JS 
 
 :> ISM 
 lAttL? 
 
 UC-NRLF 
 
 N 
 
H ISTOR Y 
 
 OF THE 
 
 (Office of tlje Corporation Counsel 
 
 THE CITY OF NEW YORK 
 
 With a Resume of the Annual Report of 
 the Law Department for the Year 1906 
 
 WILLIAM B. ELLISON 
 
 Corporation Counsel 
 
 Compiled by 
 JOHN H. GREENER 
 
 Assistant Chief Clerk 
 
 New Yobk: 
 
 ^f ARTIN C. BROWN COMPANY, PRINTERS AND STATIONERS, 
 
 Nos. 49 TO 57 Park Place. 
 
 1907 
 
H ISTORY 
 
 0^tt of tfje Corporation Counsel 
 
 THE CITY OF NEW YORK 
 
 With a Resume of the Annual Report of 
 the Law Department for the Year 1906 
 
 WILLIAM B. ELLISON 
 Corporation Counsel 
 
 Compiled by 
 JOHN H. GREENER 
 
 Assistant Chief Clerk 
 
 Nkw Yobk: 
 
 MARTIN B, BROWN COMPANY, PRINTERS AND STATIONERS, 
 
 Nos. 49 TO 57 Park Place. 
 
 1907 
 

 rtARTIN B.BROWN 
 * PRESS* 
 
 • • • • .•• • 
 
 
INDEX. 
 
 A HISTORY OF THE OFFICE OF THE CORPORATION 
 
 COUNSEL 5 
 
 Corporation Counsels of New York City for the Past Fifty Years 5 
 
 Corporation Counsels of the Former City of Brooklyn 14 
 
 Dutch Records of New Amsterdam, 1609 to 1664 15 
 
 The First Lawyer in New York City, 1653 22 
 
 Early Colonial Records, 1664 to 1686 22 
 
 The Recorder as Chief Counsel for the City, 1686 to 1800 23 
 
 Earliest Records of the Retainer of Other Counsel, 1691 to 1776 25 
 
 The Revolutionary Period, 1776 to 1783 35 
 
 The Post-Revolutionary Period, 1783 to 1800 35 
 
 The First "Corporation Attorneys," 1801 to 1839 35 
 
 Office of "Counsel to the Corporation" Created, 1839 to 1849 40 
 
 The First "Counsel to the Corporation" 42 
 
 The "Law Department" Created by the Legislature, 1849 to 1856 46 
 
 The New York Office in 1856 48 
 
 The Office as a Stepping Stone to the Bench 49 
 
 A Famous Assistant — David J. Dean 50 
 
 Prominent Lawyers Formerly Associated with the Office 51 
 
 Long Service of Some of the Present Employees 54 
 
 "Counselor Nolan" 55 
 
 Conditions Prior to Consolidation of the Greater New York 55 
 
 The Greater New York 56 
 
 Growth of Business Since Consolidation, 1898 to 1^7 57 
 
 PRESENT ORGANIZATION OF THE DEPARTMENT 58 
 
 The Main Office 59 
 
 Removal of Offices 59 
 
 The New Hall of Records 60 
 
 The Reorganization of Main Office 61 
 
 Divisions and Personnel of Main Office 64 
 
 The Brooklyn Office ^2 
 
 M202976 
 
4 INDEX. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Branch Offices in Other Boroughs 73 
 
 The Bureau of Street Openings 74 
 
 The Bureau of Penalties 'J^ 
 
 The Bureau for the Collection of Arrears of Personal Taxes 79 
 
 The Tenement House Branch Office 82 
 
 Matters Relating to the Water Supply 84 
 
 REPORT FOR 1906 87 
 
 Schedule i. Actions and Proceedings Pending at the Close of the 
 
 Year 87 
 
 Schedule 2. Actions and Proceedings Beg^un and Terminated During 
 
 the Year..; 88 
 
 Schedules. Court Work During the Year 89 
 
 Schedule 4. Judgments, Orders and Decrees Entered During the Year 91 
 Schedule 5. Payments Made from Each Appropriation During the 
 
 Year 92 
 
 Schedule 6. Moneys Received During the Year 93 
 
 Schedule 7. Contracts, etc., Approved During the Year 94 
 
 Schedule 8. Opinions Rendered During the Year 94 
 
 A General Summary 96 
 
 Needs of the Department 97 
 
 Conclusion 100 
 
REPORT OF THE CORPORATION COUNSEL. 
 
 Law Department, 
 Office of the Corporation Counsel, 
 New York, May 15, 1907. 
 
 Hon. George B. McClellan, 
 
 Mayor: 
 
 Sir — Pursuant to section 1544 of the Greater New York 
 Charter, I submit the following report of the transactions of the 
 Law Department for the year and quarter ending on December 
 31, 1906. 
 
 HISTORY OF DEPARTMENT. 
 
 Before entering on my rej)ort of the work of the year, I wish 
 to review briefly the history of the Law Department. Mr. And- 
 rew T. Campbell, the Chief Clerk of the Department, is just now 
 completing his fiftieth year of active service, and it seems a par- 
 ticularly fitting occasion to look back over the great changes 
 that have occurred during that period, and to give some idea of 
 the origin and history of the Law Department. 
 
