THE RECORD 
 
 OF 
 
 J.OHN K. HACKETT, 
 
 As Recorder, 
 
 FOUNDED UPON OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS. 
 
 To the Citizens of New York : 
 
 As it is of the utmost importance that the office of 
 Recorder should be filled by an upright Judge, against whose 
 reputation no accusation could justly be brought, the following 
 extracts frorn the record of John K. Hackett, while Recorder, 
 should be read by all thinking men, desiring to know whether 
 or not they should support him at the approaching election : 
 
 WHAT WHEELER H. PECKAM THINKS OF RECORDER HACKETT. 
 
 Mr. Wheeler H. Peckham is not a politician, but a lawyi r 
 of high standing. He has been from, the first, associated with 
 Charles O' Conor in all the suits and legal proceedings against 
 the late Ring. He is familiar with all the devices to which they 
 have resorted to avoid punishment, and the various members of 
 the judiciary upon whom they have relied for aid in this respect, 
 and his opinion in regard to the character of a judge is there- 
 fore entitled to great weight. 
 
CLASSICS 
 
 ) f ' r 
 
 ' \i% .is 
 
 wis* 
 
 2 
 
 In answer to a request that he would state his opinion of 
 Becorder Hackett, Mr. Peckham wrote the following letter, 
 which was printed in the newspapers of October 11, 1875, and 
 
 io which no reply has ever been published : 
 
 29 WAiiL Stbeet, New Yobk, October 11, 1875. 
 
 Deab Sib, — I have your letter of this date asking information as to the action 
 &f Recorder Hackett on the occasion of the first trial of Mayor Hall, and in 
 jespect to the indictment of Peter B. Sweeny, Hugh Smith and others. I think 
 that as a delegate to a nominating convention you are entitled to know the faots. 
 
 The first trial of Mayor Hall was in the Court of Sessions, Judg^Daly, 
 €hief, Justice of the Common Pleas presiding. Mayor Hall had previously pub- 
 Icly stated that owing to his personal friendly relations with Recorder Hackett 
 it would not be advisable for that magistrate to preside at his (Hall's) trial. The 
 Mayor was defended by numerous and very able counsel, among whom may be 
 mentioned Mr. Stoughton, Mr. Burrill, Mr. James M. Smith, Mr. Shafer, the 
 late Mr. Buckley and others. Mr. Tremain, Mr. Clinton and myself appeared for 
 ihe prosecution. The District Attorney, owing to his personal relations with Mr. 
 Halt did not appear. After the trial had been pending some weeks a juror died. 
 Meantime the succeeding regular term of the Court of Sessions had been opened, 
 Recorder Hackett presiding, The trial at the time of the juror's death had devel- 
 oped a very serious aspect for Mr. Hall. A question then arose as to the power 
 ©f Mr. Justice Daly to empanel a new jury and proceed with the trial. This 
 question was partly argued and an adjournment taken to a future day, when it 
 was to be decided, whether with or without further discussion I do not now 
 yemember. Pending that adjournment the point was made in some case in 
 Recorder Hackett's branch of the court that his branch was illegal owing to the 
 sitting of Judge Daly's branch. The Recorder not only ruled that his branch was 
 &gal, but, as I remember, went further and stated that Judge Daly's was illegal 
 On the meeting of Judge Daly's branch on the adjourned day, Judge Daly de- 
 clined to consider the question on its merits, and saw that after the decision of 
 Recorder Hackett his only course was to follow it, and he did so, discharging the 
 jury and ending the trial. 
 
 What Judge Daly's decision on the merits would have been I do not know. 
 "Whether Recorder Hackett in making the decision he did and to the extent he did, 
 was moved by any desire to influence the action of Judge Daly, I have no informa- 
 tion other than that of the public. What did influence his action was at the time 
 very clear. 
 
 As to the Sweeny indictment the facts are these : 
 
 Sweeny, Smith, Woodward and Tweed were jointly indicted for a conspir- 
 acy by the Grand Jury popularly known as the Bedford Grand Jury. In the fall 
 of 1872 a motion was made by the counsel for Hugh Smith to quash that indict- 
 ment. The motion was heard by Recorder Hackett. It was made on the ground 
 that the Bedford Grand Jury had no jurisdiction to find bills, and also on some 
 other grounds not material to specify. On the hearing of the motion, it was 
 agreed by counsel that only the question of the jurisdiction of the Grand Jury 
 should be discussed, and that other questions should be reserved until after the 
 decision of that — the reason being that that question affected many other bills 
 lhat had been found by that Grand Jury. That agreement was carried out, and no 
 ©ther question was argued. Recorder Hackett granted the motion and quashed 
 the indictment on the ground of want of jurisdiction of the Grand Jury, and also 
 on the further ground oi want of proper allegations in the bill as to the defendant, 
 Smith. He gave as his reason for the first ground the decision of the General 
 Term of the Supreme Court in the Greenthal case, that the November term, 1871, 
 of the Court of General Sessions, was illegally extended into the subsequent 
 cjonths, and that he was bound by that decision. On the argument oi the 
 motion that caso had been referred to. No opinion had been given by the 
 Supreme Court, General Term, and I had stated to the Recorder that it was 
 impossible to argue as to what was decided in a case where no opinion had 
 bet n written, and 1 requested the Recorder to consult with the Supremo Court 
 Judges and ascertain what they had really decided. 
 
3 
 
 I have subsequently ascertained that the Greenthal case was decided by 
 consent, as being governed by the Burns case, and that in neither case had the 
 Supreme Court decided that the Bedford Grand Jury was illegal. The same 
 question was subsequently directly raised before the Oyer and Terminer, Judge 
 Daniels, I think, presiding, and decided adversedly to the ruling of the Recorder. 
 The other ground upon which the Recorder based his decision had never been 
 raised by the defendant's counsel, and had never been argued before the Recorder, 
 and all points except that as to the Grand Jury being expressedly reserved, the 
 Recorder had no right to raise or consider any other point He did so, how- 
 ever, and also did it in very offensive terms. 
 
 His action in that respect was the occasion of a letter to the New York 
 limes by Mr. Henry C. Allen and myself. I thought at the time that the Recorder 
 intended by using such language to make a covert attack upon myself, and to 
 bring such discredit as he could upon those actively moving to punish publio 
 crimos. So far as any reference of personal intent to myself was concerned the 
 Recorder, in a letter to me a short time afterwards, disavowed it in very courteous 
 and complimentary terms, and I accepted and do accept his statement. The 
 matter, however, had this consequence : In the letter I published Mr. Allen and 
 myself insisted that the indictment was not open to the criticism Recorder 
 Hackett had seen fit to make upon it, and avowed our intention to have a record 
 made up and to take a writ of error. Our letter with that avowal appeared on 
 the morning of the 31st December, 1872, the last day of the official term of Mr. 
 District-Attorney Garvin, whom Mr. Phelps was to succeed the next day. 
 
 On that 31st December, 1872, Mr. Garvin moved a nol. pros, of the whole 
 indictment before Recorder Hackett, and it was granted and entered as five 
 days preceding, so as to appear to be done prior to the publication of our letter. 
 This was done without any notice to or consultation with me, and in face of the 
 fact that, under the direction of the Attorney-General, I had theretofore had 
 exclusive charge of all the so-called ring indictments, and that Judge Garvin had 
 most cheerfully given me the control of them, and had himself taken no charge of 
 them whatever. When thereafter, on Mr. Phelps's accession to office, I was about 
 to take a writ of error, I found that the bill had been nol-prossed, and as to all 
 the defendents ; that is, Sweeney, Woodward and Tweed, as well as Smith. Of 
 course I have nb personal knowledge of the ante-dating, but I investigated the 
 matter very fully and thoroughly at the time, and have no doubt of the fact 
 Whether the foregoing facts afforded just ground for criticism, you and your 
 convention must decide. Yours truly, Wheeleb H. Peckham. 
 
 Certainly when these facts are considered it would appear 
 that the New York Times showed a spirit of prophecy when 
 in its issue of October 5, 1872, it said: 
 
 " Recorder Hackett's relations with some of the men to be tried have been 
 too intimate a kind to render it seemly that he should preside in the Court of 
 Sessions when the Ring plunderers are at the bar. 
 
 " The organ of the Ring intimated yesterday that Recorder Hackett would 
 probably insist upon maintaining the dignity of his Court, and refuse to sent the 
 indicted to a higher tribunal. This is precisely what Recorder Hackett did, and 
 the co-incidence is not calculated to increase publio confidence in his fitness to 
 try the cases in question. * * * A new expose of the Ring frauds 
 would be awakened for the interests of Sweeny, Genet, Field et al on the eve of 
 election. * * * Will the people remember this when the organ raises 
 its next howl about pushing forward the Ring suits in a Court (Hackett's) where no 
 honest man urishes to see them tried." 
 
 It will be recollected that to enter a noil pross upon an in- 
 dictment, the consent of tJie Court was necessary, as well as that 
 of the District Attorney, and to ante-date it required the direct 
 -connivance of Recorder Hackett. 
 
4 
 
 Recorder Hackett knew perfectly well that Charles CV Con- 
 or and Mr. Peckham had charge of the prosecution of these 
 indictineuts, and that Garvin was the creature of the accused. 
 
 If he had been desirous of promoting the ends of justice, 
 would he not have required that notice should have been given 
 to these representatives of the Attorney General before vacating 
 the indictments ? 
 
 Is it not plain that he did not cause any notice to be 
 given them for the same reason that he allowed his decision to 
 be ante dated; and for the same reason that he did not consult 
 with the Judges of the Supreme Court on the motion to quash 
 when requested by Mr. Peckham, — because he loas anxious to al- 
 low his friends of the Ring to escape. 
 
 The Suspension of Sentences by Recorder Hackett. — 
 
 District Attorney Phelps, in his examination before the 
 Committee on Crime of the Assembly, was asked if he knew 
 any legal authority authorizing a Judge after a conviction of an 
 offender to " suspend sentence." His answer was that he did 
 not. 
 
 The Revised Statutes prescribes that any person who shall 
 do certain acts u shall be adjudged guilty" of whatever the offence 
 shall be, and that all persons who shall be " adjudged guilty" of 
 such offences " shall be punished by imprisonment" etc., as pre- 
 scribed by law. 
 
 The sole office of the Judge is to declare the law. The 
 jury decide whether or not the prisoner is guilty, and when they 
 have rendered a verdict of guilty the Judge is obliged to impose 
 sentence, his only discretion being the limit which is allowed by 
 the statute in graduating the severity of the punishment for that 
 particular offence. 
 
 Yet Recorder Hackett, without the slightest legal authority, 
 has in a large number of cases, after the accused had been 
 regularly convicted of serious offences, assumed to suspend 
 sentence and- has discharged them from custody without the 
 slightest punishment. 
 
 The following is a list of one hundred and seventy cases in 
 which this has been done by Recorder Hackett within a year 
 and ten months. On some days as many as four convicted per- 
 sons thus escaped punishment, and on Juao 9, 1874, three 
 burglars, one forger, and four other convicts were let loose after 
 
conviction. Twenty-eight of the number were fonnd guilty of 
 grand larceny, fifteen of burglary, while numbers of others were 
 adjudged guilty of forgery, assault with intent to kill, keeping- 
 disorderly houses, larceny from the person, etc., altogether in- 
 dicating a very bad class of criminals. 
 
 SENTENCES SUSPENDED by Kecorder JOHN K, 
 HACKETT, after conviction. 
 
 Datb. 
 
 1873, 
 Jan. 13. 
 do 13. 
 do 
 do 
 do 
 do 
 do 
 
 Name, 
 
 Offence. 
 
 13. 
 13. 
 27. 
 27. 
 27. 
 
 Feb. 10. 
 
 do 24 
 March 
 
 do 
 
 do 
 do 
 
 do 
 
 do 
 
 do 
 
 do 
 
 do 
 April 
 
 do 
 
 do 
 
 do 
 June 
 
 do 
 
 do 
 
 do 
 
 do 
 
 do 
 
 do 
 
 do 
 
 do 
 
 do 
 
 do 
 
 do 
 August 
 
 do 
 
 do 
 
 do 
 Sept 
 
 do 
 
 do 
 
 do 
 October 
 
 do 
 
 do 
 Nov. 
 
 L 
 4. 
 4. 
 1 
 14. 
 19. 
 19. 
 24. 
 24. 
 2. 
 4. 
 8. 
 24. 
 6. 
 6. 
 6. 
 10. 
 16. 
 18. 
 20. 
 20. 
 25. 
 25. 
 25. 
 27. 
 13. 
 14. 
 14. 
 14. 
 10. 
 
 io. 
 
 23. 
 2:}. 
 3. 
 21. 
 29, 
 14. 
 
 William Chitty Grand larceny. 
 
 William Gillen do 
 
 Charles Watson do 
 
 Isaac Jacobs do 
 
 Edward Clazberg do 
 
 John Thompson do 
 
 Nicholas Sender Carrying concealed weapons. 
 
 Mary Holcomb Obtaining goods under false pretences. 
 
 Albert G. Hervey Grand larceny. 
 
 Thomas McGuire Petit larceny from person by night 
 
 Terence Lynoh Assault and battery 7 with intent to kill. 
 
 Martin O'Callaghan Assault and battery. 
 
 John Simmons Carrying concealed weapons. 
 
 Edward J. Shea Assault and battery with intent to kill. 
 
 John Thomas do do 
 
 Annie Johnson Grand larceny, dwelling house 
 
 Frederick W. Erikson. .Carrying concealed weapons 
 
 Francis Herman do 
 
 J ohn Grady Felony. 
 
 Atwood Davenport Assault and battery with intent to kill 
 
 Theo. B. Lippincott. . . .Embezzlement and grand larceny. 
 
 John O'Neill Petit larceny. 
 
 Stephen Phalon do 
 
 James Sullivan Petit larceny 
 
 Hugh Stewart Assault and battery. 
 
 Edward Stewart Concealed weapons. 
 
 James Connelly Assault and battery with intent to kill, 
 
 Charles Stewart do do 
 
 Henry Frank Grand larceny. 
 
 James H. Drake Forgery, third degree. 
 
