Year: 1874

Mayor Havemeyer Refuses TO Sign Any


More Warrants-Applicatie for a


Mandamus Compelling Him to DO So.


The act passed by the Legislature OF 1872 provid-
ing for the sinking OF the Fourth avenue track
stipulated that the city should pay onehalf the ex
pense. During the progress OF the work up TO the
LIST OF last May the city has paid its portion OF the
expenditure promptly The expense lor May was
S27o.oOo as certified to by the commissioners hav-
ing charge of the work. The amount cnsrgeable to
the city, being $13S,0O0 was duly audited by the
County Auditor and warrant for the same signed
by the Comptroller, but Mayor Havemeyer all at
once took 1t into his head not 10 countersign any
more warrants, having. as claimed suddenly DIS
covered that the act authorizing the Improvement
TO countersign the warrant an appIicatlon
was made In supreme Conrt Cnamoers,
before Judge Westbrook by Mr.. Henry a. Ander-
son, On behalf oil the New York and Harlem Rail-
road Company, for peremptory mandamus COM
pelhng The Mayor TO counterslgn the warrant Inc
case came up for argument yesterday and occu-
pied several hours. The Mayor was present with
his counsel Mr.. Stern and listened, evidently
with good deal OF interest to the argument on
both sizes.


Mr. Anderson called attention to the act under
which the WORK Is being done, 20 the great inter-
est the people have in Its progress and TO the in-
jury that would ensue through The work being
stopped on account OF the Mayor refusing to coun-
tersign the warrants upon which pay for IT'S share
OF the expenditure could be drawn from the city
treasury. He insisted that It was very clear that
after the money had been raised and the work
one haif The expenditnre the Mayor could be di-
rected by mandamus TO perform the ministerial
act o! signing the warrant. The Mayor,
he claimed, subject to the will OF the Leglsla-
ture. The money had been raised and was ia the
treasury and could be used for no other purpose.
The integrity OF the Board OF Engineers, certify
ing TO the correctness OF The bills, could not be
questioned.


Mr.. Stern went into history OF the franchises
given 10 the road, and insisted that the act under
which this WORK was being done was contrary TO
the provisions OF the charter and was passed in
opposition to the votes Of the New York city men,
hers He urged that the railroad company had
mistaken their remedy; that they could bring an
action against the city, but tnat a mandamus
would not he. lie claimed further tnat the act
was nnconstltutonal-hrst, because 1t was not con-
stitutlonally passed; second, because its OBJECT
was not expressed IN the title; and third, because
II was taking OF the property OF the city Tor the
benefit o. the rallroad company and ior the Dnlld
Ing oil private franchise ior them. he urged also
that the chief executive officer OF the city cannot
be compelled to sign a warrant to pay In matter
where the justice OF further expenditure ne does
not believe In 1t was left discre tionary with the
Nayor 70 countersign warrants. IL was his busi-
ness 70 see that money was not wrongfully pald
from the city treasury To enforce his signature TO
q warrant which he did not think IL proper to
sign would, he insisted, be an objectionable out
rage, and there was nothing IN the history OF the
country 10 Justify IT, His strong point was that a
Nandamus cannot lie where there is any remedy
by acu?n. He clted good many authorities TO
tnstain his views.


men are born great, Others have greatness thrust
upon them. He placed the Mayor In the latter
category, and insisted that the Legislature had
thrust certain duties upon him. among which was
signing warrants. The money had been raised fOl
. special purpose. The Mayor was directed tC
conntersign, when the Board OF Engineers ap
pointed TO stand between the people and Jne com
pany certify that the work Is done, and the money
could only be obtained by the Mayor performipl
she duty imposed upon him.


The iurtber argument was adjourned till this
morning.