Thank you for visiting SNEWPapers!
Sign up free
Story
July 15, 1856
New York Daily Tribune
New York, New York County, New York
What is this article about?
Minutes from the New York City Board of Supervisors meeting on July 14, 1856, covering debates on appointing a clerk for the City Judge, legality of Central Park funding appropriation, and a coroners' petition. Resolution for clerk passed 10-6; counsel opinion sought on $200,000 levy.
Clipping
OCR Quality
85%
Good
Full Text
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS.
Monday, July 14-Ald. Ely, Chairman.
The majority of the Committee on Criminal Courts reported against the application of the City Judge for a Clerk-allowing the City Judge a Clerk, on the ground that one of the Mayor's and Recorder's selection from the police department, after dismissing the former clerk, had been offered and refused.
A communication from Judge Capron was read. The Judge states that he wants a clerk independent of the surveillance of the Mayor and Recorder who, as a Police Commissioner, dismissed the only assistant connected with his office. The Recorder denounced the Judge's statement as falsehood, and contended that he had no occasion for clerk.
Ald. Valentine offered a resolution that Judge Capron be authorized to employ a clerk in his office at $1,000 per annum.
Ald. Varick spoke against the resolution.
Ald. Fox moved the previous question, and the resolution was adopted by a vote of 10 to 6-the Mayor and Recorder in the negative. A reconsideration was then moved and lost.
The Central Park Appropriation-Is it Legal!-
Supervisor Voorhees offered a resolution to get the opinion of the Counsel as to the legality of the appropriation of $200,000 placed at the disposal of the Mayor and Street-Commissioner, as Commissioners of the Central Park. Adopted.
The Controller communicated the following paper on the subject:
Department of Finance, Controller's Office,
City of New-York, July 14, 1856.
To the Board of Supervisors:
In communication made to the Board of Supervisors by the Commissioners of the Central Park, after proposing to add to the tax levy $100,000 for the improvement of the Central Park, the Commissioners, referring to the first section of the tax, which says that the Supervisors may put in the tax levy such sums as the Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty may be put to by law, adds as follows: In a recent similar application from "the Controller, he states that the Counsel to the Corporation "concurred with him in believing that this section of the law "gave to the Supervisors such power."
The matter in regard to which I consulted the Corporation Counsel was as to the payment of an execution issued out of the Superior Court in favor of John McGrann for damages on a contract for grading the Seventh avenue, amounting to $28,000, the execution being in the hands of the Sheriff, who had levied on all the personal property of the Corporation. The question put to the Counsel by the Controller was, whether this was not an expense to which the Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty were put to by law, so as to authorize the Supervisors to put the amount in the tax levy of 1856, so as to reimburse the Treasury for the advance, inasmuch as the lands to be assessed for grading the Seventh avenue had been included in the Park, and could not be a basis for the issue of assessment bonds by the Controller. In the legality of all this the Counsel and Controller concurred.
There is no more similarity between the proposition of the Controller and that of the Commissioners than there is between a "hawk and a handsaw;" and so far as the Controller is concerned since he has been served with the resolution so generous $200,000 to improve the Central Park, he feels bound to say that he does not consider that there is any authority in the tax law or any other authority for placing the sum of $200,000 in the tax levy to pay for improvements on the Central Park.
I make this communication to correct what I consider a mistaken application of my views; and as it is of great importance to have all the items in the tax levy indisputably correct and legal, I respectfully suggest that a case be made and submitted to the Supreme Court in order to get a reliable opinion as to the legality of the levy of this $200,000, and any other items in respect to which there may be any doubt.
Respectfully submitted,
A. C. FLAGG, Controller.
The communication was ordered to be printed.
A petition was received from the Coroners to have a clerk allowed them at the expense of the city. Referred to the Committee on County Offices.
The Board then adjourned to Tuesday afternoon at 2 P.M.
Monday, July 14-Ald. Ely, Chairman.
The majority of the Committee on Criminal Courts reported against the application of the City Judge for a Clerk-allowing the City Judge a Clerk, on the ground that one of the Mayor's and Recorder's selection from the police department, after dismissing the former clerk, had been offered and refused.