 Thomas Chadwick Burglary, third degree and grand lareeny. 
 
 Frank Golenser do 
 
 James Sullivan do 
 
 Amelia Levy Petit larceny and receiving stolen goods 
 
 William E. Reilly Assault and battery with intent to kill, 
 
 Edward D. S. Vaman.. Burglary and grand larceny. 
 Stephen M. P. Rice . . do 
 William H. Mackey . . do 
 
 John Scully Grand larceny. 
 
 Charles Gilroy do 
 
 Mary McCormick Assault and battery with intent to kilL 
 
 Lewis Warschausky. .Grand larceny and receiving stolen goods. 
 William L. Becker. ...Vending poison. 
 
 Jane Woods Disorderly housa. 
 
 Casper Kassinger Selling lottery policies. 
 
 Charles Tapper Assault and battery with intent to kill. 
 
Deo. 
 
 2. 
 
 do 
 
 9. 
 
 do 
 
 11. 
 
 do 
 
 18. 
 
 1874. 
 
 
 Jan. 
 
 12. 
 
 Feb. 
 
 20. 
 
 March 
 
 13. 
 
 do 
 
 18. 
 
 do 
 
 19. 
 
 do 
 
 19. 
 
 do 
 
 27. 
 
 do 
 
 27. 
 
 April 
 
 15. 
 
 May 
 
 12. 
 
 do 
 
 12. 
 
 do 
 
 13. 
 
 do 
 
 22. 
 
 do 
 
 22. 
 
 Juno 
 
 3. 
 
 do 
 
 5. 
 
 do 
 
 9. 
 
 do 
 
 9. 
 
 do 
 
 9. 
 
 do 
 
 9. 
 
 do 
 
 9, 
 
 do 
 
 9.' 
 
 do 
 
 9. 
 
 do 
 
 17. 
 
 July 
 
 21. 
 
 August 
 
 21. 
 
 do 
 
 6. 
 
 do. 
 
 6. 
 
 1874. 
 Sept 30. 
 Oct. 7, 
 
 do 7. 
 
 do 13. 
 
 do 13. 
 
 do 13. 
 
 do 16. 
 
 do 16. 
 
 do 27. 
 
 do 29. 
 Dec. 3. 
 
 do 9. 
 
 do 9. 
 
 do 11. 
 
 do 16. 
 
 do 21. 
 
 1875. 
 Jan. 27. 
 
 do 27. 
 Feb. 5. 
 do 5. 
 do 12. 
 do 15. 
 do 23. 
 do 23. 
 March 30. 
 do 30. 
 do 30. 
 
 Charles Howe Petit larceny from person. 
 
 Madeline Pinkerville.. Disorderly house. 
 
 Edward Hallohan. . . .Petit larceny from person. 
 
 William H. Larne .... Assault and battery with intent to THTT, 
 
 Mary Lyons Grand larceny. 
 
 Mary Moore. Grand larceny and receiving stolen goods. 
 
 William Rafter Grand larceny. 
 
 Alexander Mitchell ... do 
 
 Gilbert McLaughlin. .Petit larceny and receiving stolen goods. 
 Thomas Price do 
 
 Thomas R. Wiley Burglary 3d degree and receiving stolen goocte 
 
 Henry Hawkins do 
 
 Peter Smith Assault and battery with intent to kill 
 
 Charles O'Brien. . . .Burglary third degree and grand larceny. 
 Charles Churstmann do 
 
 John Devos Forgery third degree 
 
 Charles Schiffer Assault and battery with intent to ki ll . 
 
 Michael Kiernan do do 
 
 Louis Corretta Concealed weapons. 
 
 William Clifford Grand larceny. 
 
 Jacob Minker Burglary first degree and grand larceny. 
 
 Michael Laudraf do do 
 
 Andrew Kilbrich ... do do 
 
 James B. Mulhall. . .Embezzlement and grand larceny. 
 Benjamin Brown. . . .Forgery third degree. 
 
 Edward Bryan Concealed weapons. 
 
 William C. Vass do 
 
 John W. Elder False pretenses. 
 
 Thomas Mack Burglary third degree. 
 
 Maggie Wood Grand larceny from person by night and receiv- 
 ing stolen goods. 
 Charles A. Pack. . . .Grand larceny. 
 
 do Forgery third degree. 
 
 John Howe Grand larceny and receiving stolen goods. 
 
 William McGuire Petit larceny, 
 
 Edward Gunn do 
 
 Marion Roberts Assault and battery with intent to kill. 
 
 Philip Nolan Grand larceny and receiving stolen goods. 
 
 Edward Brown do 
 
 Henry Lang Assault and battery with intent to kill. 
 
 John O'Brien do 
 
 George Hill Grand larceny. 
 
 Patrick Sweeney Assault and battery with intent to kin. 
 
 Thomas B. Wandell Grand larceny. 
 
 Abraham Schinknight. ... do 
 
 Auguste Barthel do 
 
 James Raymond False pretenses. 
 
 James Eagan Burglary, first degree. 
 
 James B. Cnegser ....... Grand larceny. 
 
 Horace Marks Grand larceny and receiving stolen goods. 
 
 Herman P. Uhlbrock .... Embezzlement and grand larceny. 
 
 Thomas Maher Assault and battery with intent to kilL 
 
 Frank Mitzennixy Grand larceny and receiving stolen goods 
 
 John Kelly Grand larceny from person in the night. 
 
 James Houghtalin Grand larceny. 
 
 James Carney Assault and battery with intent to kill 
 
 Thomas Fitzgerald do 
 
 Henry Doleman Petit larceny and receiving stolen goods. 
 
 Denis Meany Concealed weapons, 
 
 Churl«s E. D. Pullman. .Embezzlement and petit larceny. 
 
7 
 
 May 11. John Smith Grand larceny. 
 
 do 19. Robert Braid Assault and battery. 
 
 do 26. Henry Swift Burglary, third degree. 
 
 do 26. Herman Smith Petit larceny and receiving stolen goods. 
 
 do 26. do Concealed weapons. 
 
 June 1. Andrew Roth Grand larceny. 
 
 do 10. Mary Ann Skeely Grand larceny and receiving stolen goodfi 
 
 do 14. Patrick Finan Petit larceny from person. 
 
 do 14, John Troy Concealed weapons. 
 
 What more flagrant violation of law could be conceived thaE 
 this ? The only pardoning power recognized by law is that re- 
 posed in the Governor, and even he is not vested with the power 
 of " suspending sentence after conviction," except in the case of 
 high treason, and for a limited period. (Constitution, art, 4 
 sec. 5.) 
 
 Moreover, when a pardon is issued the crime is condoned, 
 but when sentence is suspended the criminal is free only during 
 the will of the judge ; a power which never was intended to be, 
 and never was vested in any judicial officer. 
 
 In view of the above cases where Eecorder Hackett has il- 
 legally shielded criminals from the punishment which the law 
 required him to inflict, what becomes of the panegyrics that have 
 been heaped upon him as " a strict and impartial judge," " ft 
 terror to evil doers," etc. ? 
 
 Is it not evident that, while he at times imposes the most 
 severe sentences, entirely disproportionate to the offence com- 
 mitted, yet that such sentences are only imposed upon the poor 
 and unprotected, the influential criminals having their sen- 
 tences suspended ? 
 
 Verily, Eecorder Hackett may well be called " the poor matfs 
 judge. 
 
 THE FEES PAID HACKETT BY THE RING. 
 
 The rapacity of Hackett has exceeded that of any judge that 
 has ever occupied the position of Eecorder, or, in fact, any other 
 judicial position. 
 
 In 1866, his salary as Eecorder was $5,250 Od 
 
 and he drew as member of the Board of Ee- 
 
 vision and Correction of Assessments . . 819 90 
 
 $6,069 90 
 
 besides office rent and clerk's hire, 
 
 his entire receipts from the city being 9,812 40 
 
\ 
 
 \ 
 
 8 
 
 In 1867 he drew salary as Eecorder $7,000 
 
 Commissioner of Sinking Fund 1,000 
 
 Board of Revision and Correction. . . 1,000 
 
 $9,000 00 
 
 besides office rent and clerk's hire, his 
 
 entire receipts being $17,489 50 
 
 In 1868 he drew Recorder's salary $10,000 
 
 1869 Sinking Fund Commissioner 1,000 
 
 Board of Revision and Correction . . 1,000 
 
 $12,000 00 
 
 Besides office rent and clerk's hire, his 
 entire receipts being, 1868, 
 
 $18,491; and 1869 $18,990 
 
 In 1870 he drew as Recorder's salary 15,000 
 
 Commissioner Sinking Fund 1,000 
 
 Board of Revision and Correction . . 1,000 
 
 $17,000 00 
 
 besides office rent and clerk's hire, 
 
 his total receipts being $25,406 67 
 
 1871 he drew salary as Recorder $15,000 
 
 " Supervisor 2,000 
 
 Board of Revision and Correction . . 1,000 
 
 $18,000 00 
 
 his receipts from the city being together .... $26,540 00 
 He has also filed a claim against the city for $1,000 a year 
 as Commissioner of the Sinking Fund which Mr. Green has not 
 paid. 
 
 1872 to 1874 he drew salary as Recorder $15,000 
 
 " Supervisor.... 2,000 
 
 $17,000 00 
 
 (The Comptroller having declined to pay him his salary as 
 Sinking Fund Commissioner or member of Board of Revision,) 
 besides his office expenses, his total receipts from the city 
 being : in 1872, $24,472 ; 1873, $22,153.33 ; 1874, $22,820. 
 
 The first specimen of his greed was given on his entry into 
 office as Recorder. Although this did not take place until 
 March, 1 866 yet Mr. Hackett claimed and received from the pub- 
 lic treasury over $1,166 for salary from January 1st to the date 
 of his appointment, during which period there was a vacant -//. 
 
 Not being contented with the very ample salary, (although 
 since doubled;, which he received in one capacity or another, 
 
9 
 
 Recorder Hackett during the twenty-two months succeeding 
 January, 1st. 1866, received for counsel fees for services which 
 Richard O' Gorman, the Corporation Counsel, certified he had 
 rendered to the City at his request, twenty-one thousand seven 
 hundred and, ticenty '-seven dollars and fifty cents, a detailed state- 
 ment of which, taken from the books of the Comptroller is 
 hereto annexed, marked A. 
 
 Of this he received for services rendered in 1866, $13,727 50 
 
 1867, 8,000 50 
 
 Total, 21,727 50 
 
 All this be it remembered for services rendered entirely 
 outside the duties of his office which demanded his whole time 
 and attention. 
 
 This matter acquired such notoriety, and was considered so 
 undignified — to use no harsher term — that it was brought be- 
 fore the notice of the Grand Jury of the County by the Citizens 
 Association of New York in a letter dated, October, 1868, in 
 which they used the following language : 
 
 "The Association ^submit that it is an improper practice, and calculated 
 to bring the bench into disrepute, that a criminal Judge should be permitted to 
 •receive, while serving in a judicial office, large fees from other departments of the 
 government. The Association submits that if a high judicial officer in addition 
 to his salary shall bo permitted to receive large emoluments for the practice of 
 the professions of the law from the co-ordinate branches of the Government, he 
 may become more or less partial in viewing the oonduct of the officials who con- 
 tribute so largely his income, and inimical to all persons or associations striving 
 ioprevent excessive expenditures of the public money." 
 
 What citizen is there who does not consider that the Citi- 
 zens, Association in using this language expressed the feeling of 
 the community in regard to the conduct of Eecorder Hackett in 
 receiving these fees, and that in view of his conduct, (as shown 
 by Mr. Peckham's letter on page two) when his friends of 
 the ring, through whose influence these vast sums of money 
 were paid him, were brought before him for trial it is apparent 
 that they correctly apprehended that the consequences of his 
 accepting them would be to render him " more or less partial 
 in viewing their conduct." 
 
 Hackett' s Fraudulent Receipts as Commissioner in Street 
 
 Openings. 
 
 John K. Hackett together with John J. Bradley and Charles 
 G. Halpine was appointed July, 31, 1866, to lay out a public 
 plaee known as " The Circle," at the intersection of Eighth 
 
1 
 
 10 
 
 Avenue and Fifty-ninth Street, with a radius of two hundred 
 and twenty-six feet. The circumference was 1,357 feet, and in- 
 cluded about three and one-half acres, more than one half of 
 which had previously belonged to the city as part of the streets 
 and of the Central Park. 
 
 The duty of the Commissioners was to estimate the value of 
 the private property taken and to assess the cost upon the prop- 
 erty benefitted. A task which was exceedingly simple, the 
 amount of condemned private property being very small, less 
 than two acres, and being entirely owned by only twenty-seven 
 persons. 
 
 During the entire progress of the work of the Commission- 
 ers Mr. Hackett, who was their chairman, was as above shown, 
 drawing pay from the city as Recorder and member of the 
 Board of Revision and Correction of Assessments, and also as 
 special counsel for the trial and argument of city causes. 
 
 In the interim of leisure left him from these other remu- 
 nerative occupations Mr. Hackett found time, with the assist- 
 ance of his two fellow-Commissioners, one surveyor, one clerk, 
 one assistant clerk, (James M. Sweeny), and nine appraisers, to 
 complete his arduous labors and submit his report on the four- 
 teenth day of November, 1867, about fifteen months after his 
 appointment. 
 
 It will be hard to be believed possible that the bill of costs 
 for the fees and expenditures of these Commissioners for taking 
 these two acres of private property, amounted to $26,331.91' 
 and yet this is the sum which was paid to them as allowed by 
 Judge Barnard. 
 
 The law of 1862 (chap. 483, sec. 1) provides that " the com- 
 pensation to the Commissioners in any proceeding hereafter to 
 be commenced, for opening or altering any street or avenue in 
 the city of New York, north of Fourteenth street, shall not ex- 
 ceed in the aggregate, exclusive of necessary disbursements 
 hereinafter mentioned, the sum of thirty cents a foot for the 
 lineal extent of the street or avenue, or the portion thereof so to 
 be opened or altered." 
 
 Under this rule the compensation to all the Commissioners 
 (the lineal extent of the circumference of the improvement being 
 1,357 feet) should have been $417.10, the share of each of the 
 three being $139.03. 
 