 Corporation Counsels for Past Fifty Years. 
 The office of Counsel to the Corporation of The City of New 
 York has existed in some form for over two hundred years. 
 Down to the time of the creation of the Greater City of New 
 York, on January i, 1898, the head of the Law Department of the 
 old City of New York was known as the "Counsel to the Cor- 
 poration." At the time of consolidation the title was changed to 
 "Corporation Counsel." The persons who have held the office 
 during Mr. Campbell's fifty years of service are as follows: 
 
 RICHARD BUSTEED, appointed September, 1856. 
 Elected in the fall of 1856, while Fernando Wood was 
 
Mayor, to serve three years. Mr. Busteed was the first 
 elective Counsel to the Corporation. The office had always 
 been filled by appointment, but by the Charter amendment 
 of April 14, 1857, it was made elective. The salary of the 
 office was $10,000 per annum, and $8,000 was allowed for 
 Assistants and Clerk hire. Mr. Busteed reappointed George 
 H. Purser as Corporation Attorney at a salary of $5,000 and 
 Charles A. May as Public Administrator at a salary of 
 $1,250. In 1858 Mr. May was succeeded by Thomas C. 
 Fields. "Dick" Busteed, as he was popularly known, en- 
 listed as a Union soldier in the Civil War, and made a gal- 
 lant record, and at the close of the war had reached the 
 grade of brigadier-general. He was afterward appointed a 
 Federal Judge for one of the Southern States. 
 
 GREENE C. BRONSON, elected for three years from 
 January i, i860. Mr. Bronson had held the position of At- 
 torney-General of New York State from 1829 to 1835, ^"^ 
 had been a Justice of the Supreme Court from 1836 to I852, 
 It was during the administrations of Mr. Bronson and Mr. 
 Develin that the City and country at large was occupied with 
 the great Civil War. Mr. Bronson had two Assistants: 
 Henry H. Anderson and William C. Trull, the latter of 
 whom is still living. Mr. Bronson appointed George C. 
 Genet Corporation Attorney and Stephen Russell Public Ad- 
 ministrator. 
 
 JOHN E. DEVELIN, elected for three years from Janu- 
 ary I, 1863. George Opdyke was Mayor at this time. Dur- 
 ing Mr. Develin's term of office there were three thousand 
 suits commenced against the Board of Supervisors of the 
 City, arising out of the draft riots of 1863, and an extra al- 
 lowance of $2,000 was given for services in these cases, mak- 
 ing the total salary of the Corporation Counsel $12,000. The 
 riot suits were handled by Mr. Howard J. Forker, an assis- 
 tant in the office at that time, who is now a Justice of the 
 Court of Special Sessions in Brooklyn. Mr. Develin ap- 
 
pointed N. Hill Fowler as Corporation Attorney and Robert 
 B. Bradford as Public Administrator. The salary of the 
 latter position was increased to $5,000 in 1864. Mr. Brad- 
 ford was succeeded by George Shea. At the close of his 
 term of office Mr. Develin associated himself with Charles E. 
 Miller and formed the well-known law firm of Develin & 
 Miller. 
 
 RICHARD O'GORMAN, elected for three years from 
 January i, 1866. Resigned December 2, 1872. Mr."0'Gor- 
 man was the last elective Counsel to the Corporation. He 
 was a distinguished Irish patriot, and of great renown as an 
 orator. He became a Justice of the Superior Court of The 
 City of New York, and later of the Supreme Court. By the 
 Charter amendment of April 5, 1870, the term of office was 
 made four years, and the power to remove the Corporation 
 Counsel was vested in the Governor of the State. Mr. 
 O'Gorman was allowed $12,000 for Assistants, etc. David 
 J. Dean, who will be mentioned again later, was an Assistant 
 under Mr. 0'Gorman. Martin T. McMahon was appointed 
 Corporation Attorney and Gratz Nathan First Assistant. 
 Gen. McMahon was subsequently elected a Judge of the 
 Court of General Sessions. From 1866 to 1869, Henry E. 
 Davies, Jr., a son of Judge Henry E. Davies, who had risen to 
 the grade of Major-General in the Union Army, held the 
 position of Public Administrator in the Department. In 1869 
 Thomas C. Fields was appointed Corporation Attorney and 
 Andrew J. Rogers Public Administrator. 
 
 E. DELAFIELD SMITH, appointed by Mayor Oakey 
 Hall, December 2, 1872, to fill the unexpired term of Rich- 
 ard O'Gorman. He was removed by Governor Tilden in 
 1875. The Charter amendment of April 30, 1873, gave to the 
 Mayor the right to appoint the Counsel to the Corporation, 
 with the approval of the Board of .A.ldermen. The salary 
 was fixed at $15,000 and the term of office at four years. An- 
 
8 
 
 other bureau of the Law Department was created by this re- 
 vision of the Charter, the head of which was called the "At- 
 torney for the Collection of Personal Taxes." John H. 
 White was appointed as head of the new bureau, and Mr. 
 Smith also appointed H. M, Ruggles as Corporation Attor- 
 ney and Isaac Dayton Public Administrator. During the 
 administrations of Mr. O'Gorman and Mr. Smith, the City 
 was greatly disturbed by the "Tweed Ring" exposures. Ac- 
 tions were commenced by the Counsel to the Corporation 
 against William M. Tweed, A. Oakey Hall, Richard B. Con- 
 nolly, and others, and in some of these cases judgments were 
 entered by default for millions of dollars, but the criminal 
 prosecutions of Tweed and the other members of the ring 
 were handled by the great Charles O'Conor and other coun- 
 sel who were associated with him. It was during this period 
 that the City and County of New York were consolidated 
 into one municipality by chapter 304 of the Laws of 1874. 
 