A communication from Judge Capron was read. The Judge states that he wants a clerk independent of the surveillance of the Mayor and Recorder who, as a Police Commissioner, dismissed the only assistant connected with his office. The Recorder denounced the Judge's statement as falsehood, and contended that he had no occasion for clerk.
Ald. Valentine offered a resolution that Judge Capron be authorized to employ a clerk in his office at $1,000 per annum.
Ald. Varick spoke against the resolution.
Ald. Fox moved the previous question, and the resolution was adopted by a vote of 10 to 6-the Mayor and Recorder in the negative. A reconsideration was then moved and lost.
The Central Park Appropriation-Is it Legal!-
Supervisor Voorhees offered a resolution to get the opinion of the Counsel as to the legality of the appropriation of $200,000 placed at the disposal of the Mayor and Street-Commissioner, as Commissioners of the Central Park. Adopted.
The Controller communicated the following paper on the subject:
Department of Finance, Controller's Office,
City of New-York, July 14, 1856.
To the Board of Supervisors:
In communication made to the Board of Supervisors by the Commissioners of the Central Park, after proposing to add to the tax levy $100,000 for the improvement of the Central Park, the Commissioners, referring to the first section of the tax, which says that the Supervisors may put in the tax levy such sums as the Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty may be put to by law, adds as follows: In a recent similar application from "the Controller, he states that the Counsel to the Corporation "concurred with him in believing that this section of the law "gave to the Supervisors such power."
The matter in regard to which I consulted the Corporation Counsel was as to the payment of an execution issued out of the Superior Court in favor of John McGrann for damages on a contract for grading the Seventh avenue, amounting to $28,000, the execution being in the hands of the Sheriff, who had levied on all the personal property of the Corporation. The question put to the Counsel by the Controller was, whether this was not an expense to which the Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty were put to by law, so as to authorize the Supervisors to put the amount in the tax levy of 1856, so as to reimburse the Treasury for the advance, inasmuch as the lands to be assessed for grading the Seventh avenue had been included in the Park, and could not be a basis for the issue of assessment bonds by the Controller. In the legality of all this the Counsel and Controller concurred.
There is no more similarity between the proposition of the Controller and that of the Commissioners than there is between a "hawk and a handsaw;" and so far as the Controller is concerned since he has been served with the resolution so generous $200,000 to improve the Central Park, he feels bound to say that he does not consider that there is any authority in the tax law or any other authority for placing the sum of $200,000 in the tax levy to pay for improvements on the Central Park.
I make this communication to correct what I consider a mistaken application of my views; and as it is of great importance to have all the items in the tax levy indisputably correct and legal, I respectfully suggest that a case be made and submitted to the Supreme Court in order to get a reliable opinion as to the legality of the levy of this $200,000, and any other items in respect to which there may be any doubt.
Respectfully submitted,
A. C. FLAGG, Controller.
The communication was ordered to be printed.
A petition was received from the Coroners to have a clerk allowed them at the expense of the city. Referred to the Committee on County Offices.
The Board then adjourned to Tuesday afternoon at 2 P.M.
What sub-type of article is it?
Historical Event
What themes does it cover?
Justice
What keywords are associated?
Board Of Supervisors
City Judge Clerk
Central Park Appropriation
Controller Flagg
Tax Levy Legality
What entities or persons were involved?
Ald. Ely
Judge Capron
Ald. Valentine
Ald. Varick
Ald. Fox
Supervisor Voorhees
A. C. Flagg
Where did it happen?
City Of New York
Story Details
Key Persons
Ald. Ely
Judge Capron
Ald. Valentine
Ald. Varick
Ald. Fox
Supervisor Voorhees
A. C. Flagg
Location
City Of New York
Event Date
Monday, July 14, 1856
Story Details
The Board of Supervisors meeting addressed the City Judge's request for an independent clerk, adopting a resolution to allow it despite opposition. They sought legal opinion on a $200,000 Central Park appropriation, receiving a communication from Controller Flagg questioning its legality. A petition from Coroners for a clerk was referred to committee.