11 
 
 For this service Mr. Hackett claimed and received $3,000, 
 
 It is understood that when this was suggested to Mr, 
 Hackett, and he was asked how he could claim such an allow- 
 ance in view of the law restricting the fees to 30 cents per lineal 
 foot, he replied; "We measured a spiral line commencing at 
 the center and screwing its way out." This would certainly 
 seem to be a "ring" and not merely a circle proceeding. 
 
 Irrespective of the statute, this charge cannot be refuted, 
 that considering the area of this improvement, the charges of 
 the Commissioners and their bill of costs are more excessive 
 and exorbitant than any other that has ever been presented, and 
 coming so early as they did in the history of the ring improve- 
 ments, may be fairly said to have opened the way for the fright- 
 ful series of overcharges which have sucked the money from the 
 pockets of our property owners. 
 
 It therefore appears that these incursions on the public 
 treasury were from the first countenanced and accepted by one 
 who at the very time was being paid by the city, as one of its 
 legal advisers and judges, to protect its interests against wrong 
 — John K. Hackett. 
 
 An official copy of the taxed costs is appended : 
 Supreme Court. — In the matter of the application of the 
 Commissioners • of the Central Park, for and in behalf of the 
 Mayor, Aldermen ann Commonality of the city of New York, 
 relative to widening Broadway from Fifty-seventh and Fifty - 
 ninth streets, and the laying out of a public place, circular in 
 form, at the intersection of Eighth avenue and Fifty-ninnth 
 street, in the city of New York. 
 
 COSTS, CHARGES AND EXPENSES IN THE ABOVE ENTITLED MATTER,, 
 
 John K. Hackett, Commissioner $3,000 00 
 
 John J. Bradley, Commissioner 2,500 00 
 
 Charles G. Halpine, Commissioner 2,500 00 
 
 Gardner & Sage, Surveyor 4,969 66 
 
 Edward J. Wilson, Clerk 1,750 00 
 
 James M. Sweeney, Assistant Clerk 1,250 00 
 
 Edward J. Wilson, drafting and copying report 4,746 35 
 
 Edward J. Wilson, room rent 150 00 
 
 Edward J. Wilson, amount paid for livery 12 00 
 
 William C. Eogers &Co.; printing and stationary 351 40 
 
\ 
 
 12 
 
 Alexander H. Keecli, printing notices 
 
 John Ihinn, printing notices (thirty and ten-day. . . . 
 
 John Doyle, printing notices twenty. day 
 
 Michael Gehegan, Appraiser 
 
 John Scott, Appraiser 
 
 Sylvester E. Nolan, Appraiser 
 
 Hans Scudder, Appraiser 
 
 J olm Molloy , Appraiser 
 
 James Hume, Appraiser 
 
 Anthony J. Blecker, Appraiser 
 
 Edward H. Ludlow, Appraiser 
 
 Adrian H. Mailer, Appraiser 
 
 Advertising notices 
 
 19 50 
 15 00 
 
 50 00 
 500 00 , 
 600 00 
 500 00 
 500 00 
 500 00 
 500 00 
 220 00 
 220 00 
 220 00 
 1,123 00 
 
 Total 
 
 $26,331 91 
 
 I hereby tax and allow the foregoing bill of costs, charges 
 and expenses at the sum of $26,331.91, this eighteenth day of 
 November, 1867. 
 
 In addition to the above, Hackett received as Commissioner 
 for widening Broadway, from Fifty-seventh to Fifty-ninth 
 street, (two blocks), two thousand nine hundred and thirty- 
 seven dollars ($2,937.00), the entire cost of the Commissioners 
 being the modest sum of $25,932.83. 
 
 Mr. Hackett not only appeal's to have looked out for him- 
 self, but for his relations and friends. 
 
 It will be recollected what capital is being made by the 
 supporters of Kecorder Hackett upon his high-toned refusal to 
 allow Tammany Hall to interfere with the officers of his court. 
 The following list of such officers will show his real reasons. 
 
 1st. 0. Decatur Hall, brother-in-law to the Recorder, is in 
 the Recorder's office, salary $3,000. 
 
 2d. Edward J. Hall, Deputy clerk of the Court of General 
 Sessions, is the Recorder's nephew, salary $3,000. 
 
 3d. John Hall, another family connection, is an officer of the 
 Court of General Sessions. 
 
 4th. Owen P. Flanagan is employed as managing clerk, and 
 to appear nominally as attorney in the Recorder's private law 
 business, and is on the payroll as an officer of the Comrt of 
 General Sessions. 
 
 George G. Barnard,, 
 Judge Supreme Court. 
 
Gould's Law Director}*, which purports to be " a complete 
 list of practising lawyers in the city of New York," has 
 
 In the years 1871, ) John K. Hackett, Lawyer, 317 Broadway. 
 1872, 1873, 1874., V Owen W. Elanaoak, " 317 
 1875, ) William V. Leaky, " 317 
 
 The latter gentleman appears to have commenced in 1872 
 as first clerk in the Recorder's office, salary $3,000. 
 
 In addition to the above Recorder Hackett numbers among 
 his employees Michael Eyan, abas Coachee (ex-Mayor Hall's 
 coachman), appointed as officer of the General Sessions by 
 Hackett. Officers Evans and Iteilly appointed through Ben. 
 Wood, and McCluskey and McDonald appointed through 
 "Jimmy" O'Brien. 
 
 After perusing the foregoing matter it will be somewhat 
 refreshing to read the reply of Dr. Feodore Mierson, (which 
 appeared in the Tribune on the 3d of January, 1874) to Recorder 
 Hackett's letter. His answer, which until now seems to have 
 been made his main stock in trade, sensibly diminishes in value. 
 
 Dr. Mierson' s letter is as follows : 
 
 New Yokk, January 2, 1874. 
 
 The Hon, J. K. Hackett, Judgs Court of General Sessions : 
 
 Dear Sir : Your communication of date the 20th ultimo, a true copy of which I find 
 published in the papers of to-day, was handed to me by one of your messengers at my 
 residence, 257 East Forty-eight street, late on the evening of the 31st. 
 
 Your answer to my inquiry whether "you would be willing to consider applications for 
 subordinate positions in your Court upon the recommendation of suitable persons therefor by 
 our committee," calls for a reply. I acted in that matter not upon my individual responsibility 
 but in my official capacity as Secretary of the committee, and upou its recommendation. In 
 making our request tor a subordinate clerk and Court officer we had not the slightest idea 
 that we should be deemed guilty of trespassing upon the independence of the august Court 
 or in any manner seeking to soil the spotless ermine of the judiciary. But as it is well known 
 that some of the Courts do not reach your excellent standard of "reliable, unbribable and 
 discreet," as it is known that one officer of your Court has been removed and his place sup- 
 plied by a protege of ex-Senator Harry Genet, now a fugitive from justice ; as it is also stated 
 npon what we believe to be good authority that one of the present officers of the same Court 
 formerly kept a house of resort for professional thieves ; as a number of appointments in the 
 courts have been made upon the recommendation of political parties, such as Apollo Hall, 
 the Republican and other poliiical organizations, wo thought and still tiiink it would be rather 
 in the interests of justice if some of the officers of the courts— including such as above 
 mentioned and such as are mere body-guards and house-servants, the creatures of the old 
 Ring — were replaced by honorable and competent men who are in sympathly with earnest 
 efforts now going forward to secure honest government. 
 
 It may be that the consideration of our request would necessitate the removal of some 
 protege of some one or another of your friends with whom you maintain personal relations 
 of the most intimate character. Gratitude is a sentiment in which any man may feel a just 
 pride, and it is no doubt a pleasure to your friends that you display it in such an eminent 
 degree even in your judicial capacity. It is doubtless this distinguishing trait in your charac- 
 ter that impels you tj say that 11 privately your sympathies are most ardent in their Democratio 
 tendencies." 
 
 I could assign a number of reasons and facts, but deeming the above sufficient for the 
 present will reserve them for the future, and remain with esteem, your obedient servant, 
 
 I>r. Feodore Mierson. 
 
14 
 
 Becorder Hackett as a Supervisor. 
 
 Becorder Hackett became a member of the Board of Super* 
 visors in July, 1870, by virtue of his office of Becorder, and 
 remained a member during the worst period of the Bing rule, 
 receiving an extra salary of $2,000 for his services as a Super- 
 visor. It was as much his duty to see that the business of that 
 Board was conducted honestly as it was to perform any other 
 of the duties of his office. The fraudulent acts of this Board of 
 Supervisors were town talk, and if Becorder Hackett had been 
 the upright, impartial magistrate he is now asserted to be he 
 would have fought them to the bitter end, and if out- voted by 
 his colleagues, called the attention of the Grand Jury to their 
 action, this being the very purpose for which 'the Becorder was 
 made a member of the Board of Supervisors. 
 
 Yet Becorder Hackett' s voice was never raised, nor is his 
 vote recorded against a single one of the fraudulent measures 
 passed by the Board, of which he was a member, and for a 
 knowledge of whose acts he was responsible. On the contrary, 
 it appears by the official records that Recorder Hackett voted 
 for a large number of the fraudulent armory jobs, such as the 
 leasing of the premises at Ninth avenue and Twenty-seventh 
 street, for twelve years, at $12,000 a year, those at 118 to 128 
 West Twenty-second street, for six years, at a rent alleged to 
 be five times what the premises were really worth, and also th« 
 Centre Market job. Subsequently he voted for repairs to the 
 latter building amounting to upwards of $28,000. On the 13th 
 of December, 1870, he voted $11,000 for pay to forty-nine 
 attendants of the Court of Oyer and Terminer. On the 12th of 
 January, 1871, he voted for $16,000 for sixty-four attendants for 
 said court, and on May 1st, for forty-one attendants for said 
 court, which, as a judge, he must have known was fraudulent 
 He also voted for Tracey's bill for $16,000 for supplies to the 
 County Jail, which has since been defeated in the courts ; for 
 Morgan Jones' plumbing bill for over $6,000 for the same jail, 
 and, in fact, invariably voted in favor of paying every bill which 
 was brought before any of the meetings of the Board which he 
 attended. 
 
 It cannot be pretended but what, as Recorder Hackett must 
 b( considered to possess ordinary common sense, he must have 
 known that the transactions of the Board of Supervisors during 
 thifl time were fraudulent, and that the bills for which he voted 
 
15 
 
 were of the same character. Even, however, if he did not know 
 this, the least investigation would have assured him of what was 
 a matter of public notoriety, that the taxpayers were being 
 swindled in a most outrageous manner by the action of the 
 Board of which he was a member. If, therefore, he blindly 
 shut his eyes to the character of their transactions, it was 
 because he did not want to know it, and he is, consequently, as 
 much to blame as if he had been an active participant in the 
 frauds. His record as a Supervisor, therefore, shows him to 
 be something very different from the active and vigilant officer 
 which he is now asserted to be. 
 
 Recorder Hackett as a Commissioner of the Sinking Fund- 
 
 Among other responsible positions held by Recorder 
 Hackett was that of one of the Commissioners of the Sinking 
 Fund, for which he regularly drew a salary, $1,000 a year, until 
 Comptroller Green ascertained that he had no right to receive 
 it and refused to pay him. During the year 1871 Mr. Hackett's 
 colleagues were his old friend, Mayor Hall, in addition to 
 Comptroller Connolly and Alderman Dimond, and his actions 
 were precisely those that might be expected from a man found 
 in such company. ' 
 
 On June 19, 1871, Recorder Hackett and Comptroller Con- 
 nolly were appointed a committee to agree with William C. 
 Traphagen in regard to securing the possession of certain lands 
 held adversely to the city. 
 
 The lands in question were certain water grants, the facts 
 m regard to which were well known. They could only be re- 
 covered by legal proceedings, and the Corporation Counsel, as 
 the legal representative of the City, and the counsel of the Com- 
 missioners of the Sinking Fund, was the proper person and the 
 only one authorized to institute them. Moreover, as the owners 
 of this property were bona fide purchasers from the City, it would 
 have been grossly unjust to deprive them of it upon a techni- 
 cality. Yet. Mr. Hackett and Comptroller Connolly, under the 
 authority thus vested in them by the Commissioners of the 
 Sinking Fund, coolly entered into an agreement with William 
 C. Traphagen, placing the entire matter of recovering those 
 lands in his charge, and agreeing to advance all money he 
 
16 
 
 diould require for disbursement, and to pay him for his services 
 one-half their value, which agreement was confirmed by the vote 
 of Messrs. Hall and Dimond.* 
 
 * See the extract from the official record hereto annexed at page 30, antl 
 marked B. 
 
 That this was not only an utter violation of law but a plain 
 and transparent fraud upon the public needs no argument. It 
 is demonstrated, however, by the action of the new Board of 
 Commissioners of the Sinking Fund, in 1874, then consisting of 
 Mayor Havemeyer, Comptroller Green, Chamberlain Lane, 
 Recorder Hackett, and Alderman Van Schaick, by whom the 
 following resolution was passed, April 1, 1874, after a thorough 
 ventilation of the whole subject : 
 
 Whereas, On the minutes of the Commissioners of the Sinking 
 Fund there appears a writing purporting to be an agreement en- 
 tered into on the 20th of July, 1871, between the Commissioners of 
 the Sinking Fund and one William C. Traphagen relative to furnsh- 
 ing information in relation to the recovery of city property held ad- 
 versely to the Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty of the city of New 
 York : and 
 
 Whereas, The Commissioners of the Sinking Fund are of the 
 opinion that said pretended agreement is without authority of law, 
 and wholly operative and void, and that if said pretended agree- 
 ment were to be deemed and held binding and valid and effective bj 
 the Commissioners the interests of the city would be greatly embar- 
 rassed and damnified, and great loss would accrue : and 
 
 Whereas, The said pretended agreement would, if held valid, af- 
 ford great opportunity for oppressive measures upon innocent par- 
 ties ; therefore — be it 
 
 Resolved, That a certain resolution of the Commissioners of the 
 Sinking Fund purporting to authorize the execution of such pre- 
 tended agreement, and the pretended adoption thereof, as the act of 
 the Commissioners of the Sinking Fund on the twenty-fifth day of 
 July, 1871, be, and the same is hereby vacated and set aside, 
 rescinded, abrogated and cancelled, and that such pretended agree- 
 ment is hereby declared to be void and of no force and effect. 
 
 It is scarcely necessary to add that Eecorder Hackett op- 
 posed this recession of his action to the utmost, moving to strike 
 out of the resolution the words "purported" and "pretended** 
 (so as to leave Traphagen some shadow of a claim), then at- 
 tempting to pigeon hole the matter by moving to refer it to the 
 Corporation Counsel, and finally voting against it. 
 
17 
 
 The New York Times, the day after the repeal of this con- 
 tract (April 2, 1874), spoke of it as the anti-type of the cele- 
 brated Sanborn contract, as a " highly symmetrical job" and as 
 exhibiting a boldness of conception not dreamt of by the col- 
 lectors of federal taxes (referring to the outcry then going on 
 about Jayne). The Times stated further : 
 
 "Thai, the whole ground had been covered by the most copious and precise judicial de- 
 u cisions : the Revised Statutes had re-enacted and simplified all the essential legislation 
 "on the subject * * * * 
 
 " Ili.s'(Traphagan's) theory went to the extent of holding that a grant made in good 
 "faith and duly paid for might still be " held adversely " to the corporation and without o-ood 
 "title * * * * 
 
 " This, then, briefly, was the nature of Mr. Traphagan's contract. The same Board 
 " which had confirmed the titles and taken the money of the owners of city water grants em- 
 " powered a smart lawyer to contest, at tlie city's expense, the validity of those titles, and if he 
 41 fonnd a flaw in them t« dispossess the owner and take half the proceeds * * He might be 
 41 able for years to harass proprietors along the whole water front without risking a cent of his 
 "own money, and without faiiing, if so minded, to be very well paid for the expenditure of 
 "his own time. 
 
 " Nor was this all. Suppose the contiguous proprietors, who had taken and paid for 
 " their grants in good faith, had been dispossessed by Mr. Traphagan. They could hardly fail 
 " to have a right of action against the Sinking Fund lor the recovery of the money paid for a 
 "worthless title. While tJie Commissioners were putting into one pocket half the realized 
 "■value af a recovered grant they would tlierefore Tiave had to take out oftlie otJier the whole 
 "amount originally paid for it * * * * 
 
 " Had Hall, Connolly and the rest of the King Commissioners remained in power they 
 «' could have provided a magnificent field for the enterprise of their contra*, t >r. They had only 
 <* to leave some legal flaw In their grants of water rights to be readily detected by Mr. Trap- 
 t'tiagan and to be used for the expropriation of the innocent proprietor." 
 
 In view of the fact that the author of this highly symmetri- 
 cal job, and one' of the Ring Commissioners who approved it, was 
 Recorder John K. Hackett, the eulogies which the Times now 
 - heaps to him seems a little strained. 
 
 Recorder Hackett as a Protector of the Ring. 
 
 In Mr. Peckham's letter, which is printed on page two, it 
 appears that Recorder Hackett not only interfered to stop the 
 trial of Mayor Hall before Judge Daly, (which then looked very 
 much as if conviction would be had), but that he quashed the 
 indictment against Hugh Smith upon a false assumption of the 
 law, and consented to a not pros, not only of the indictment 
 against Smith, bufc of those against Sweeny, Tweed, and Wood- 
 ward. 
 
 But this was not the only occasion in which he interfered 
 on behalf of the Ring. It will be remembered that in Septem- 
 ber and October, 1868, the Citizens' Association of New York, 
 which had not then fallen into the hands of the Ring, published 
 a number of communications in regard to the way in which the 
 affairs of the city were being conducted by those officials. For 
 the purpose of over-awing them by threats of criminal prosecu- 
 tion, Recorder Hackett, in his charge to the Grand Jury on 
 October 7th, 1868, made the following charge : 
 
13 
 
 " For some time past, and more especially within the past few weefes, various charges of 
 non-feasance and misfeasance against public officers have been published in the shape of 
 letters purporting to have eminated from a body styling itself a ' Citizens' Association.' If 
 the charges adverted to had been suscep:able of legal proof then they should have been long 
 since presented for the consideration of a police magistrate or of a grand jury of this county, 
 but they appear to have been made on insufficient or hearsay or partisan or prejudiced testi- 
 mony, and, therefore, they may possibly become libellous. One of the officials thus assailed 
 has boldly charged over his own signature that there is practically no such body as the 
 'Citizen's Association ;' that a few interested persons prepared and fulminated the charges 
 in question on their individual responsibility. Thus, on the one hand, the so-called 4 Citizens' 
 Association' arraigns individuals, and, on the other, one individual arraigns the so-called 
 association. In this connection I may be permitted to add that the existence of a star chamber 
 secret in meeting and irresponsible in character, originated the institution of the Grand Jury 
 as long since as the reign of Charles II., and if it be true, as charged by a communication 
 before me, that the accusations proceded from a few men, who, by large salaries and fees paid 
 them, make a business of originating complaints not, disinterestedly originated or fulminated 
 then they are unquestionably libelous. The Grand Jury is a constitutional body, created to 
 exercise'just such functions as the Citizens' Association is charged to have unpractically 
 usurped. Besides we have in this city a vigilant and impartial corps of newspaper reporters 
 and editors, who can and do arraign officers without the aid of any amateur reporters and 
 impromptu editors, such as it is charged edit newspapers with letters signed by a so-called 
 Citizens' Association. I would suggest that, in justice to the latter, you inquire if there 
 really be such an association at the present time ; its object, whether accusations are made by 
 the action of its whole body, or by a few of its members, of whom sucn body or such com- 
 mittee consists ; whether the association holds meetings, how much its officers are paid, for 
 what services, by whom paid ; does it obtain evidence of the charges it purposes to make 
 through its officers ; if so, are such charges based upepi legal evidence and what is the charac- 
 ter of such evidence ? Then, if you think the matter worthy of your attention, and in the 
 furtherance of the public good, grasp that jurisdiction over offenses which they have usurped. 
 But, if you find the association to be comparatively mythical and its agents to be pecuniarily 
 interested in originating or publishing charges for which there is neither no or hearsay evi- 
 dence, then, in justice* to those whom it has defiantly arraigned, indict them promptly for libel. 
 
 In reply to this unprovoked and illegal attack which threatened both the freedom of 
 speech and the liberty of the press the Citizens' Association called the attention of the Grand 
 Jury to the fact of the Ring frauds which had been perpetrated in the erection and fitting up 
 of the Court House, the frauds in fitting up armories, and to Recorder Hackett's own conduct 
 «' in receiving $21,750 for doing part ot the work of the Corporation Counsel's office, although 
 during the period when he was Recorder and drawing in such capacity a salary and allow- 
 ance amounting during that period to $15,000." And also declared " that in this country a 
 public officer was the servant of the people, and that it was not only his right but the duty of 
 every citizen to exercise tho most diligent watch over the conduct of all officials, whether 
 legislative or judicial, and that without such constant supervision, incapable and dishonest 
 men may attain to the highest positions of the State, and even the courts may become sanc- 
 tuaries for fraud when dishonest judges may use their power for the. suppression of virtue 
 and encouragement of vice, the perversion of official morality, and for private gain," — 
 which language most people considered to apply very closely to the conduct of Recorder 
 Hackett. 
 
 A copy of this letter will be found at page marked C. 
 
 The Grand Jury, instead of following the lead of the Ke- 
 corder and attacking the Citizens' Association which was doing 
 its best to expose official wrong-doing, came into court on the 
 twenty-third day of October, 1868, and through its foreman 
 handed to Recorder Hackett the following presentment in re- 
 gard to the matter of his charge : 
 
 The Grand Jury of the county of New York present for the iD for- 
 mation of the Court in reference to the charge concerning tho 
 Citizens' Association, that it is the right and duty of every 
 citizen in a free country to exercise the strictest supervision 
 over the conduct of public officers and the expenditures of the public 
 money, and to lay before the people, whenever it may be necessary, 
 facts effecting the public interests ; also, that in this community, 
 where the public money is to a great extent extravagantly expended, 
 Hick: is a necessity for an association whose object is to prevent im- 
 proper expenditure. Tho Grand Jury present it as then opinion 
 that the Citizens' Association of New York has striven zealously and 
 efficiently to protect the public interest, and is entitled to the respect 
 of the community. 
 
19 
 
 Recorder Hackett handed the presentment among other 
 papers to the Clerk of the Conrt. Mr. Hall was District Attor- 
 ney. The presentment was subsequently suppressed on the ridicu- 
 lous pretext that it should have been signed also by the District- 
 Attorney. Mr. Hall went before the Grand Jury and lectured 
 them, stating among other things that they had all been guilty 
 of contempt of Court in presenting such a paper to the Re- 
 corder, and finally induced them to recall the paper. Instead 
 of their proceeding to investigate the matter charged in the 
 document sent by the Citizens' Association, an effort was made 
 by the District-Attorney and others to indict the officers of the 
 association for an alleged misdemeanor in having the audacity 
 to address communications to the Grand Jury calling its atten- 
 tion to the frauds of certain officials. Of course this attempt 
 was a lamentable failure. 
 
 How intimate Recorder Hackett's relations were with the 
 worst portion of the Ring were, and into what company it led 
 him may be inferred from the fact of his being a visitor at the 
 residence of the celebrated " Josie " Mansfield. 
 
 Josie Mansfield and Recorder Hackett. 
 
 Upon .the trial and impeachment of George G. Barnard be- 
 fore the Senate in the Summer of 1872, Josie Mansfield was ex- 
 amined as a witness. The testimony will be found in Volume I 
 •pages 362 to 389. She testified that she lived with the late 
 Jim Fisk in Twenty-third Street in this city. 
 
 The following evidence shows that Recorder Hackett was 
 a visitor at her house : 
 
 Q.— Where did you reside in 1868 ? 
 
 A.— IS West 24th St. 
 
 Q. — Did you during that year see George G. Barnard at 
 that house? 
 A. — I did. 
 Q.— How often? 
 A. — Once in three or four weeks. 
 
 * * * *- #,* * * 
 
 Q. — Have you seen William M. T weed there ? 
 A. — Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. — About what time did you move into the house in Twan- 
 dy-third Street ? 
 
20 
 
 A.— The first day of July, 1869. 
 
 Q. — Now, what other public officers of the City of New 
 York were yon accustomed to receive at your house besides 
 Judge Barnard ? 
 
 A. — I have received Recorder Hackett. — Yol. I. Barnard 
 Trial, page 389. 
 
 Is not this rather singular company for an " upright Judge," 
 a " terror to evil doers " to keep ? 
 
 -How Hackett Preserves the Law and Protects his Friends. 
 
 Although in the existing condition of public sentiment Re- 
 corder Hackett does not dare to proceed to the length in which 
 did in this attack upon the Citizens' Association, yet he still does 
 all in his power to save his friends from punishment. 
 
 Morrissey, O'Brien and Ben W ood are his warm supporters, 
 through, whose influence he obtained the anti-Tammany nomi- 
 nation. They are universally kuown as gamblers and lottery- 
 dealers, and would be injured if the provisions of law affecting 
 their interests were to be carried out. 
 
 The following comparison between the charge of Recorder 
 Hackett to the Grand Jury, and the provisions of law directing 
 what he ought to charge, affords a striking example of the man- 
 ner in which he performs his duty as Recorder, so as to protect 
 Messrs. Morrissey, Wood & Co : 
 
 Charge to the Grand Jury. 
 (From the K Y. Herald Sept. 8, 1875.) 
 
 At the opening of the Court of General Sessions yesterday 
 Recorder Hackett delivered the following significant charge : 
 
 " I am required by sundry special statutes to invite your par- 
 ticular attention to certain vices and crimes. First gaming 
 houses, although few, except private clubs, now appear to exist. 
 Second — Offenses against the Excise laws, although the Commis- 
 sioners seem to handle the subject with discrimination. 
 
 Third — Emigrant frauds, although the preventives and 
 safeguards established under the earlier regimes of Castle Gar- 
 den seemed to have killed them. 
 
 Fourth — Lotteries ; but these are entirely drawn in States 
 and counties where law permits them. 
 
 Nifth-- Usury ; although the buying and sale of commercial 
 paper and securities as commodities seem to have superceded 
 undue discounts or interest loans. 
 
21 
 
 Sixth — Election misdemeanors, which just now can only re- 
 late to those which may occur under the appointment of inspec- 
 tors of registration. 
 
 In addition to these subjects I invite your attention to the 
 prison calendar. The Tombs is crowded with criminal scholars 
 and graduates. After a species of interregnum to vice and 
 crime during the spring, immorality and offences seem to have 
 constituted throughout the summer just ending almost an epide- 
 mic, if that word may be applied to diseased conscience and per- 
 verted will." 
 
 The following are the provisrons of law prescribing what such a 
 charge should contain : 
 
 11 It shall be the duty of the presiding judge of every Court of General Sessioits of the 
 Peace specially to charge every Grand Jury to inquire into all violations of the laws against 
 lotteries, and against the unlawful selling of tickets in lotteries. " 
 
 Chap. 20, art. 4 of part 1 of Edmund's Ed, Rev. Stat., sec 54. 
 
 EXCISE. 
 
 44 ft shall be the duty of Courts to instruct Grand Jurors to present aH persons who may 
 tee charged with adulterating imported or other intoxicating liquors, &c, and selling the same, 
 Ac, kc.» 
 
 Chap. 6*28, sec. 29 of law passed April 16, 1837. 
 ELECTION FRAUDS. 
 
 The Recorder is also required to " specially" charge Grand Juries in regard to the subject of 
 election frauds. 
 
 Laws of 1839, chap. 389, sec 18. 
 OBSCENE LITERATURE. 
 
 " It shall be the duty of the Presiding Judge of every Court of Sessions, or Oyer and Ter 
 miner, within tlus State, especially to charge the Grand Jury, at each term qf said Court, to 
 lake notice of all offences committed in violation of any of the provisions of this act." 
 Laws of 1868, chap. 430, sec. 4, passed April 28th. 
 
 RECEIVING ILLEGAL FEES. 
 
 " It shall be t>e duty of every Court at which a Grand Jury shall be summoned, to charge 
 such jury specially to inquire into any violations of law by public officers in demanding 
 charging" or receiving fees to which they are not entitled by law." 
 
 Laws of 1S47, chap. 455, sec. 17, passed Dec. 14th. 
 
 DISCLOSING PROCEEDINGS OF GRAND JURIES. 
 
 "In charging Grand Juries the Court shall apprize them of the foregoing provisiOH for- 
 bidding the disclosure of the fact that any indictment has been had." 
 
 Part 4, chap. 1, tit. 6, sec. 41, of rev. stat. (Edmunds Ed.) 
 
 Sackett must admit his ignorance of the law or else he was 
 guilty of three distinct misdemeanors in that charge ; to wit, in not 
 charging in reference to "Obscene Literature" — "Illegal fees" 
 and " disclosing proceedings.' 4 
 
 The statute reads, " Where any duty shall be enjoined by law 
 upon any public officer, or upon any person holding any public 
 trust or employment, every wilful neglect to perform suah duty 
 where no special provision shall have been made for the punish- 
 ment of such delinquency, shall be a misdemeanor, punishable 
 a-K herein prescribed." 
 
 Part 4, chap. 1, tit. 6, sec. 38, rev. stat. (Edrm Ed.) Sec. 40 of 
 same chap, prescribes as punishment for such offense^ " County 
 
22 
 
 Jail not exceeding one year, or by fine not exceeding $250, o? 
 by both such fine and imprisonment." 
 
 HIS OMISSION DELIBERATE NOT ACCIDENTAL. 
 
 But outside of his failure to comply with the statutes his 
 charge was still more outrageous in its evident intent to with- 
 draw the attention of the jury from investigating the real causes 
 of crime in this city which the law made it his duty to call to 
 their attention. 
 
 1st. He told them that there are few, if any, gambling houses 
 in town. 
 
 Everyone knows that now (under the very noses of the police) 
 gambling is carried on in every part of the city. 
 
 2d. He tells them that " the Commissioners seem to handle the 
 Excise Laws with discrimination," when he knew perfectly 
 well that there were a large number of persons of notor- 
 iously bad character, selling liquor without a license 
 throughout the city. 
 
 3d. He withdraws the subject of lotteries from their attention 
 by telling them " that they are entirely drawn in states and 
 counties where the law permits them." 
 
 He knew at the time he then tried to thus mislead the Grand 
 Jury, that there were hundreds of lottery indictments lying 
 untried in the District Attorney's office. 
 
 He knew at the time that it was illegal to sell a lottery ticket 
 here, even though the lottery was drawn in a state which 
 authorized it. 
 
 He knew at the time that it had been determined by the highest 
 Court in the State that it was a misdemeanor to publish an 
 account of a drawing of a lottery to be had in another state, 
 and that the iaw was constantly infringed. 
 He knew at the Lime that he made that charge that one of the 
 principal editors of one of the city newspapers was under 
 indictment for breaking the law on this subject, and that h© 
 was daily defying the law by repetitions of the offence. 
 He also knew when he was misleading the jury in this way that 
 gambling, selling lottery and policy tickets, and infringe- 
 ment of the election laws, produced more private and public 
 demoralization than anything else, and led to most of the 
 individual crimes he was called upon to punish. 
 
 Hackett's Blunders as a Judge. 
 When a judicial officer who, in addition to his duties as a 
 criminal Judge, Supervisor and Commissioner of the Sinking 
 Fund, for which he receives from $15,000 to $17,000 a year, un- 
 dertakes to earn (?) $15,000 a year in addition by acting as 
 Assistant Corporation Counsel, Commissioner in opening Streets, 
 and kec]>ing a private law office, he naturally cannot be expected- 
 
23 
 
 to be very conversant with his duties as a Judge, or to make him- 
 self conversant with criminal law, consequently it is not a matter 
 of surprise to find Recorder Hackett constantly making the most 
 extraordinary decisions. Mr. Peckham's letter shows that in 
 the case of quashing the Sweeny indictments Recorder iiackett 
 decided erroneously. Still, the friendly relations which existed 
 between Hackett and the Ring were such that it would be more 
 proper to ascribe this decision to friendship, gratitude for past 
 favors, or some other similar influence than that of mistake. 
 
 In the majority of cases tried before Recorder Hackett the 
 parties are poor and friendless and unable to bear the expense 
 of an appeal, but in those cases where appeals are taken the 
 proportion of his decisions which are reversed are greater than 
 those of any other judge who sits on the bench. 
 
 Thus, out of forty-nine appeals that have been found to 
 have been taken from his decisions (being all that were taken 
 from January 19, 1863, to March 5, 1875), no less than twenty- 
 two (22) reversals were reported. 
 
 The cases reversed on appeal from the Court of Sessions 
 were as follows : — 
 
 Name of Prisoner. 
 
 John Piweell. 
 
 Margaret Welch. 
 
 John Wilson. 
 
 Louis Baccio. 
 
 James Hannegan. 
 
 Jerome Bradley. 
 
 Patrick McDonald. 
 
 Henry W. Gaston. 
 
 Henry McCord. 
 
 Frederick N. Remsen. 
 
 Thomas Lookup Evans. 
 
 William H. McNevin. 
 
 Ann E. Burns. 
 
 William Marx. 
 
 Jacob Rosenweig. 
 
 Henry Newman, alias - 'Dutch 
 
 Heinrich." 
 Charles Moore. 
 Abraham Greenthal. 
 Wm. J. Barclay. 
 Thomas Bell. 
 Anthony 0. Jones. 
 Walter Brown, alias John 
 
 Wood. 
 Peter Woods. 
 Elisabeth Ormby. 
 Patrick Carn. 
 Edward Murphy. 
 Duncan D. Templeton. 
 Thomas Lanahan. 
 Frederick Evers. 
 Thomas Cunningham. 
 James Burke. 
 
 The Judge 
 before whom 
 tried. 
 
 Hackett. 
 Hackett. 
 Hackett. 
 Hacfcett. 
 Hackett. 
 Hackett. 
 Bedford. 
 Hackett. 
 Hackett. 
 Hackett. 
 Bedford. 
 Bedford. 
 Hackett. 
 Hackett. 
 Hackett. 
 
 | Hackett. 
 
 ' Hackett. 
 Bedford. 
 Hackett. 
 Hackett. 
 Bedfoid. 
 
 | Sutherland 
 
 Hackett. 
 
 Sutherland 
 
 Hackett. 
 
 Hackett. 
 
 Hackett. 
 
 Sutherland 
 
 Hackett. 
 
 Hackett. 
 
 Hackett. 
 
 By which Court overruled an* 
 New Trial granted. 
 
 Supreme Court. Gen'l Term. 
 Supreme Court, Gen'l Term. 
 Court of Appeals. 
 Court of Appeals. 
 Court of Appeals. 
 Supreme Court, Gen'l Term. 
 Supreme Court, Gen'l Term. 
 Supreme Court, Gen'l Term, 
 Court of Appeals. 
 Court of Appeals. 
 Court of Appeals. 
 Supreme Court, Gen'l Term, 
 Supreme Court, Gen'l Term. 
 Supreme Court, Gen'l Term. 
 Supreme Court, Gen'l Term. 
 
 J Sup. Court, Gen'l Term. 
 
 Court of Appeals. 
 Supreme Court, Gen'l Term. 
 Supreme Court, Gen'l Tenn. 
 Supreme Court, Gen'l Term. 
 Court of Appeals. 
 
 | Court of Appeals. 
 
 Court of Appeals. 
 Court of Appeals. 
 Snpreme Court, Gen'l Term. 
 Supreme Court, Gen'l Term. 
 Supreme Court, Gen'l Term. 
 Court of Appeals. 
 Supreme Court, Genl Term. 
 Supreme Court, Gen'l Term. 
 Supreme Court, Gen'l Term. 
 
24 
 
 Recorder Hackett's preeminent abilities as a Judge further 
 appear from the fact that while his decisions have been reversed 
 ticenty-tivo times, those of his colleagues, Judges Bedford and 
 Sutherland, have together been reversed but eight times. 
 
 Does not this show him to be a very Daniel come to 
 judgment ? 
 
 Hackett's Justice. 
 
 The length to which this statement has extended will only 
 permit a brief reference to the partial character Rof ecorder 
 Hackett's decisions : 
 
 On October 5th, 1875, Hackett sentenced Charles H. Mad- 
 den, aged twenty, to twenty years' imprisonment for entering his 
 mother's room and taking eight dollars from her dress, which 
 lay on a table, his father having forbidden him the house, on 
 the ground that he had been guilty of burglary, it being 
 extremely doubtful whether the entrance of a minor into his 
 own^father's house constituted such an offence. It is also but 
 a short time since that he sentenced a poor Spaniard to impris- 
 onment for life for setting fire to his store. 
 
 Yet in the case of the notorious " Johnny the Greek," one 
 of the most dangerous pickpockets ever known, who was con- 
 victed of a daring larcency in a stage, and who richly deserved 
 the full punishment allowed by the law, this "just judge" 
 imposed a sentence of two years and six months, just half the 
 full ['penalty, owing, it has been publicly asserted and never 
 denied, to the intercession of the notorious " Jim " Irving, who 
 sat at Hackett's feet duriing the trial. 
 
 In a short time after " Johnny " was again arrested and 
 brought before Hackett, who accepted a plea of an attempt to 
 commit grand larcency, and imposed a sentence of one year. 
 
 " Johnny," of course, escaped in a few weeks and was again 
 arrested and discharged subsequently on some hocm poms with- 
 out ever been committed to serve out his term. 
 
 In vtew of these facts, who can say that John K. 
 Hackett should be re-elected as Kecokdeh? 
 
 A. 
 
 Statement of feos paid Recorder John E. Hackett for services 
 in assisting Corporation Counsel O'Gorman. 
 
 FROM JANUARY 1, 1866 TO AUGUST 31, 1867. 
 
 Contingencies — Law Department. 
 Jan. 24 — John K. Hackett, for professional services during the 
 year 18G6, in tho following suits vs. the Mayor et a!, of 
 Hew York City : 
 
25 
 
 Jan. 5 — Trying action of Alexander White vs. The 
 
 Mayor et al $175 00 
 
 Jan. 15 — Trying action of Wm. White, administrator, 
 
 vs. The Mayor et al 500 00 
 
 Jan. 19 — Trying action of Phillip Mass v& The Mayor 
 
 et al 100 GO 
 
 Jan. 24 — Trying action of Timmons vs. The Mayor et al. 50 00 
 
 Feb. 9 — Trying action of W. L. Northam vs. The 
 
 Mayor et al 100 00 
 
 Retaining fee, &c, Wheaton vs. The Mayor 
 
 et al 50 00 
 
 Retaining fee and services in Hudson River 
 Railroad Company vs. William R. Travers, 
 Deputy City Inspector 100 00 
 
 Feb. 10 — Retaining fee and attendance in suit Kenzie 
 
 Brice vs. The Mayor et al 50 00 
 
 Retaining fee and various attendances and 
 trying action of The Mayor et al. vs. De Witt 
 
 O. Allen et al 500 00', 
 
 Trying action of James Q. Smith v& The 
 
 Mayor et al., before A. B. Tappan, referee. . .. 250 00 
 
 Trying action of Gideon Lee Knapp vs. The 
 
 Mayor et al., before J. B. Haskin, referee 500 00 
 
 Trying action of Miller & Coates vs. The 
 Mayor et al., before James Kent, esq., re- 
 feree 250 0© 
 
 Retaining fee and professional services in 
 Ludlam Carnell and George W. Watson vs. 
 
 The Mayor et al 250 00 
 
 Retaining fee and professional services in 
 Winkleman vs. The Mayor et al 100 00 
 
 March — Professional services in the matter of The 
 Mandamus ex rel. J. F. Daly vs. The Board 
 of Supervisors, to compel books of Court 
 
 House Committee to be filed 100 00- 
 
 Trying action of Charles Oakley vs. The 
 
 Mayor et al., before O'Connor, referee 250 00 
 
 Trying action of Kenzie Brice vs. The Mayor 
 
 eta! 100 00 
 
 Mar/ 13 — Professional services and argument of appeal 
 in Henry Harnstein, appellant, vs. The Mayor, 
 
 &c, respondent 150 00 
 
 Professional services in The People ex rel. 
 O'Brien vs. The Members of the Common 
 
 Council, contempt case — 100 00 
 
 Retaining fee, professional services and. 
 
 attendance at five terms in the action of Henrv 
 
 G. Cox vs. The Mayor, &c, claim of $25,000... 500 00 
 
 Retaining fee, professional services and trying 
 
 action of Stillman Wilt vs. The Mayor, &c. . . . 250 00 
 
 Professional services in appeal to C®iut of 
 
26 
 
 Appeals and argument of Hanghwout vs. The 
 
 Mayor, &c 500 00 
 
 Mar. 27 — Professional services arguing motion in Court 
 of Appeals in Maynicke vs. The Mayor, and 
 travelling expenses 227 50 
 
 April 16 — Retaining fee and professional services in the 
 action of Jesse S. Marshall vs. John T. Hoff- 
 man, Mayor, &c, and Metropolitan Public 
 
 Conveyance Company 100 00 
 
 Retaining fee and professional services in 
 Odell vs. The Mayor, M. T. Brennan and 
 
 David S. Valentine 150 00 
 
 Retaining fee and professional services in 
 
 William P. Williams vs. The Mayor, &c 150 00 
 
 Retaining fee aud professional services in 
 Joseph Churchill vs The Mayor, and arguing 
 demurrer 250 00 
 
 May 10 — Retaining fee and trying action of Peter Mor- 
 ris vs. The Mayor 250 00 
 
 Retaining fee and professional services in The 
 
 Tribune Association vs. The Mayor, &c 100 00 
 
 Retaining fee and professional services in The 
 People ex rel. Riker vs. Matthew T. Brennan, 
 Comptroller, to pay award of $29,000 manda- 
 mus denied 150 00 
 
