STATEMENT WITH REFERENCE TO APPROVAL OF ASSEMBLY BILL No. 312, FOR THE RELIEF OF CLERKS AND ASSISTANT CLERKS OF DISTRICT COURTS IN NEW YORK CITY.

STATE OF NEW YORK:

EXECUTIVE CHAMBER, ALBANY, April 10, 1880.

[Filed with the Secretary of State.]

Memorandum filed with Assembly bill No. 312, entitled "An act for the relief of persons who performed the duties of Clerks and Assistant Clerks of district courts in the city of New York, in the year 1876."

A bill similar in its object having been vetoed by my predecessor, under date of March 19, 1877, has caused me to give especial attention to the propriety of this bill becoming a law.

The persons for whose benefit relief is sought were appointed clerks and assistant clerks by Justices of District Courts in the city of New York, in January, 1876, under chapter 438 of the laws of 1872. They entered upon the discharge of their duties and devoted their time to the service of the city. There appears no doubt that the Justices in making the appointments, and the clerks in accepting the same, were sincere in their belief as to the validity of their action. The legality of the appointments was contested by the previous incumbents in an appeal to the courts, which resulted, in the first instance, by judgment of the Court of Common Pleas, in favor of the appointees. This verdict, however, was reversed by the General Term, and the reversal was finally affirmed by the Court of Appeals, thus restoring the previous incumbents to their places. The litigation covered nearly or quite the whole of the year 1876, during which period the duties were performed by the new appointees; but under the final judgment of the courts the salaries were of course, paid to their contestants.

It is admitted that these persons are unable to maintain an action against the city for their services, and hence it may be said they have no legal standing as claimants for compensation. It is certain, however, that the Legislature and the courts have repeatedly provided for the payment of equitable claims which could not be sustained as legal obligations.

Chapters 275 and 300 of the laws of 1876, approved by Governor Tilden, and granting relief respectively to Cornelius Flynn and Patrick McCabe, are identical in purpose with this bill. Both persons named had been appointed assistant clerks of District Courts in the city of New York, under the same act precisely, as those claiming compensation in this case, and deposed under similar circumstances.

The Court of Appeals, September, 1855, in the case of the town of Guilford against the Board of Supervisors of Chenango county, declared, in an opinion by Judge Denio, that the Legislature has power to levy a tax upon the taxable property of a town and appropriate the same to the payment of a claim made by an individual against the town. Nor is it a valid objection to the exercise of such power that the claim to satisfy which the tax is levied is not recoverable by action against the town."

In the same court, in January, 1874, in the case of the town of Duanesburgh versus Jenkins, Judge Johnson says: "A town is, as to the powers it shall possess and the functions it shall perform, the creature of the legislative will. ** The power to impose special burdens upon localities, and to determine the cases in which it is suitable to impose them, belongs to the law-making power."

*

The same court, at the same term, in the case of the People ex rel. Williams versus Dayton, by Judge Andrews, declared, "Nor is the Legislature restricted in granting relief to such grounds as would be requisite to maintain an action against

an individual in courts of justice. Many other considerations may and often should be considered in the dealings of a State with its citizens."

It being clear that the persons to whom relief is granted by this bill were de facto clerks, and as such performed all the functions, their title to office also affirmed in the outset by a decision of the Court of Common Pleas, there can be no reasonable question of an equitable claim for their services. The legislative precedents cited, and the several declarations of the highest court in the State as to the power of the Legislature to grant relief in equity cases, justify, in my opinion, the approval of this bill.

ALONZO B. CORNELL.

IN THE MATTER OF CHARGES AGAINST JAMES P. SINNOTT, Justice OF THE MARINE COURT, CITY OF NEW YORK FURTHER STATEMENTS IN ANSWER REQUESTED.

STATE OF NEW YORK :

EXECUTIVE CHAMBER, ALBANY, April 10, 1880.

SIR: Your answer, under date of the 8th instant, to the charges and specifications of the Association of the Bar of New York, denying the truth thereof, which has just been received, is not satisfactory, in that it does not attempt to answer or explain the specifications submitted.

You are therefore, requested to furnish me on or before Saturday, the 17th instant, any affidavits, in duplicate, of yourself or other persons, which you may desire to submit in answer to any of the specifications, in order that the merits of the case and the propriety of submitting the charges to the Senate, may be speedily determined.

Yours very respectfully,

ALONZO B. CORNELL.

Honorable JAMES P. SINNOTT, Justice of the Marine Court,

New York City.

IN THE MATTER OF CHARGES AGAINST JUDGE JAMES P. SINNOTT. PROOF TO SUBSTANTIATE SAME REQUESTED.

STATE OF NEW YORK:

EXECUTIVE CHAMBER,

ALBANY, April 10, 1880.

SIR: The charges and specifications preferred by the Association of the Bar of the city of New York against James P. Sinnott, Justice of the Marine Court, having been submitted · to him, he denies, under the sanctity of his official oath, each and every of the said charges and specifications, and affirms that the same are in each and every part and particular utterly false and destitute of any element of truth.

You are therefore requested to furnish me at your earliest convenience the affidavits in duplicate, of such witnesses as may be available for the purpose of substantiating the charges and specifications, in order that the question of presenting the case to the Senate with recommendation of removal, may be speedily determined.

Yours very respectfully,

ALONZO B. CORNELL.

To the Honorable S. P. NASH, President of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York.

MEMORANDUM FILED WITH SENATE BILL MAKING APPROPRIATION FOR THE NEW CAPITOL.

STATE OF NEW YORK:

EXECUTIVE CHAMBER, ALBANY, April 20, 1880.

[Filed with the Secretary of State.]

Memorandum filed with Senate bill No. 139, entitled, "An act making an appropriation to continue the work on the New Capitol building.”

This bill, appropriating $1,500,000 for the continuation of work on the Capitol, has been retained in my hands the full

constitutional period, in order that opportunity might be given for any expression of opposition to the measure.

Not

My

a word of disapproval has reached me from any source. own view in reference to the continuation of this work was stated in the annual message, and it was hoped that provision would be made to submit a proposition to the people for a loan to complete the edifice. The Legislature, however, in its wisdom, has determined that the necessary funds should be provided by taxation. As no alternative remains for me but to approve or disapprove this bill, the former course is adopted in the belief that the best interests of the State require the early completion of the Capitol.

ALONZO B. CORNELL.

REPORT OF COMPTROLLER ON THE BINGHAMTON ASYLUM, RECOMMENDING REMOVAL OF THE TRUSTEES THEREOF.

STATE OF NEW YORK:

COMPTROLLER'S OFFICE, ALBANY, April 23, 1880. (

To His Excellency A. B. Cornell:

SIR: The very large appropriations asked for by the Trustees of the Binghamton Asylum for the Chronic Insane. greatly in excess of the sum originally thought sufficient to make the necessary alterations in the Inebriate Asylum building, to fit it for its new uses, having attracted my attention, I requested Mr. Letchworth, President of the State Board of Charities, and Mr. Gallien, the Deputy Comptroller, to proceed to Binghamton and make an examination of the expenditures of said Board. I have the honor to submit their report.

I have carefully considered the facts therein mentioned and have arrived at the following conclusions: