New-York tribune., 1910-06-27
.COHALAN'S WORK ON
FRANCHISE TAXES
Official Reports to the Municipal
Authorities AnaIyze Some
of His Claims.
SMALL RECOVERY, BIG FEE
Say He Spent Many Days on
Case of Company Which Had
Already Paid It's Fran
chise Taxes in Full.

What did Daniel r. Cohalan do to earn
the $4,000 which ne claimed from the
city for legal services and disbursements
III proceedings for the review OF fran
chise assessments? The city finally paid
him $4,000 in settlement Of this ciaim-
Much discussion has arisen over the re-
sponsibility for this settlement. Ex-
Mayor Mcclellan. Mayor Gaynor, ex-
Controller Metz, Controller Prendergast-
sx-Chamberlain Martin, Chamberlain
Hyde, each points to, some one else as
the final authority responsible for hand
ing the money over to Mr.. Cohalaf, ami
the wrangle over the subject seems to-
have been carried on In entire disregard
of the question whether the payment
itself was proper and what the city got
for its money.
Mr.. Cohalan was appointed on Febru-
airy 8. 1907. by Attorney General Jack
son. to represent the State Board Of Tax
Commissioners in special franchise cases
relating to thirty-five corporations, ami
on April 3, 1907. received similar des1s-
nation concerning claims against tWen-
ty-two additional corporations. These
designations were revoked by Attorney
General O'MaIIey on March 9 and Febru-
ary II. 1909 In his deposition before
the representative of Controller Metz. on
November 30. 1909, Mr.. Cohalan testi-
fed that in these proceedings he had ap-
peared at 219 hearings before the ref
cree. at ~ adjourned hearings, at 4li
consultations with attorneys, etc, had
spent II days with experts in preparing
testimony. .3 entire days with experts
and in the preparation of briefs. findings
and questions of law. 12 days in Albany
on the confirmation of the referees re-
port and 149 days in examining reports,
tax commissioners records, etc.
Some of the cases on which Mr.. Co
halan was employed were not settled un-
til after his designation was revoked.
but have since been settled by others
Some other cases are still pending. In
these cases it may we'll be that Mr.. Co
balan rendered valuable services tending
toward the settlement, even though he
did not effect it, and of course was en-
titled to fair compensation for the work
AS to another class of cases concerning
employment on which he put in claim
and specified the amount of work per-
formed it is possible from the pubic
records to secure a fair measure Of the
services rendered and of the proportion
ate amount of his total claim which can
he assigned to these services. Official
reports to the municipal authorities as
sert the correctness of all the following
statements.
New York Central Cases.
In his deposition Mr. Cohalan stated
that he was the only counsel for the
state in the matter of the special fran
chise tax hearings, and that among
other examinations and hearings made
bv him were certain hearings relating to
the New York Central & Hudson River
Railroad Company, covering proceedings
for the years 1900 TO 1906. inclusive, in
which he says he was
Seven days examining petitions. writs
and assessments, three days examining
statutes cited by relatOr on hearings be-
fore the referee; sixteen days examining
deeds and agreements purportlng to con-
vey to the relator rights of way; i've
days examining records at City Clerks
office twelve days examining contracts
between the city of New York and the
New York Central Railroad Company,
thirty seven consultations with Messrs-
Coleman. Peters & Rand; one cOnsulta
ton with Mr.. Lyman. attorney for the
reIator, thirty-three hearings before the
referee twenty-five days examining
schedules and blue prints introduced an
evidence by reIator, and nine adjoUrpso
hearings
The records in the office of the Re-
ceiver of Taxes, Borough OF Manhattan.
and also in the office of the Collector OF
Assessments and Arrears. in the sans
borough. show that all the special fran
chise taxes levied against the New York
Central & Hudson River Railroad Com
pany, as such, on property within the
of Manhattan for the years
1900 to 1906 inclusive. were adjusted
and paid on October IS. 1905. or three
and one-half months before Mr.. Cohalsn
was appointed by Attorney General
Jackson, on February s. 1907. as dep
uty attorney general in proceedings for
the review of special franchise assess
ments.
The special franchise taxes against the
New York Central & Hudson River Rail-
road Company for the years 1900 to
1898. inclusive. aggregated S1oOStS-
Pursuant to an order of the Suprems
Court issued at special term in Albany
County on April IA, 1906. the assess
ments of 1900. 1901 and 1902 were re-
duced to 81 per cent OF the original val
nation, and the assessments of 1905.
1904 and 1905 to 50 per cent of the origi-
nal assessed valuation. and the taxes
were correspondingly reduced, with the
result that there-was a total cancelia-
ton on said years special franchise
taxes against the said railroad company
aggregating S36, ,344 H. These cancella-
tions thus reduced the tax to S114.-
563 SO. The tax as thus adjusted was
paid by the railroad company on Octo-
ber Is. 1906. in the sum total of S114,-
563 S3, plus interest or penalties which
had accrued on the same aggregating
S2S. 751 -.
The special franchise tax against the
New York Central & Hudson River Rail-
road Company for the year 1906 on
property located in the Borough of Man
haitian amounted to S24.4Of So. and said
tax was paid by the railroad company
on October 4. 1906, In the net sum OF
S24. .157 S3. an allowance or discount for
prompt payment being made OF s244 OK.
The special franchise taxes on prop
erty of the New York Central & Hud-
son River Railroad Company. the New