 WILLIAM C. WHITNEY, appointed to fill the unex- 
 pired term of E. Delafield Smith, August 9; 1875, by Mayor 
 Wickham. Reappointed to succeed himself December 7, 
 I876, for four years, by Mayor Wickham. Reappointed to 
 succeed himself December 11, 1880, by Mayor Cooper. Re- 
 signed November 8, 1882. Francis Lynde Stetson was an 
 Assistant under Mr. Whitney. The many actions arising 
 from the "Tweed Ring" transactions were disposed of dur- 
 ing this period. It is probable that William C. Whitney will 
 be longest remembered as Secretary of the Navy during 
 President Cleveland's first administration. Mr. Whitney 
 was the creator of the modernized navy of our country, and 
 as such his fame will endure forever. Mr. Whitney was the 
 first Corporation Counsel to recognize the necessity for spe- 
 cializing the work of the office, and he reorganized the entire 
 Department along this line, assigning all litigation of a 
 special character to a particular assistant. The "Consolida- 
 tion Act" of 1882 was passed during Mr. Whitney's term of 
 office, and the salary of the Counsel to the Corporation was 
 
reduced by that act to $12,000. Mr. Whitney appointed Wil- 
 liam A. Boyd Corporation Attorney, Algernon S. Sullivan 
 Public Administrator and Edward T. Gale Attorney for the 
 Collection of Personal Taxes. 
 
 GEORGE P. ANDREWS, appointed November 8, 1882, to 
 succeed William C. Whitney, by Mayor Edson. Resigned May 
 31, 1884, to take office as Justice of the Supreme Court. Mr. 
 Andrews was an Assistant under Mr. Whitney, and continued 
 the reorganization of the department commenced by his pre- 
 decessor. He surrounded himself with a staff of able assist- 
 ants, among whom were David J. Dean, E. Henry Lacombe, 
 .Charles Blandy. Francis L. Wellman, Thomas P. Wickes, Ar- 
 thur H. Masten. John J. Townsend, Jr., Charles P. Miller, 
 Hugh L. Cole and Wilmot T. Cox. Mr. Andrews reappointed 
 William A. Boyd Corporation Attorney and Algernon S. Sul- 
 livan Public Administrator. He apjx)inted Charles S. Beards- 
 ley Attorney for the Collection of Personal Taxes. 
 
 E. HENRY LACOMBE, appointed June i, 1884, to suc- 
 ceed George P. Andrews, by Mayor Edson. Reappointed by 
 Mayor Grace June 2, 1885. Resigned June 20, 1887, to take 
 his place as Judge of the United States Circuit Court, Southern 
 District of New York. Mr. Lacombe was also an Assistant un- 
 der William C. Whitney and George P. Andrews, and had 
 much of the same talent for administration. He perfected the 
 organization of the office, commenced by Mr. Whitney and con- 
 tinued by Judge Andrews, and many parts of the system de- 
 vised at that time continue with but few changes to the pres- 
 ent time. In 1885 he prepared and transmitted to the Mayor 
 the first printed quarterly and annual reports of the depart- 
 ment, and the form of reports adopted at that time is followed 
 with very little variation at present. Mr. Lacombe reappointed 
 William A. Boyd Corporation Attorney and Charles S. Beards- 
 ley Attorney for the Collection of Personal Taxes. He ap- 
 pointed Richard J. Morrisson Public Administrator. Judge 
 Lacombe is the oldest living ex-Corporation Counsel. 
 
10 
 
 MORGAN J. O'BRIEN, appointed July i, 1887, by Mayor 
 Hewitt, to succeed E. Henry Lacombe, Resigned December 
 31, 1887, to take office as Justice of the Supreme Court. Mr. 
 O'Brien made no changes in the heads of the three bureaus 
 of the department. He held the office of Corporation Counsel 
 for only six months, but his subsequent record as a Justice of 
 the Supreme Court and member and Presiding Justice of the 
 Appellate Division, First Department, is too well known to re- 
 quire any comment here. 
 
 HENRY R: BEEKMAN, appointed to succeed Morgan J. 
 O'Brien, January i, 1888, by Mayor Hewitt ; term expired 
 May I, 1889. Mr. Beekman reappointed William A. Boyd 
 Corporation Attorney, Richard J. Morrisson Public Admin- 
 istrator, and Charles S. Beardsley Attorney for the Collection 
 of Arrears of Personal Taxes. He was elected Judge of the Su- 
 perior Court in the fall of 1894, and in 1896 became a Justice 
 of the Supreme Court. Mr. Beekman, both as Corporation 
 Counsel and Justice of the Supreme Court, is well remembered 
 as a profound scholar, an indefatigable worker, and a great 
 lawyer and judge. His death, in December, 1900, was a 
 grievous loss to the bar and bench of this State. 
 