 Retaining fee and professional services in the 
 following injunction actions to restrain the 
 public sale of various piers, bulkheads, &c., 
 &c. : New York and Havre Steamship Com- 
 pany vs. The Mayor, &c. ; New York Balance 
 Dock Company vs. The Mayor, &c. ; Marshall 
 O. Roberts vs. The Mayor, &c; Stephen Con- 
 dit Transportation Company vs. The Mayor, 
 
 &c; Russell Sturgisvs. The Mayor. &c 500 00 
 
 May 22 — Retaining fee and professional services pre- 
 paring case on appeal in Berrian vs. The 
 Mayor, &c 100 00 
 
 $6,902 50 
 
 May 24 — Argument in contempt case of The People ex 
 rel. Richard O'Brien vs. Healey and eleven 
 
 others of the Board of Councilmen 100 00 
 
 Professional services and trying action of 
 . Daniel O'Neil vs. The Mayor, &c 125 00 
 
 May 31 — Professional service and trying action of An- 
 drew McCool vs. The Mayor. &c, before O'- 
 
 Conor, referee 250 00 
 
 Retaining fee and professional services in the 
 action of International Insurance Company vs. 
 The Mayor, &c, Board of Supervisors and 
 Holden Marshall, &c 250 00 
 
 June 14 — Retaining fee and trying action of Dorotha 
 
 Behrens vs. The Mayor, &c 150 00 
 
27 
 
 Retaining fee and professional services and 
 trying action of Hatfield vs. The Mayer, 
 
 &c . 150 00 
 
 Retaining fee and professional services in the 
 following entitled actions viz: National Broad- 
 way Bank vs. The Mayor, &c. ; Corn Exchange 
 Bank vs. The Mayor, &c. ; Metropolitan Na- 
 tional Bank vs. The Mayor, &c. ; Park Na- 
 tional Bank vs. The Mayor, &c; Bank of 
 Commerce vs. The Mayor, &c. ; Phenix Na- 
 tional Bank vs. The Mayor, &c. ; National Shoe 
 and Leather Bank vs. The Mayor &c. ; Galla- 
 tin National Bank vs. The Mayor, &c; The 
 People ex tel. Francis A. Palmer vs. The 
 Mayor, &c. ; The People ex rel. Henry J. Beers 
 vs. The Mayor, &c. ; The People ex rel. John 
 Bodine vs. The Mayor &c; The People ex rel. 
 Wm. K. Ketckum vs. The Mayor, &c; The 
 People ex rel. John Gr. Williams vs. The 
 Mayor, &c. ; The People ex reL David Dows 
 
 vs. The Mayor, &c 1,000 00 
 
 July 19 — Arguing motion in opposition to an extra al- 
 lowance in Hatfield vs. The Mayor, &c 25 00 
 
 Aug. 16 — To retaining fee and arguing motion to show 
 cause why a mandamus should not issue to 
 compel the Comptroller to issue bonds for 
 
 Lowber Market 250 00 
 
 To retaining fee in injunction suit The People 
 ex rel. Ann Walter et al. vs. The Mayor and 
 N. Y. and Harlem R. R. Company 250 00 
 
 Aug. 17 — To ret am in g fee and trying action of Ann 
 Orderson vs. The Mayor, &c, before Baldwin, 
 referee 250 00 
 
 Aug. 20 — Retaining fee and professional services in 
 Alexander T. Stewart vs. The Mayor, &c, and 
 
 Aerial Railway Company 250 00 
 
 Retaining fee and professional services in the 
 action of Christopher Pullman vs. the Mayor, 
 
 &c. (in re. Manhattan Gas Company) 250 00 
 
 Retaining fee and professional services in the 
 People ex rel. A. T. Stewart vs. The Mayor, 
 
 &c...... . 150 00 
 
 Retaining fee, preparing case, points and argu- 
 ments ot appeal at General Term, Miller & 
 Coates, respondents, vs. The Mayor, &c, ap- 
 pellants • 250 00 
 
 Sept. 14 — Retaining fee and professional services argu- 
 ing motion for a mandamus in the action of 
 The People ex reL J. T. Henry vs. Charles G. 
 Cornell, Street Commissioner 150 00 
 
 Nov. 10 — Retaining fee, preparing case and points and 
 arguing appeal in Supreme Court, Hickson 
 Sailes vs. The Mayor, &c 250 00 
 
28 
 
 Retaining fee, preparing case and points and 
 arguing appeal at General Term Superior 
 Court, Stellman Nitt vs. The Mayor &c., res- 
 pondents 250 00 
 
 Retaining fee, preparing case and points in 
 appeal Angus Ross vs. The Mayor &c, General 
 
 Term Supreme Court 150 0© 
 
 Retaining fee, professional services and trying 
 
 action of Luke Casey vs. The Mayor &c 250 00 
 
 Retaining fee, professional services and trying 
 
 action of Charles Cousins vs. The Mayor, &c. 250 00 
 
 Nov. 19* — Retaining fee, professional services and trying 
 
 action of Daniel F. Kimball vs. The Mayor. 250 00 
 Professional services, and trying action of 
 Churchill vs. The Mayor, &c, for $29,000 
 
 damages before Tappan, referee 600 00 
 
 Retaining fee, preparing case and points and 
 argument of appeal before Supreme Court at 
 Washington, Sheffield vs. The Mayor, &c 500 00 
 
 Dec. Retaining fee and professional services in 
 
 Jacob B. Smith vs. The Mayor 100 00 
 
 Retaining fee and professional services in 
 
 Manuel A. White vs. The Mayor, &c 100 00 
 
 Retaining fee and professional services in Ar- 
 thur Gentle vs. The Mayor, &c 100 00 
 
 Retaining fee and professional services in try- 
 ing action of Manhattan Gas Company vs. 
 
 The Mayor, &c 100 00 
 
 Retaining fee and professional services in 
 
 Louis Frey vs. The Mayor, &c 100 
 
 Retaining fee and professional services in John 
 
 Burn vs. The Mayor, &c 100 €0 
 
 Retaining fee and profes donal services in 
 
 John Campbell vs. The Mayor, &c < . 100 00 
 
 Retaining fee and professional service in Al- 
 bert Siebert vs. The Mayor, &c 100 m 
 
 1867. Total for 1866 $13,727.50 
 
 9 — T r_ee days attendance and arguing appeal in 
 case Alanson T. Briggs vs. The Mayor, Sec, 
 
 General Term Common Pleas 250 00 
 
 Jan. 18 — Five days attendance, trial of cause four days, 
 
 Angus Ross v % The Mayor, Aldermen &c. . . . 750 01 
 Jan. 20 — Attendance at the General Term of the Su- 
 preme Court, preparing case and points in the 
 1 " IJ #* People m rel. O'Brien vs. Healy and others. 250 00 
 Jan. 23 — Professional services and trying action of 
 
 Manuel A. White vs. The Mayor, &c 150 00 
 
 Jan. 24 — Retaining fee, professional services and try- 
 ing action of Brown vs. The Mayor, &c, some 
 principals affecting and controlling twenty- 
 
29 
 
 eight claims of a similar character; plaintiff 
 
 non-suited 1,000 00 
 
 Retaing fee and professional services in the fol- 
 lowing cases, viz. : The People ex rel. National 
 Bank Republic vs. J. T. Hoffman, R B. Con- 
 nolly and J. B. Young"; The People ex rel. 
 Broadway Bank vs. J. T. Hoffman, R. B. Con- 
 nollv and J. B Young ; The People ex reL 
 Bank New York vs. J. T. Hoffman, R. B. Con- 
 nolly and J. B. Young ; The People ex rel. 
 Ocean National Bank vs. J. T, Hoffman, R. B. 
 Connolly and J. B. Young ; The People ex reL 
 St. Nicholas Bank vs. J. T. Hoffman, R. B. 
 
 Connolly and J. B. Young 2,000.00 
 
 March. — The People ex rel. Brazil Mail Steamship Co. 
 
 vs. The Commissioners of Taxes and Assess- 
 ment (attorney and counsel fees) 250 00 
 
 Mar. 22 — Professional services and trying cause of Lem- 
 non vs. The Mayor, &c, in Common Pleas ; 
 Complaint dismissed 150 00 
 
 Mar. 25 — Professional services, attendance in court and 
 arranging settlement of action of Angus Ross 
 
 vs. The Mayor, &c 150 
 
 Professional services and trying the following 
 actions, viz. : Mary E. Waters vs. The Mayor, 
 &c. ; Jos. W. B. Smith vs. The Mayor, &c., 
 (discontined) ; Walter Clark vs. The Mayor, 
 &c. ; Catharine Reed vs. The Mayor, &c 400 00 
 
 Mar. 25 — Professional services, retaining fee and prepar- 
 ing ease on appeal, Miller & Coates vs. The 
 
 The Mayor, &c. ; specific performance 150|00 
 
 Retaining fee and professional services in 
 Pacific Mail Steamship Co. vs. The Mayor and 
 
 Commissioners of the Sinking Fund 250 00 
 
 Professional services in The People ex rel. 
 Market Commissioners vs. The Co/imion 
 
 Council .. . 250 00 
 
 Retaining fee and professional services in Wil- 
 liam H. Angell vs." The Mayor, &c '! 250 00 
 
 Retaining fee and professional services trying ] 
 
 cause of Peter Thompson vs. The Mayor, &c . 250 00 
 
 Retaining fee and professional services trying 
 
 cause of James Gilmartit* vs. The Mayor. &c... 250 00 
 
 Retaining foe and professional rcrvices Hying 
 
 cause of .Ross vs. The Mayor, &c 250 00 
 
 Professional services in trying cause of 
 Churchill vs. The Mayor, &c , before Tappan, 
 
 referee 250 00 
 
 Professional services in trial of cause of Oak- 
 ley vs. The Major, &c, before O'Connor, re- 
 feree 250 00 
 
30 
 
 Professional services in trial of cause of James 
 M. Smith vs. The Mayor, &c, A. B. Tappan, 
 
 referee 250 00 
 
 Retaining fee and professional services and 
 trying cause of Morris Ketchum vs. The Mayor, 
 &c, Superior Court ' 250 00 
 
 Total for 1867, 8,000 00 
 
 Aggregate $21,727 50 
 
 "B." 
 
 Extracts from the minutes of the Commissioners of the Sink- 
 ing Fund in regard to the Traphagen Contract. 
 At a meeting of the Commissioner of the Sinking Fund, 
 held June 19, 1871. 
 
 Present : A. Oakey Hall, Mayor. 
 
 John K. Hackett, Recorder. 
 Richard B. Connolly, Comptroller. 
 J. G. Dhnond, Ch. Fin. Com. 
 
 Board of Aldermen. 
 The Recorder submitted the following Resolution, which on 
 motion was adopted, viz : 
 
 Whereas, it is represented to the Commissioners of the 
 Sinking Fund that William C. Traphagen, Esq., of the City of 
 New York, is possessed of knowledge that, (and how) some 
 pieces, parcels and rights of property belonging to the Corpo- 
 ration of New York, to which at the present, said Corporation do 
 not make claim, and : 
 
 Whereas, The same is however claimed and held br 
 others adversely to the Corporation and without legal title from 
 it, and : 
 
 Whereas. The said Commissioners are willing without ac- 
 complishing injustice to reduce to the possession of the Corpo- 
 ration, and to it make available all the said property, and : 
 
 Whereas, It is the duty of the Commissioners of the Sink- 
 ing Fund, as Trustees of City property, to maintain any and all 
 legal title to the property of the said Corporation, and : 
 
 Whereas, The said William C. Traphagen is willing upon 
 certain conditions to be agreed upon to give to these Commis- 
 sioners information of fact which will enable the Corporation 
 aforesaid to obtain possession of the pieces, parcels and rights 
 of property above referred to. Now therefore, 
 
Resolved, That Recorder Hackett and Comptroller Con- 
 nolly, be and hereby are appointed a committee with power, and 
 are directed to enter into and conclude a proper agreement with 
 the said William C. Traphagen, and in such manner and form 
 as to them shall seem best, for the purpose of securing to the 
 said Corporation of the Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty of 
 the City of New York, the possession and enjoyment of the said 
 pieces, parcels and rights of property, which agreement shall 
 embody a contingent (only) compensation to be paid to said 
 Williajn C. Traphagen, and whatever litigation shall become 
 necessary shall be conducted by the Counsel to the Corporation 
 m connection with said William C. Traphagen. 
 
 Signed, A. Oakey Hall, Mayor. 
 
 John K. Hackett, Recorder. 
 Richard B. Connolly, Comptroller. 
 John E. Dimond, Chr. Finance 
 Com. Bd. of Aid. 
 
 At a meeting of the Commissioners of the Sinking Fund, 
 held at the Comptroller's office July 25, 1871, present — A. 
 Oakey Hall, Mayor, J ohn K. Hackett, Recorder, Richard B. 
 Connolly, Comptroller, James E. Dimond, Chairman Fin. Com. 
 Board of Aldermen, the following report of the Committee ap- 
 pointed June 19, 1871, with power to enter into and conclude a 
 proper agreement with William C. Traphagan, in relation to se- 
 curing to the corporation possession of pieces, parcels, and rights 
 of property held by others adversely to the corporation with- 
 out legal title, was received, viz : 
 
 To the Honorable 
 
 the Commission of the Sinking Fund 
 
 of the City of New York. 
 We, the undersigned, who, by resolution of your body, 
 passed on the 19th June, 1871, were appointed a Committee 
 with power, and were directed to enter into and conclude a pro- 
 per agreement with William C. Traphagan, and in such manner 
 and form as to us should seem best for the purpose of securing 
 to the Corporation, the Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty of 
 the City of New York, the possession and enjoyment of certain 
 pieces, parcels and rights of property belonging to them, and 
 
32 
 
 situated in the said City and County of New York, do respect- 
 fully report as follows : That we have entered into, concluded 
 and executed an agreement with said Traphagan in conformity 
 with, and under the authority of the resolution above referred, 
 and which said agreement (which has been executed in dupli- 
 cate) accompanies this report, dated July 20th, 1871. 
 
