot IS 20 be- guilty OF Teuton and unre-
strairet fehs TOR. the description OF the orator
tilat of the tearst followers at Buffalo. He
nominated his ticket, and "Fingy Connerss
rsyrers-,t4;f.e Urur II fell 10 the office Of At
toFney Geu+t@;. Did the orator have a vision7
IN ttin orderly ccurse of justice it had been
deEerniared Etst a suit against Mayor Mcclellan
the titis u mis- office ought not In reason
arrived at 5y the Republican Attorney General
after most careful inquiry. He refused 10
permit the Mayor 10 be harassed and oppressed
ry suit in which only failure could be anttci-
psttd upon the part of his office
At the invitation of the succeeding Attorney
General. Mr. Hearst was asked TO renew his ap-
pIication to have action brought. which he has
done. Tnen Mayor Mcclellan asked the court
whether the new Attorney General had the
power to reverse the decision of his predecessor
the same facts. The court has made
order and issued is writ OF prohibition against
the Attorney General. forbiddng him to deter
mine the question involved. viz. whether he
has the power TO reverse his predecessor and
The Attorney General Immediately thereafter
determined that he did have the power, and has
brought the suit There appears to have been
restraining hand upon him. After the writ
was served ne Immediately came to New York
snd sought the counsel Of Mr.. Hearst and of
his attorneys They advised a defiance of the
courts great writ. rhe Attorney General for
sook the dignity Of his office and Of his own
autonomy. violated his oath of Office TO main
tain the law, and inaugurated reign of riot
What hope of Justice does there remain 10
any tigant. let alone the Mayor Of our city.
when the chief law officer of the state In his
first important act, overrides the authority of
the courts?
Mayor Mcclellan is certainly justified In hes
itsting to submit any right of his 10 tribunal
SO reckless. outrageous and riotous as that or
the present Attorney General.
so rec kless I'm his conduct, contemptuous OF
the law, only of impeachment might
adequately deal. and the sooner the better
The preference or riot TO "rottehness NAB
yet 10 be de;nonstra ted.
Furthermore a conservative estimate or the
Of warrantO action 1nVolNlnS uic
contest OF an election where six hundred thou-
sand votes cast. is the sum or sZoo'Voo;
This expense the Attorney General has sadoied
upon the state IN his effort to befriend Mr.
Hearst by the bringing Of the action In ms own
name and NOT upon the relation OF Mr.. Hearst
Does tho taxpayer think this is rottenness cr
riot?
II the Mayors counsel desires to delay things
q viii be fully sixty days before he Will file
final answer 10 the complaint. The Hearst peo-
pie hope to be able in the mean tire to nave
appointed commissioners 20 begin the recount
O; the ballots, but this rlove "!ll be opposed by
the Mcclellan men. II can be stated on excelieht
authority that so far quo warranso pro-
ceeding Is concerned. the Mayors counsel VIII
find gey 10 appeal the case from time 10 tlme'
and u necessary, carry II 10 the United STATES
Supreme Court. Many lawyers declare the law