 WILLIAM H. CLARK, appointed May 24, 1889. to suc- 
 ceed Henry Rl Beekman, by Mayor Grant. Reappointed to 
 succeed himself May 2, 1893, by Mayor Gilroy. Mr. Clark's 
 term of office expired December 31. 1894, but he held over un- 
 der the administration of Mayor Strong until the appointment 
 of his successor, Mr. Scott. It was during his term of office 
 that the great "Aqueduct Cases," brought by O'Brien & Clark 
 and others, to recover millions of dollars for extra work on the 
 new Croton aqueduct, were tried, and won by the City. Those 
 cases were handled for the City by James C. Carter, Elihu 
 Root, Austen G. Fox, and Wallace Macfarlane, whom Mr. 
 Clark had retained as special counsel. Mr. Clark appointed 
 Louis Sleekier Corporation Attorney, Cha:rles E. Lydecker 
 Public Administrator, and Henry BischoflF, Jr., Attorney for 
 
1 1 
 
 the Collection of Arrears of Personal Taxes. Mr. Bischoff 
 was elected a Judge of the Superior Court, and subsequently 
 became a Justice of the Supreme Court. He was succeeded by 
 Johiv G. H. Meyers as Attorney for the Collection of Arrears 
 of Personal Taxes, and in 189 1 Louis Hanneman was appointed 
 Corporation Attorney to succeed Louis Steckler. By chapter 
 158 of the Laws of 1893, a new bureau was added to the Law 
 Department, to be known as the "Bureau of Street Openings," 
 and John P. Dunn was appointed Assistant in charge. During 
 1893 William M. Hoes was appointed Public Administrator, 
 and he held the office until May, 1895, when an act of the 
 Legislature took effect by which the office of the Public Ad- 
 ministrator was separated from the Law Department and 
 made a bureau of the Surrogate's Court. Mr. Clark resumed 
 the practice of law at the end of his second term of office, but 
 died soon afterward. 
 
 FRANCIS M. SCOTT, appointed February 13, 1895, to 
 succeed William H. Clark, by Mayor Strong. Reappointed 
 April 30, 1897. Elected Justice of the Supreme Court in the 
 fall of 1897. Mr. Scott had been an Assistant in the office un- 
 der Mr. Andrews and Mr. Lacombe. As Counsel to the Cor- 
 poration he took a very active part in the litigation of the de- 
 partment, arguing personally almost all of the appeals in the 
 Court of Appeals. He is now one of the Justices of the Ap- 
 pellate Division, First Department. Mr. Scott appointed John 
 P. Dunn and Henry DeF. Baldwin Assistants in charge of the 
 Street Opening Bureau, Robert G. Monroe Attorney for the 
 Collection of Arrears of Personal Taxes, George W. Lyon, 
 Corporation Attorney, and John J. Brady, now a Justice 
 of the Supreme Court, Attorney to Department of Street Im- 
 provements of the Twenty-third and Twenty-fourth Wards. 
 The first Charter of the Greater New York was drafted dur- 
 ing Mr. Scott's term of office, and he assisted in that great 
 task. 
 
12 
 
 JOHN WHALEN, appointed January i, 1898, to succeed 
 Francis M. Scott, by Mayor Van Wyck. Mr. Whalen was 
 the first Corporation Counsel of the Greater New York, and 
 as such was required to deal with all of the exceedingly diffi- 
 cult problems which arose at that period. The Charter of 
 1897 had provided for a main office in Manhattan, branch 
 offices in Brooklyn and other boroughs, and had continued 
 the bureaus already existing. It had also restored the salary 
 of the Corporation Counsel to $15,000. Mr. Whalen reap- 
 pointed John P. Dunn Assistant in charge of Bureau of Street 
 Openings; he appointed Adrian T. Kiernan Assistant in 
 charge of the Bureau of Penalties (which succeeded the office 
 of the Corporation Attorney), and James C. Spencer Assist- 
 ant in charge of the Bureau for the Collection of Arrears of 
 Personal Taxes. Almet F. Jenks was appointed as the As- 
 sistant in charge of the Brooklyn branch office, but he was 
 elected to the Supreme Court bench in 1900. He was suc- 
 ceeded by William J. Carr, who was also elected a Justice of 
 the Supreme Court. At the end of Mr. Whalen's term of 
 office he resumed private practice, and is now a distinguished 
 member of our bar. 
 
 GEORGE L. RIVES, appointed January i, 1902, to suc- 
 ceed John Whalen by Mayor Low. Mr, Rives was Assistant 
 Secretary of State under President Cleveland. He was after- 
 wards President of the Commission which revised the first 
 Charter for the Greater New York. He reorganized the de- 
 patment under the "Sweep Bill" of 1902, and instituted the 
 "Tenement House Branch Office" of the department, to take 
 charge of matters connected with the newly-created Tene- 
 ment House Department, appointing Matthew C. Fleming 
 Assistant in charge of that Bureau, Arthur F. Cosby as As- 
 sistant in charge of the Bureau of Penalties, Martin Saxe 
 Assistant in charge of Bureau for the Collection of Arrears 
 of Personal Taxes, and reappointing John P. Dunn Assistant 
 in charge of the Bureau of Street Openings. James McKeen 
 
*3 
 
 was appointed Assistant in charge of the Brooklyn office. 
 Mr. Rives is now counsel to the Board of Rapid Transit Com- 
 missioners of this City. 
 