 Signed, 
 
 John K. Hackett, Recorder. 
 Eichaed B. Connolly, Comptroller. 
 
 On motion, the following resolution was adopted, viz : 
 Besolved, That the report of Messrs. Hackett, Recorder, and 
 Connolly, Comptroller, in and by which it appears that they, 
 under the authorization of this Board, and on behalf of the 
 Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty of the City of New York, 
 have entered into an agreement with William C. Traphagan, 
 Esq., be adopted ; and further, that the said agreement be 
 adopted as the act of this Board, and that the same, together 
 with the report of said Committee, be entered at length upon 
 the minutes. 
 
 The agreement referred to above is as follows, viz : 
 Whereas, At a meeting of the Commissioners of the Sinking 
 Fund held June 19th, 1871, the following preamble and resolution 
 were unanimously adopted, viz : 
 
 Whereas, It is represented to the Commissioners of the 
 Sinking Fund that William C. Traphagen, Esq., of the city of 
 New York, is possessed of knowledge that (and how) some 
 pieces, parcels and rights of property belong to the Corporation 
 of New York to which at present said corporation do not make 
 claim ; and 
 
 Whereas, The same is however claimed and held by others 
 adversely to the Corporation, and without legal title from it ; 
 and 
 
 Whereas, The said Commissioners are willing, without ac- 
 complishing injustice, to reduce to the possession of the Corpora- 
 tion, and to it make available all the said property ; and 
 
 Whereas, It is the duty of the Commissioners of the Sink- 
 ing Fund, as trustees of city property, to maintain any and all 
 legal title to the property of the said Corporation ; and 
 
 Whereas, The said William C. Traphagen is willing, upon 
 certain conditions to be agreed upon, to give to these Commis- 
 
35 
 
 sioners information of facts which will enable the Corporation 
 aforesaid to obtain possession of the pieces, parcels and rights 
 of property above referred to. 
 
 Now, Therefore, Resolved, That Recorder Hackett and Comp- 
 troller Connolly be, and hereby are appointed a Committee with 
 powers, and are directed to enter into and conclude a proper 
 agreement with the said William C. Traphagen, and in such 
 manner and form as to them shall seem best, for the purpose of 
 securing to the said Corporation of the Mayor, Aldermen and 
 Commonalty of tb City of New York, the possession and enjoy- 
 ment of the said pieces, parcels and rights of property which 
 agreement shall embody a contingent (only) compensation to be 
 paid to said William C. Traphagen, and whatever litigation shall 
 become necessary shall be conducted by the Counsel to the Cor- 
 poration in connection with said William C. Traphagen. 
 
 And Whereas, Also it is the duty of the Comptroller of the 
 city of NeAv York to prevent encroachments on property belong- 
 ing to the Corporation ; and 
 
 Whereas, The comptroller is willing, without accomplishing 
 injustice, to reduce to the possession of the corporation, and 
 make available the said property. 
 
 Now, in pursuance of such resolution aforesaid, and of the 
 premises this agreement, made the twentieth day of July, A. D. 
 1871, between the corporation of the Mayor, Aldermen and Com- 
 monalty of the city of New York, through the Commissioners of 
 the Sinking Fund, and the Comptroller of the city of New York, 
 of the first part, and William C. Traphagen, of the said city, of 
 the second part. 
 
 Vfitnesseth, That for and in consideration of one dollar in 
 liand paid by each of the parties to the other, the receipt 
 whereof is hereby acknowledged as well as in consideration of 
 the agreements hereinafter named between the parties. 
 
 The party of the first part agrees to pay to the party of the 
 second part a sum of money equal to the one-half of the value 
 of each and all the pieces, parcels and rights of property, of 
 which they shall become possessed through information given 
 to the Commissioners of the Sinking Fund by liim ; and it is 
 further agreed between the parties to these presents that the 
 value of each piece, parcel or right of property as soon as it 
 shall come into the possession of the party of the first part 
 shall be fixed if possible by an agreement in writing in duplicate 
 
34 
 
 between the parties signed by the Commissioners of the Sinking: 
 Fund on the part of the party of the first part, and by the party 
 of the second part on his own behalf, one of the said duplicates 
 to be retained by each of the parties hereto, and in case such 
 agreement as to value be so executed, then the Mayor, Alder- 
 men and Commonalty shall within five days thereafter pay to 
 the party of the second part a sum equal to the one-half of the 
 value thus fixed which payment to be made through the Comp- 
 troller of the City of New York on the party of the second part, 
 presenting to him his duplicate of the certificate of value signed 
 as above provided. 
 
 And in case the said Commissioners and the party of the 
 second part shall fail to agree upon a valuation of any piece or 
 parcel, or right of property, within twenty days after, the party 
 of the first part shall become possessed of such piece, parcel or 
 right of property then, and in that case such piece or parcel, or 
 right of property in regard to which there is such a failure, 
 shall be sold at public auction to the highest bidder by the said 
 Commissioners within forty days, after the expiration of the 
 above twenty days, in which the said Commissioners of the 
 Sinking Fund, and the party of the second part are given herein 
 to agree upon a valuation, and if upon such sale the party of 
 the second part shall become the purchaser then, and in such 
 case he shall be obliged, but one-half of the purchase money,, 
 and give a receipt to the party of the first part for the other one- 
 half of the purchase money, and thereupon a proper conveyance 
 of the piece, parcel or right of property shall at once be made 
 to him by the Corporation of the Mayor; Aldermen and Com- 
 monalty of the City of New York. 
 
 But if upon such sale the party of the 'first part shall become 
 the purchaser or bid the property in, then it shall within five 
 days after such sale pay through the Comptroller of the city of 
 New York to the said party of the second pact a sum equal to 
 the one-half part of the net sum bid by it on such sale ; and if a 
 third party shall become the purchaser at such sale then the 
 said party of the first part shall within five days after it receives 
 the purchase price of such property, through the said comp- 
 troller pay to the party of the second part, on his receipt for 
 the same the net one-half of the price for which such property^ 
 was sold, and so as to each piece ; parcel or right of property in 
 
35 
 
 reference to which there is a failure by the commissioners of the 
 sinking fund, and the party of the second part to agree upon 
 value. 
 
 And tha party of the first part further agrees to advance to 
 the said |*arty of the second part all the money that it shall be 
 necessary for him to disburse in maintaining and asserting the 
 rights of the corporation of the Mayor, Aldermen and Common- 
 alty of the city of New York to the pieces, parcels and rights of 
 property referred to in the resolution of the commissioners of 
 the sinking fund above recited ; and it is further agreed that 
 such money shall be disbursed under the direction of the Re- 
 corder of the city of New York, and Comptroller aforesaid, and 
 that all such money so advanced by the party of the first part 
 shall be returned to it by the party of the second part out of 
 the proceeds of the first property reduced to possession (after 
 such advance) by the corporation of the Mayor, Aldermen and 
 Commonalty of the city of New York. 
 
 And the party of the first part agrees that whenever the party 
 of the second part shall show the Commissioners of the Sinking 
 Fund that the Corporation of the Mayor, Aldermen and Common- 
 ality of the City of New York have rights in or to any piece, parcel, 
 or lights of property to which at present it does not make claim, and: 
 which is claimed and held by others adversedly to it, and without 
 any legal title from it, the party of t the first part will immediately 
 cause proceedings to be taken by the counsel of the Corporation in 
 connection with the party of the second part, either by suit or other- 
 wise as to them (said counsel and said party of the second part), 
 shall deem best for the recovery thereof ; and such proceedings shall 
 not be discontinued or unnecessarily delayed or compromised 02. 
 settled without the consent of the party of the second part. 
 
 And if by the joint agreement and concurrence of the respective 
 parties of the first part and second part, there shall be any settle- 
 ment of the claim of the party of the first part, or its rights in res- 
 pect to the property aforesaid, or any part or parcel thereof by the 
 payment on the part of the latter of monies, then the amount of 
 monies of such payment shall be equally divided between the parties 
 of the first part and the second part, upon the execution of quit 
 claim deeds by the party of the first part to the third parties in 
 possession. 
 
 And the said party of the second part agrees to fully inform 
 the said Commissioners of the linking Fund of the interest of the 
 party of the first part in and to the pieces, parcels, and rights of 
 
36 
 
 property in the above resolution referred to, in wkat they consist, 
 ■where located, and how they arise. 
 
 In witness whereof, the parties hereto have hereunto set their 
 hands and seals the day and year first above written. 
 
 Witness as to W. C. Traphagex, 
 (Signed) James O'Neill. 
 [LuS.] (Signed) W. C. Traphagex. 
 
 (Signed) C. W. Lawrence, ) 
 as to all. f 
 
 Signed, Jomi K. Hackett, Recorder, City of New York. 
 
 Signed, Richard B. Connolly, 
 
 [L.S.] Controller of the city of New York. 
 
 Slate of New York, City and County of New York ss. 
 
 On the twentieth day of July, 1871, before me came Jokn K. 
 Hackett, Recorder of the city of New York, and Richard B. Con- 
 nolly, Comptroller of the city of New York, and on the twenty-first 
 day of July, 1871, before me came William C. Traphagen, to me 
 severally known to be the persons described in and who executed the 
 the within instrument, and they severally acknowledged to me that 
 they executed such instrument for the purposes therein contained. 
 
 Signed, C. W. Lawrence, Notary Public, 
 
 City and County of New York. 
 
 Signed, A. Oakey Hall, Mayor. 
 
 John K. Hackett, Recorder. 
 Richard B. Connolly, Comptroller. 
 Jas. E. Diamond, chr. Fin. com. of 
 Board of Aid. 
 
 At a meeting of the Commissioners of the Sinking Fund 
 held at the Comptroller's office, March 25, 1874. Present, 
 
 W. F. Havemeyer, Mayor. 
 
 John K. Hackett, Recorder. 
 
 Andrew H. Green, Comptroller. 
 
 Geo. W. Lane, CJuzfiberlain, 
 
 J. Van ScfHAiOK, Ch. Fin. Com.. ITd (/Aid. 
 
ST 
 
 The comptroller submitted the following preamble and re- 
 solutions, viz. : 
 
 Whereas, On the minutes of the Commissioners of the Sink- 
 ing Fund there appears a writing purporting to be an agree- 
 ment entered into on the 20th of July, 1871, between the Com- 
 missioners of the Sinking Fund and one William C. Traphagen, 
 relative to furnishing information in relation to the recovery of 
 city property held adversely to the Mayor, Aldermen and Com- 
 monalty of the city of New York ; and 
 
 Whereas, The commissioners of the Sinking Fund are of 
 the opinion that said pretended agreement is without authority 
 of law, and wholly inoperative and void, and that, if said pre- 
 tended agreement were to be deemed and held binding and valid 
 and effective by the commissioners of the Sinking Fund, the in- 
 terests of the city would be greatly embarrassed and damnified 
 and great loss would accrue ; and 
 
 Whereas, The said pretended agreement would, if held valid, 
 afford great opportunity for oppressive measures upon innocent 
 parties ; therefore, be it — 
 
 Resolved, That a certain resolution of the commissioners of 
 the Sinking Fund, purporting to authorize the execution of such 
 -pretended agreement, and the pretended adoption thereof as 
 the act of the commissioners of the Sinking Fund on the twenty- 
 fifth day of July, 1871, be and the same is hereby vacated and 
 set aside, rescinded, abrogated and cancelled, and that such 
 pretended agreement is hereby declared to be void, and of no 
 force or effect, and that notice of the action of this board be 
 forthwith given to said William C. Traphagen. 
 
 Which on motion was laid on the table until the next meet- 
 ing of this board and made the special order at that meeting. 
 
 On motion, Resolved (the comptroller dissenting), that the 
 clerk of this board furnish a copy of the said preamble and re- 
 solution to William C. Traphagen, and also inform him that any 
 communication he may wish to make to this board be submitted 
 in writing, on or before Wednesday, April 1, 1874. 
 
 (Signed.) 
 
 Wm. F. Havemeyeb, Mayor. 
 
38 
 
 At a meeting of the Commissioners of the Sinking Fund* 
 held at the Comptroller's office, April 1, 1874. Present, 
 
 Wm. F. Havemeyer, Mayor. 
 
 John K. Hackett, Recorder, 
 
 Andrew H. Green, Comptroller, 
 
 Geo. W. Lane, Chamberlain. 
 
 J. Van Schaick. Ch. Fin, Com. B. A. 
 
 A communication was received from Wm. C. Traphagen in 
 relation to the preamble and resolution submitted by the Comp- 
 troller at the last meeting to receive certain proceedings and 
 action by the Commissioners of the Sinking Fund, July 25, 
 1871. which, on motion, was ordered on file. 
 
 The preamble and resolution laid over at the last meeting 
 and made the special order for this meeting, were taken up for 
 action. Whereupon the Comptroller moved to strike out of the 
 resolution the words, " and that notice of the action of this 
 Board be forthwith given to said William C. Traphagan." 
 
 The Recorder proposed to strike out of said resolution the 
 words "purported " and " pretended," stating his reason there- 
 for, and then moved that the preamble and resolution be referred 
 to the counsel to the corporation for his opinion. Whereupon 
 the chairman of the finance committee of the Board of Alder- 
 men submitted as a substitute the following resolution, viz. ; 
 
 Resolved, That the communication of Mr. Traphagen be re- 
 ferred to the Mayor to inquire into the right of this commission 
 to abrogate the contract heretofore made with Mr. Traphagan, 
 regarding water grants, etc., power being hereby given to the 
 Mayor to consult with . the corporation counsel or other 
 as he (the Mayor) may elect, which was not adopted. The 
 Mayor, Comptroller and Chamberlain voting in the negative, 
 and the Recorder and Chairman of the Finance Committee of 
 the Board of Aldermen in the affirmative. 
 
