New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1910-05-05

the check from the warrant 1t is never
detached, and every one knows that the
check and warrant constitute practically
one instrument. After the Chamberlain or
his deputy has signed the check, the war
rant and check, with the accompanying
papers, are transmitted TO the dlsburse-
ment clerk of the Controllers office for
delivery to the payee. and no considera-
ton Of the merits of the claim is given in
the Finance Department on the return OF
the warrant, as it passes through the
hands Of no employees except the disburse-
ment clerk and the clerk who ascertains IL
any liens have been filed against 1t.
Question a Simple One.
The warrant and check would be useless
TO any payee unless the check bore the sig
nature of the Chamberlain or his deputy.
and in order to make a payment complete
and final one Of those signatures IS abso-
lutely essential. In fact, the warrants read
only by check on the city treasury, signed
by the Chamberlain. TO the order OF the
payee above named
The question is g simple one When was
the Cohalan warrant made effective Tor
payment by the Chamberlain? It was made
effective on January 4. 1910. during the al
the official act Of his appointee, Mr. Hyde
If 1t were a part OF the business admins
tration of the Finance Department that
warrants should be subject to review after
they had been received from the Chamber
lain in form to be paid. the implication in
Mr. Hyde's communication TO the Mayor
else knows that this is not the practice nor
the policy and never has been.
In my statement given to the papers last
Friday I said distinctly that DID not con-
slider myself called upon TO take steps to
interfere with the payment Of the Cohalan
claim unless facts should be given me
predecessor had passed upon the claim and
audited It and personally approved its pay
ment.
on the other hand the question was as
vet an open one before the Mayor, the
check, with all accompanying papers upon
which the claim had been audited, being
before him for official action. and in any
event Il could not have been made COM
plete II IL had not been for the official &C
ton Of his own appointee,. MI Hyde,
There IS no attempt to dispute anywhere
as to when the check was signed in tbs
Chamberlatn's offce-namelv, January l.
IsaV +baT NJ r6bsI 9 RESENTED mi him
self at the Office of the disbursement clerk
IN the Controllers office, MI. Birmingham.
ceived from the Chamberlain and personal
~ received it He did not call upon me.
Who notified him that the warrant was
ready2
r. reply to the statement Of Chamber
lain Hyde that former City Chamber
lain Martin put the warrant in his
pocket. 8Ir. Martin said:
7 did put the warrant IN my pocket
on December 81. 1909. and took it to
Mayor AIcClellan's Office. as Mayor Nc
CIeIIan had requested me to do.
y now desire Mr.. Hyde TO inform
Mayor Gaynor who II was that brought
the warrant from Mr.. Gaynor's office on
January +, 1910. Ask him CHyde) if he
did not bring the warrant over in his
own pocket. and then let me know what
his answer is.
This put it UP again to Chamberlain
Hyde, who replied.
Z never saw the Cohalan warrant
until after April IS, when the alleged
fac-simile of II was published. My letter
to the Mayor speaks for itself. Mr..
Martins imputa ton is beneath contempt
ard DO not care to discuss it,
As to who told Cohalan" that the
warrant had been sent TO the disbursing
bureau Of the Finance Department from
the CITY Chamberlain's Office. Mr. Hyde
said he supposed that some city employe
had done SO, as Mr.. Cohalan had proba-
hJv taken measures TO keep track Of the
warrant. Again he tried to put the pay
ing Of the warrant on the Controller.
the payment, why did Mr.. Prendergast
hermit the check TO be turned over to
Mr.. CohaIan?'' he asked. 1T could not
have been given to him If the Controller
had forbidden it"
When il was called TO his attention
that the passa ge of the check and war
rant through the disbursins bureau was
two h1 cd
"Oh. I don't think l. was necessary 10
turn over that check If the Controller
had thought there was anything wrong"
Wants cohaIan to Diseorge.
The Mavor had nothing to add to the
controversy last night Neither he nor
Chamberlain Hyde took seriously the
s,,it brought on behalf of taxpayer to
force Mr.. Cnhalan to return to the city
treasury 5000 of the $4,000 received
by him.
The s1Iit IN question names the Mayor,
+1,a chamberlain and Cohalan as de-
PENDANTS. and is brought IN the Supreme
Court nv Julia Smith. as a taxpayer.
Alfred Epstein. as counsel. also signs the
,,,1-er,7ed complaint, which. although
IN the defendants. has not yet
been filed IN court Epstein refused to
tell the address of Miss Smith or any
ching more about her than that she was
n +axnaver and a business woman.
. Miss Smith. through Epstein, declares
that MAYOR Gaynor and Chamberlain
t4,-de acted in collusion with Cohalan
and not in good faith ''in allowing him TO
fraudulently obtain payment of his ex-
c.ssive and exorbttant claim Of $4,000"
The remedy sought By the plaintiff is to
set aside the payment as Illegal, recog-
ntza Cohalan's services as worth only
$40 600 and compel him and also Mr.
and Mr.. Hyde TO refund $4,000
10 the city
An action has been begun by Clarence
? Sbearn. attorney for w. r Hearst, to
comneI city Chamberlain Hyde to show
certain records which he says would
throw light on the Gaynor- Hearst con-
troversv over the Cohalan warrant The
ma ners were served on the City Chamber
Iain's office yesterday and inform MT
TI,,de that at O'Clock this afternoon
Tnstice whitney viii be asked 10 issue
an order directing Mr.. Hyde to show the
records in question.