 JOHN J. DELANY, appointed to succeed George L. 
 Rives, by Mayor McClellan, January i, 1904. Reappointed 
 January i, 1906, by Mayor McClellan for a term of four 
 years ; resigned October 7, 1906. Mr. Delany was greatly in- 
 terested in the plans for obtaining a new supply of water for 
 the City, which were successfully urged by Mayor McClel- 
 lan. Mr. Delany prepared the bill which became chapter 724 
 of the Laws of 1905, under which the Board of Water Supply 
 was created. He personally conducted the City's case be- 
 fore the State Water Supply Commission, which approved 
 the City's plan of going to the Catskill mountains for a new 
 supply of water. At the end of his terra of office he resumed 
 private practice, and has been appointed one of the Commis- 
 sioners in the first proceeding to acquire title to property 
 needed for the new water supply, which he had done so much 
 to render possible. Mr. Delany reappointed John P. Dunn 
 Assistant in charge of the Bureau of Street Openings, and 
 appointed Herman Stiefel Assistant in charge of the Bureau 
 of Penalties, Henry J. Steinert Assistant in charge of the 
 Bureau for the Collection of Arrears of Personal Taxes, and 
 John P. O'Brien Assistant in charge of the Tenement House 
 branch office. Mr. Steinert was appointed a City Magis- 
 trate and was succeeded by James P. Keenan. Mr. Delany 
 appointed James D. Bell as Assistant in charge of the Brook- 
 lyn branch office. 
 
 WILLIAM B. ELLISON (the present incumbent), ap- 
 pointed by Mayor McClellan to succeed John J. Delany on 
 October 8, 1906. The only change that has been made in 
 the heads of the various bureaus and branch offices is the 
 assignment of George O'Reilly as Assistant in charge of the 
 Bureau for the Collection of Arrears of Personal Taxes. 
 
14 
 
 List of Corporation Counsels of the City of Brooklyn. 
 From Mr. Richard B. Greenwood, who has been an Assistantin 
 the Brooklyn office for thirty-two years, i have obtained the fol- 
 lowing list of the Corporation Counsels of the City of Brooklyn 
 from the consolidation of the City of Brooklyn, the City of 
 Williamsburg and the Town of Bushwick, in the year 1854 to the 
 going into effect of the Greater New York Charter : 
 
 NATHANIEL F. WARING, appointed January 2, 1853 ; 
 resigned August i, 1856. 
 
 SAMUEL E. JOHNSON, appointed January 5, 1857. 
 
 ALEXANDER McCUE, appointed May 5, 1859; reap- 
 pointed May 13, 1861. 
 
 JOHN G. SCHUMAKER, appointed January 5, 1863; 
 reappointed January 9, 1865. 
 
 ALEXANDER McCUE, appointed January 7, 1867. 
 
 WILLIAM C. DeWITT, appointed January 4, 1869; re- 
 appointed January 4, 1871 ; reappointed January 6, 1873; re- 
 appointed January 4, 1875 ! reappointed January 8, 1877 ; re- 
 appointed January 6, 1879. 
 
 JOHN A. TAYLOR, appointed January 28, 1882; reap- 
 pointed February i, 1884. 
 
 ALMET F. JENKS, appointed January 6, 1886; reap- 
 pointed January 3, 1888; reappointed January 15, 1890; re- 
 appointed January 2, 1892. 
 
 ALBERT G. McDONALD, appointed January 3, 1894. 
 
 JOSEPH A. BURR, appointed February i, 1896. 
 
 The original charter of the former City of Brooklyn was 
 granted in 1835. The Corporation Counsels from that date 
 down to 1854 were as follows : 
 
 1835 to 1837, Henry C. Murphy. 
 
 1838 to 1839, Joshua M. Van Cott. 
 
 1840 to 1841, Wlliam A. Greene. 
 
 1842 to 1843, John Greenwood. 
 
15 
 
 1843 to 1846, Nathaniel F. Waring. 
 
 1847 to 1848, James Humphreys, Counsel; Richard Ingraham, 
 Attorney. 
 
 1849, William A. Greene, Counsel; Howard C. Cady, Attorney. 
 
 1850, Henry C. Murphy, Counsel ; Henry Hagner, Attorney. 
 1 85 1 to 1853, Joshua M. Van Cott, Attorney and Counsel. 
 
 Early Dutch Records, 1609 to 1664. 
 
 There has been considerable controversy as to the exact date 
 of the granting of the original Charter to this City, but the mat- 
 ter is well stated in a paper prepared by Hon. William C. De Witt, 
 who held the office of Corporation Counsel of Brooklyn for six 
 successive terms, and we quote from that paper as follows : 
 
 "Henry Hudson, in 1609, commanding the Half Moon, 
 "made the voyage of the Hudson from Manhattan to the site 
 "of Troy. It is not necessary to discuss the point whether or 
 "not there were earlier discoveries. The maps of Verrazano 
 "or the logs of other navigators, now so interesting to the 
 "technical inquiries of the scholars, were certainly unknown to 
 "the world at the time of Hudson's death. His ample report 
 "of his voyage of the 'River of the Mountains,' made upon 
 "his return to England to the two great commercial powers of 
 "the world, England and Holland, undoubtedly first gave this 
 "belt of tliE Western Continent to civilization. And, while the 
 "title of Holland was never specifically acknowledged, she was 
 "permitted to assume dominion. 
 