 The motion of the Comptroller to strike out of the resolu- 
 tion the words " and that notice of the action of this Board be 
 forthwith given to said Wm. C. Traphagan " was adopted. The 
 mayor, Comptroller and Chamberlain and Chairman of Finance 
 committee of the Board of Aldermen voting in the affirmative, 
 and the recorder in the negative. On motion, the preamble and 
 resolution was amended, viz. : 
 
 / 
 
39 
 
 WJtereas, On the minutes of the Commissioners of the 
 ■sinking fund there appears a writing purporting to be an 
 agreement, entered into on the 20th July, 1871, between the 
 Commissioners of the sinking fund and one Wm. C. Traphagan, 
 relative to furnishing information in relation to the recovery of 
 -city property, held adversely to the Mayor, Aldermen and Com- 
 monalty of the city of New York ; and, 
 
 Whereas, The Commissioners of the sinking fund are of the 
 opinion that said pretended agreement is without authority of 
 law, and wholly inoperative and void, and that if said pretended 
 -agreement were to be deemed and held binding and valid and 
 -effective by the commissioners the interests of the city would 
 be greatly embarassed and damnified, and great loss would 
 accrue ; and, whereas, the said pretended agreement would, if 
 held valid, afford great opportunities for oppressive measures 
 upon innocent parties ; therefore be it, 
 
 Resolved, That a certain resolution of the Commissioners of 
 •the sinking fund, purporting to authorize the execution of such 
 pretended agreement and the pretended adoption thereof as the 
 act of the Commissioners of the sinking fund on the 25th day 
 July, 1871, be, and the same is hereby, vacated and set aside, 
 •rescinded, abrogated and canceled, and that such pretended 
 agreement is hereby declared to be void and of no force or effect. 
 Were adopted. The Mayor. Comptroller and Chamberlain 
 noting in the affirmative, and the Recorder and Chairman of the 
 -finance committee of the Board of Aldermen in the negative 
 
 THE EEPLY OF THE ASSOCIATION. 
 
 Immediately upon the publication of Recorder Hackett's 
 -charge to the Grand Jury the following communication was sent 
 tio it by the Citizens' Association : 
 
 Citizens' Association of New Yobk, ) 
 October, 13, 1868. J 
 
 'To the Foreman and Member* of the Grand Jury of the County of 
 New York. 
 
 Gentlemen : The Recorder of this city, Hon. John" K. 
 Mackett, having in his charge »to you on Wednesday last ad- 
 
40 
 
 dressed you on the subject of- -the Citizens' Association and the 
 work in which it has been engaged for the -pasMive years, thus 
 officially calling your attention to the association and its labors, 
 the association proceeds to lay before you certain matters which 
 deeply concern the people of this city and the administration of 
 its local government. But first the association would call your 
 attention to the following remarks made by the Hon. George G. 
 Barnard, presiding Justice of our Supreme Court, in the course 
 of his charge to the Grand Jury of this county, your predeces- 
 sors, assembled before him while he was holding the Court of Oyer 
 and Terminer in this city. Mr. Justice Barnard said to the 
 Grand Jury : 
 
 " I had intended, gentlemen, to charge you, indeed, I had 
 carefully prepared, with the intention of delivering to you a 
 charge in regard to the offenses which arc constantly being com- 
 mitted in the city of New York by public officers, but on reflec- 
 tion I have concluded to suppress it, and for this reason : No 
 one single man can, unaided and alone, fight against the corrup- 
 tions of New York City. I have determined hereafter, when I 
 have information or seek to accomplish anything in opposition 
 to this bad influence, to use the Citizens' Association, an asso- 
 ciation in New York city composed of gentlemen of wealth, 
 of intellect and of sterling integrity. I have determined to use 
 them as an instrument for the purpose of reforming what I con- 
 sider the most glaring abuses in New York City So far as my 
 Court is concerned — so far as I have the power, by injunction, 
 mandamus or otherwise, to stop these abuses, I intend to do it ; 
 but, as one single unaided man, I shall look to the Citizens' As- 
 sociation for aid and assistance." 
 
 Since the delivery of this charge by Justice Barnard the 
 Citizen's Association has steadily pursued the course it had 
 previously followed ; has rendered aid an£ assistance to all 
 officials who have striven to do their duty honestly ; has fought 
 " against the corruptions of New York city," and has persistently 
 exposed " the offences which are constantly being committed in 
 the City of New York by public officers," to quote Justice Barn- 
 ard's forcible words, but the association now feels that it is time 
 to call the attention of the Grand Jury to several matters of 
 complaint against the administration of the local government in 
 the city and county of New York. The association, in the ex- 
 
41 
 
 •ereise of that sovereign power wjiich inheres in the people by 
 virtue of the fundamental principles on which our government 
 is based, has investigated the public departments of this city, 
 has followed step by step the course of public officers, and has, 
 in all cases, made public for the information of the people of 
 this city who are directly interested, the results of its investiga- 
 tions. The association finds on the part of all public officers 
 who have been thus exposed, and all who fear exposure, a dis- 
 position to make common cause with each other to defeat the 
 efforts of the association. The Street Commissioner, George 
 W. McLean, attacked the association, and the Rocorder, Hon. 
 John K. Hackett, immediately followed in the same direction. 
 The association, believing that no more important subject can 
 engage your attention as a Grand Jury than " the offenses which 
 are constantly being committed in the city of New York by 
 public officers," to use Judge Barnard's words, and that no more 
 important duty devolves on you than to make a proper present- 
 ment of such official misconduct, would respectfully lay before 
 you certain facts. The Board of Supervisors have expended 
 $4,350,000 on building a Court-House which was origninally in- 
 tended to cost but $1,000,000, and have done this by extrava- 
 gant contracts. In 1867 the Legislature of the State authorized 
 the sum of $800,000 to be raised for " the completion of " the 
 building with that sum ; but in violation of that duty the Board 
 of Supervisors neglected to complete the building with said 
 sum. 
 
 In 1868 the legislature authorized the sum of $800,000 to be 
 raised for " the completion, fitting up and furnishing of the new 
 courthouse in the said county, now near completion," and it was 
 the duty of the board of supervisors to complete, fit up and fur- 
 nish the building with that sum ; but in open violation of the 
 law and of their duty the board of supervisors have spent the 
 money but have neglected to complete and furnish said building 
 with tk at sum, and the same still remains very far from being 
 completed. The supervisors have also expended $600,000 in 
 fitting up and in furnishing with costly furniture, frescoes and 
 other extravagant adornments, hired armories for the use of th 
 city militia, when a small part of that sum would have amply 
 sufficed for the purpose. The association calls your attention 
 to the fact that in furnishing the armory for a single regiment 
 
42 
 
 'die board of supervisors expended in four months the sum of 
 $23,658.25, and that this amount was made up of such items as 
 " forty-eight walnut chairs, upholstered in green reps and brass 
 nails, Fifth Regiment carved on back and gilt ; for board of 
 officers at $46 each, $2,208 ; one black walnut desk for presiding 
 officer, $237 ; one black walnut secretary desk, $177 ; ten black 
 walnut cases for muskets at $677 each, $6,776 ; one large case 
 for centre, $736," and that reference is made to the document 
 hereto annexed marked " A" for further particulars in regard to 
 the fitting up of armories and drill-rooms. 
 
 The Recorder did not charge you on the subject of the expen- 
 ditures made by corporation counsel O'Gorman during the 
 twenty-two months from January 1, 1866. It appears that 
 while Mr. O'Gorman was allowed a yearly salary of $12,000 
 and was allowed $12,000 additional yearly for clerks, he paid 
 away large sums to extra counsel to assist in doing the work of 
 his office. It appears that, in fact, he obtained for himself a fee 
 of $10,000, in addition to his salary, in one set of cases in which 
 the city and county were interested, and that he paid to the Re- 
 corder, Hon. John K. Hackett, about $21,727.50 in fees for 
 doing part of the work of the corporation counsel's office, al- 
 though Mr. Hackett was, from March 6, 1866, Recorder, and 
 drawing in such capacity as salary and allowances about $15,000 
 for said twenty-two months. 
 
 The Recorder did not charge you on the subject of his de- 
 manding and receiving for himself pay as Recorder, for a period 
 when he did not hold the office. He was appointed Recorder 
 March 6, 1866, and yet he demanded and received the salary 
 from the 1st of January preceding. The association submits 
 the following : In March, 1866, an application was made by a 
 citizen of this county to the Board of Supervisors to allow him 
 to inspect the papers, records and accounts pertaining to the 
 construction of the new court-house. He could not see them, 
 however, because they were not deposited in the office of the 
 clerk of tlie board, its they are required to be by the statutes of 
 this State? but were kept in the private possession of the court- 
 house committee. He therefore applied to the Supreme Court 
 for it mandamus to eompel the Supervisors to place such books, 
 papers and accounts in their clerk's office, to be there open to 
 public inspection, as the law of the State directs. Although 
 
43 * 
 
 this was a just and legal request, the corporation counsel re- 
 tained Hon. John K. Hackett at an expense of $100 (which was 
 paid out of the city treasury), to appear in the court on behalf 
 of the supervisors in answer to this mandamus. All that Mr. 
 Hackett appears to have done for his $100 was to tell the court 
 that the supervisors would obey the mandamus and put the 
 papers in their clerk's office. The association submits that it is 
 an improper practice and calculated to bring the bench into dis- 
 repute that a high criminal judge should be permitted to receive 
 while serving in such judicial office large fees from other depart- 
 ments of the Government. 
 
 The association submits that if a high judicial officer, in 
 addition to his salary, shall be permitted to receive large emolu- 
 ments from the practice of the profession of the law from the 
 co-ordinate branches of government he may become more ®r 
 less partial in viewing the conduct of the officials who contribute 
 so largely to his income, and mimical to all persons and associa- 
 tions striving to prevent excessive expenditure of the public 
 money. The association submits that if a proper respect for 
 Hie dignity of the bench should not prevent a high judicial officer 
 from profiting pecuniarily from co-ordinate branches of the local 
 government, the Grand Jury should present the fact, in the hope 
 ihat such presentment may work a reform. The association also 
 submits that the Grand Jury should present for the information 
 of whom it may concern that, although in England the public 
 officer is the servant of the crown, and responsible to the crown 
 only, in this country the public officer is the servant of the 
 people, and as such servant is responsible to the people for the 
 proper performance of his duties ; and also that it is not only 
 the right but the duty of every citizen to exercise the most vigilant 
 watch over the conduct of all public officials, whether legisla- 
 tive, executive or judicial, and that without such constant super- 
 vision incapable and dishonest men may attain to the highest 
 positions in the State, and even the courts may become sanctu- 
 aries for fraud when dishonest judges may use their power for 
 the suppression of virtue, the encouragement of vice, the per- 
 version of official morality, and for private gain. 
 
 The association would also call your attention to the fact 
 that the streets of this city are now and have been for several 
 months past in a disgraceful condition of pavement, while the 
 
4A 
 
 P 
 
 Street Department, of which George W. McLean is chief, has 
 paid since July 3, 1868, and still continues to pay $20,000 per 
 month to a contractor for the alleged purpose of keeping the 
 streets in repair ; also, that while the charter of this city re- 
 quires all work over $250 to be done under contract with the 
 lowest bidder, the same department has expended about $300,- 
 000 per annum on the roads and avenues, wharves and piers, 
 and for supplies, &c., without any contract as required by law; 
 also that the same department has in and about the repairing 
 of the wharves and piers hired more workmen than necessary to 
 make the repairs made, and expended many times as much 
 money for labor as the work should have cost ; that the same 
 department has hired unneccessary labor during the election 
 periods ; also, that it has paid for 34,000 pounds of spikes and 
 bolts used in repairing certain wharves and piers, nearly double 
 what they should have cost, and has paid for the lumber it used 
 some 30 per cent, more than the market value of the necessary 
 material ; also, that it has expended many thousand dollars 
 more than it should have expended in such repairing. 
 
 The association would also call your attention to the fact 
 that the association was compelled from a sense of duty to the 
 people to request the City Chamberlain, Mr. Peter B. Sweeny to 
 pay into the public treasury the interest which he received on 
 the public moneys in his keeping ; that Mr. Sweeny claimed 
 such interest as his own, and made no offer to do as the associa- 
 tion requested ; that he afterwards concluded to comply, and 
 has represented that he has paid into the public treasury all 
 such interest, amounting so far to about 882,000. The associa- 
 tion would request that by reason of the pretense of a public 
 officer, who is a mere servant of the people, to retain the interest 
 received on the public money while in his hands, in the face of 
 the fact that he receives a salary of about $23,000 per annum 
 for his services, the Grand Jury should present the fact that the 
 Chamberlain in paying over this profit on the public money is 
 not presenting a gratuity to the people who pay for his services, 
 but is merely rendering to the people that which belongs to 
 them. 
 
 The association would also call your attention to the fact 
 that every year city officials appear at Albany and strive to in- 
 duce the Legislature to make larger appropriations than are 
 
 \ 
 
needed to carry on the local government, thus increasing the 
 yearly taxes ; that last spring the agent of the city officials be- 
 coming exasperated at the efforts made by the Citizens' Associa- 
 tion to reduce these appropriations declared that he would 
 advise the city officials next year to ask for three times as much 
 as they needed. As this gentleman is of very great influence, 
 and holds a high official position, it is possible that he may 
 induce the city officials to commit this fraud upon the people of 
 the city and the Legislature, and, therefore, the association 
 would respectfully suggest that it is important that the Grand 
 Jury shoidd take the matter summarily in hand, and by a 
 prompt expression of opinion on the supject prevent such a 
 scheme from being carried out. 
 
 The Citizens' Association, impelled by a sense of the duty 
 which it owes to the people of this city, will continue to contest 
 every usurpation on the part of officials, to arraign them before 
 the bar of public opinion, and to check them in the court and 
 in the Legislature. The association most respectfully requests 
 that the Grand Jury of the county of New York will make 
 due and proper inquest into the various matters brought to its 
 notice, and, if satisfied of the truth of the statements made, 
 present these various abuses in such a way as to its wisdom may 
 seem best , calculated to procure their abatement. 
 All of which is most respectfully submitted. 
 
i 
 
Ex Eibrtfi 
 
 SEYMOUR DURST 
 
 'When you leave, please leave this book 
 
 Because it has been said 
 "Ever thing comes t' him who waits 
 
 Except a loaned book." 
 
 o^r l_ it a s i 36 
 
 Avery Architectural and Fine Arts Library 
 Gift of Seymour B. Durst Old Y< >rk Library