New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1913-10-21
Attorney General Says Board
of Claims Action Is Not Prec-
edent for SuIzer Case.
CHARGES OF S17,933 MADE
It Is Held That Only in Event OF
Senator's Honorable Ac-
quittal Would He Be En-
titled to Expenses.
tBy Telegraph to Tho Tribune. ]

Albany. Oct. 20.-The State Board OF
Claims refused to-day to allow the
| bills of the attorneys and handwriting
experts who appeared for Senator
Lothian p. Aids at his trial before the
Senate on charges made by Senator
Benn Conger in 1910. The claims aggre-
gate si7.93S so. as follows: Lewis r.
Carr, s5,627 65: Danforth e. Ainsworth.
$4,000; Albert H. Hamilton. for witness
fees and expenses. 1928 90: David y.
Carvalho. witness fees and expenses
| 1869 SO; Lewis f. Griffith. S2,2l2 ~
Martin w. Littleton. $4,000.
only in the event OF Senator Aids
honorable acquittal OF the charges
could be properly appear, either In per-
son or through his counsel" says Com
missioner Rooney, who wrote the opln-
ion. ito ask the state TO make some pro-
vision for the expenses to which he mad
been. supposedly unjustly put. When
the reverse is the result OF the invesu-
CATION and the charges are sustained
IL Ia difficult to see where there ~
ground for relief in the plea that the
state owes moral obligation to the
respondents counsel.
TT appears to the board that the
foundations for a moral claim against
the state are wanting. While there IL
some ground of inference. supported by
the action of the Senate officers In ap-
proving the account. 10 show that the
Legislature had contemplated In the
supply bill meeting such claim as was
Indicated I'm the boards opinion on the
Conger bill, yet the intent of the act ~
not clear and decisive. Moreover. the
Legislature subsequently put the whole
matter IN the hands Of the Board OF
Claims for its determination"
Acknowledgement Carmody said to-
night that the decision of the Board OF
Claims did not establish a precedent
which would prevent the state. II IL
should 90 decide. from paying the coun-
sci who appeared for Governor Sulzer.
THE decision of the Board Of Claims.
said Mr. Carmody. is not controlling
precedent. as the trials OF former GOV
ernor Sulzer and former Senator Aids
were entirely different proceedings. The
Aids trial was proceeding in the Sen
ate for the removal of a Senator HIS
QpIenCe Was tnllItlN peASDiihi SiiN - W.
for the Legislature 10 recognize the
liability Of the state for the payment or
the services of his attorneys. The
Legislature declined TO do this. but re-
ferred the matter 10 the Board OF
Claims. with power TO determine the
legal liability of the state. That is not
necessarily q precedent In any case eN-
cept n similar one
rhe Board OF Claims has audited the
claims for services of counsel Tor
former Senator Conger. After the AlIds
trial the Legislature In 1919 appro..
priated money for the counsel fees or
Aids and Conger, but the item waS dis
approved by the Legislature ana vetoed
By Governor DIX.
In 1912 the Legislature enacted an
enabling act. authorizing the attorneys
for Aids and Conger to go before the
Board OF Claims and get a judicial de-
termination from that body concerning
their respective claims.
Aids represented the 37th District In
the senate and was president pro tenn.
of the Senate. The charges against him
were tried before the Senate sitting as
committee Of the whole. and Aids re-
signed on March %, 1910, just before he
was found guilty by the committee.