 "It is surprising to observe how little in the way of estab- 
 "lishing civil institutions was done under the dominion of Hol- 
 "land. The original grant to The New Netherlatid Company 
 "was simply a grant of a monopoly of trade and commerce 
 "with the Indians, together with the incidental right of gov- 
 "ernment as exigencies might require. The grant which fol- 
 "lowed to the JVest India Company was in all respects similar. 
 "There was no recognition of any right upon the part of those 
 
i6 
 
 "hardy pioneers, who should settle in New Netherland, to 
 "self-government or to personal liberty. They were left to the 
 "mercy of the Director General and a council selected at Am- 
 "sterdam by the IVest India Company. Governor Peter Stuy- 
 "vesant having some idea that the people should in some way 
 "be consulted, gave orders for an election of eighteen men by 
 "the people of the territory that is now somewhat coincident 
 "with Greater New York, including Yonkers. Brooklyn par- 
 "ticipated, with Manhattan, in this election. From these eight- 
 "een men, elected by the people, Stuyvesant chose nine to be 
 "a council to confer with him whenever he saw fit and to ex- 
 "ercise such powers as he might allow. Stuyvesant was merely 
 "the agent of the West India Company, call him Director, 
 "General, Governor, or what you will — a choleric, blustering, 
 "aggressive, self-willed tyrant was this same Stuyvesant. He 
 "regarded the West India Company as the fountain of all good 
 "and he looked upon the people as its vassals. He arrested 
 "anybody who questioned his supremacy. He seized ships in 
 "the harbor and confiscated their cargoes with no better claim 
 "than that they had broken bulk in stress of weather before 
 "arriving at New Amsterdam. For disobedience of orders to 
 "appear before him he confiscated the house and lot of a citi- 
 "zen. He persecuted men for their religious belief with 
 "shameless cruelty. A Quaker, ordered to operate a wheel- 
 "barrow, heavily ladened, for believing in the doctrines of his 
 "sect, upon refusal, was lashed by a negro in the public streets. 
 "It is not necessary to go minutely into the outrages which 
 "this petty despot perpetrated upon his subjects. Enough has 
 "been said to show what a merry time the 'Nine Men' elected 
 "to confer with him upon the public safety, as a general coun- 
 "cil, must have had when in any way inclined to run counter 
 "to his wishes. The slightest expression of discontent among 
 "their number — he always present — excited his wrath ; he 
 "pounded the floor with his wooden leg and teetotally damned 
 "the unlucky malefactor. If this did not bring about the 
 
17 
 
 "requisite obedience, the offending councilman was seized and 
 "lodged in the common jail. 
 
 "These outrages at length brought upon the stage the noble 
 'and patriotic character of Adriaen Van Der Donck. And we 
 'have, in the petition for municipal independence, to the States 
 'General in Holland, a fine example of his sterling qualities. 
 'This petition presents in telling form the claim of the colo- 
 'nists of municipal independence. It is dated July 26, 1649, 
 'and signed by the Council of Nine Men. Stuyvesant made 
 'haste to prevent and thwart it. Van der Donck was flung 
 'into jail. Nevertheless, this fine gentleman made his escape 
 'and proceeded to Holland. Stuyvesant sent an ambassador 
 'to Holland to oppose him, but the personal conduct of this 
 'representative while there brought him into irreparable dis- 
 'grace. Van der Donck soon awakened among the States 
 'General a recognition of the rights of the colonists in New 
 'Netherland. The States General issued a provisional order 
 'in 1650 directing the West India Company to give New Am- 
 'sterdam a government like that of Amsterdam. History is 
 'replete with evidence that this order was the action of the 
 'government of Holland and not of the West India Company. 
 
 "The West India Company as usual discredited Van der 
 'Donck and, unfriendly to the action of the States General, 
 'neglected to put the order into force and sent tidings of it to 
 'Stuyvesant, secretly admonishing him to persist in his oppo- 
 'sition. But Van der Donck remained at The Hague and, 
 'after two years of agitation, this sturdy reformer brought 
 'the West India Company to terms. The government of Hol- 
 'land had become so persistent and determined in its orders 
 'that in 1652 the West India Company gave way and declared 
 'that New Amsterdam should have the right to elect 'a Schout,. 
 ' 'two Burgomasters and five Schepens,' with all the powers 
 'of city administration and government possessed by Amster- 
 'dam itself. The order then went forth from them as well as 
 
i8 
 
 "from the States General that Stuyvesant must confer the 
 "charter, 
 
 "Upon the receipt of these commands Stuyvesant, having 
 "no other alternative, in pursuance of an old custom on the 
 "Feast of Candlemas, 1653, having summoned the people to- 
 "gether, conferred upon them the Charter of The City of 
 "New Amsterdam. Van der Donck returned to take part 
 "in the new administration. The city doubled its popula- 
 "tion in the nine years remaining before the seizure of the 
 "colony by Great Britain. Everybody found relief in this 
 "beginning of civil liberty in New Netherland. 
 
 "New Amsterdam was a city. It had the public build- 
 "ings and the offices requisite to all municipal purposes. It 
 "was known as a city to all the civilized nations of the world. 
 "It was a port of the utmost importance to commerce. It 
 "became a prize, long coveted and finally seized by Great 
 "Britain. But it cannot as a matter of history, and it cannot 
 "as matter of law, be obliterated from the legal and his- 
 "torical annals of the Western World. 
 
 "Such was the charter of 1653, as bestowed by the States 
 "General on New Amsterdam. It is true that it was resisted 
 "for two years by the West India Company. It is true that 
 "it was finally bestowed by that choleric and blustering ty- 
 "rant. Governor Stuyvesant, in a speech which threatened its 
 "limited operation. It is true that he did personally and of- 
 "ficially obstruct, hinder and oppose it in many ways, but it 
 "was, none the less, the Charter of New Amsterdam, and it 
 "was not obtained without much patriotic and heroic effort 
 "on the part of the friends of popular government. It stands 
 "to-day as the one single instrument of respectable civil gov- 
 "ernment which marked the dominion of the Dutch over 
 "New Netherland." 
 There is now ample authority for the following interesting 
 and picturesque account of the birth of New York contained in 
 
19 
 
 the "Histor>' of The City of New York" by Mrs. Martha J. 
 Lamb: 
 
 "While these voyages were occupying the attention of the 
 "enterprising merchants of Manhattan, an interesting mo- 
 "ment arrived. A new city appeared in the annals of the 
 "world. Its birth was announced on the evening of Febru- 
 "ary 2, 1653, at the feast of Candlemas. A proclamation of 
 "the governor defined its exceedingly limited powers and 
 "named its first officers. It was called New Amsterdam. 
 "There was nothing in the significant scene which inspired 
 "enthusiasm. It came like a favor grudgingly granted. Its 
 "privileges were few, and even those were subsequently 
 "hampered by the most illiberal interpretations which could 
 "be devised. Stuyvesant made a speech on the occasion, in 
 "which he took care to reveal his intention of making all fu- 
 "ture municipal appointments, instead of submitting the 
 "matter to the votes of the citizens, as was the custom in the 
 "Fatherland ; and he gave the officers distinctly to under- 
 "stand from the first, that their existence did not in any way 
 "diminish his authority, but that he should often preside at 
 "their meetings, and at all times counsel them in matters of 
 "importance. They were not to have a sheriflf of their own, 
 "but Van Tienhoven, the provincial sheriflF, might officiate 
 "for the corporation. Neither was it deemed requisite that 
 "they should have a scribe ; but Jacob Kip, the newly ap- 
 "pointed secretar}^ of the province, was notified to attend 
 "their meetings and do such writing as seemed necessary. 
 
 "There were two burgomasters, Arent Van Hattam and 
 "Martin Cregier. 
 
 "There were five schepens, Paulus Van der Grist, Maxi- 
 "milian Van Gheel, Allard Anthony, Peter Van Couwen- 
 "hoven and William Beekman. 
 
 "The bell-ringer was a notable and useful individual. He 
 "was the court messenger, the grave-digger, the chorister, 
 "the reader, and sometimes the school-master. He seems 
 
20 
 
 "also to have been a general waiter upon the city magis- 
 "trates. He kept the great room in which they assembled in 
 "order, placed the chairs in thei^ proper and precise posi- 
 "tions and rang the bell at the hour for coming together. It 
 "was the business of the sheriff to convoke and preside over 
 "this board, to prosecute offenders and to execute judgments, 
 "City officials in the Fatherland were invested with judicial 
 "and municipal powers ; but, as no specific charter had been 
 "granted to our City Fathers, their authority was not well 
 "defined. They heard and settled disputes between parties; 
 "tried cases for the recovery of debt, for defamation of 
 "character, for breaches of marriage promise, for assault and 
 "theft, and even summoned parents and guardians into their 
 "presence for withholding their consent to the marriage of 
 "their children or wards without sufficient cause. They sen- 
 "tenced and committed to prison, like any other court of ses- 
 "sion." 
 
 Other writers have given us additional information in relation 
 to the first struggle of the people of New Amsterdam for munici- 
 pal government. In a work entitled "Civil List and Constitu- 
 tional History of the Colony and State of New York," by Edgar 
 A. Werner, we have the following statement : 
 
 "The Nine Men now prepared new charges against Stuy- 
 "vesant. The Vice-Director and Schout-fiscal, on the 28th 
 "of February, 165 1, drew up a long protest against the Di- 
 "rector, who thereupon issued a peremptory order expelling 
 "the former from the Council, which he refused to recognize, 
 "whereupon he was arrested by soldiers and lodged in a 
 "guard-house. The conflict with the Patroon continued and 
 "the Director asserted his sovereignty by establishing a sep- 
 "arate village government for Beaverwyck on the loth of 
 "April, 1652. Meantime the States General revived the 
 "Provisional Order, the enforcement of which was favored 
 "by all the Chambers, except Amsterdam. The Amster- 
 "dam Directors were therefore compelled to yield in a 
 
21 
 
 "measure to the popular demand ; and on the 4th of April, on 
 "the application of Van Der Donck, they granted an order 
 "directing the establishment of a burgher government in 
 "New Amsterdam, alid making other concessions. In De- 
 "cember the Amsterdam Chamber censured the Patroon for 
 "endeavoring to maintain his manor as a principality inde- 
 "pendent of the Director. Burgher government was insti- 
 "tuted in New Amsterdam February 2, 1653. The burgo- 
 "masters and schepens constituted a Court of Sessions and a 
 "Common Council. Among their first acts in the latter capa- 
 "city was the taking of measures for the defense of the city 
 "and the raising of money therefor. 
 
 "In the beginning of the "year 1657 an attempt was made 
 "to introduce one of those caste distinctions of the Nether- 
 "lands, which gave to the Dutch Republic marked peculiari- 
 "ties as contrasted with the English commonwealth. The 
 " 'burgher right' was then tendered to New Amsterdam. This 
 "right conferred important legal, commercial and political 
 "privileges. Distinctions were introduced among the 
 "burghers of Amsterdam, in 1652, by dividing them into two 
 "classes, the Great and Small. The lesser citizenship only 
 "conveyed freedom of trade, and the privilege of being re- 
 "ceived into the respective guilds. The great burghers, who 
 "only could hold office, became such by official distinction, 
 "inheritance and purchase. This odious legalized system of 
 "an aristocratic official caste was formally introduced into 
 "New Amsterdam, February i, 1657. To the honor of the 
 "Dutch founders of this imperial commonwealth be it said 
 "the attempt to sell the great burgher right failed. One year 
 "later (ist February, 1658), when the burghers were first 
 'permitted to make double nominations for magistrates, 
 "Stuyvesant was compelled to invest some of the more 
 "prominent citizens with the right in order to fill the offices. 
 "He, however, obtained thereby the power to exclude from 
 "the privilege of holding office whoever he saw fit, unless 
 
22 
 
 "they paid for it. It was not until August 5, 1660, that a 
 "separate Schout was obtained. Thus was finally secured 
 "to New Amsterdam, a large portion of the municipal rights 
 "intended to be conferred years before." 
 
 It seems to be quite well established from the facts given 
 somewhat at length that the first charter of New York was 
 granted by legislative authority in 1652 and conferred upon the 
 people of New Amsterdam by Governor Stuyvesant on the sec- 
 ond day of February, 1653. 
 
 The First Lawyer in New York City. 
 In "The American Metropolis," by Mr. Frank Moss, the 
 author tells us that in 1653, the year in which the City obtained 
 its original Charter, the first lawyer appeared in New Amster- 
 dam. "His name was Dirck Van Schelluyne. He got a license 
 in Holland to practice in New York. There was no other lawyer 
 for him to fight, and consequently there were no suits. He 
 should have brought another lawyer with him. He performed 
 the functions of a notary public in a store, selling groceries for 
 his rent, and finally, he lost heart and migrated up the State." 
 
 Eiarly Colonial Records, 1664 to 1686. 
 On August 27, 1664, the City was captured by the British, and 
 Nicoll, the first Governor of that nationality gave to the colony 
 its first English charter. In 1665 the name of "Mayor, Alder- 
 men and Sheriff of New York" was given to the corporation, and 
 the town was thereafter known as The City of New York. 
 
 The form of municipal government established by the Dutch 
 was changed somewhat by the British. Instead of two Burgo- 
 masters and a Schout, the Governor of the colony appointed a 
 Mayor and Sheriff, and instead of five Schepens, the people 
 elected a Board of Aldermen. 
 
 Evidently attorneys were not held in high esteem at that 
 period, and the necessity for a Counsel to the Corporation does 
 not seem to have impressed the City authorities, for in the 
 
23 
 
 minutes of the Common Council of the year 1677, held at the 
 Stadt Huys (or State House), the following entry appears: 
 
 ''Query. Whether attorneys are thought to be useful to 
 plead in courts or not. Answer. It is thought not. IV hereupon 
 resolved and ordered, that pleading attorneys be no longer 
 allowed to practiqe in the government except in the pending 
 cases." 
 
 On April 22, 1686, the famous "Dongan Charter" was given 
 to The City of New York by Governor Dongan and the name of 
 the Corporation was changed to "The Mayor, Aldermen and 
 Commonalty of The City of New York" ; another charter, rati- 
 fying the former ones, was granted by Governor Montgomerie 
 on January 15, 1730. The charter rights of The City of Ncav 
 York were confirmed by a law of the colony on October 14, 1732. 
 
 The Recorder as Chief Counsel for the City, 1686 to 1800. 
 
 It appears that the Recorder originally acted as counsel and 
 attorney for the City, in addition to the performance of his other 
 duties. 
 
 The office of Recorder of The City of New York was created 
 by Governor Dongan, on January 15, 1683, three years before the 
 granting of the "Dongan Charter." A petition had been presented 
 by the Mayor and Aldermen of the City asking that a Recorder 
 be appointed "to be assistant to the Mayor and Aldermen in the 
 Government of this City and to aid in the administration of 
 justice in the courts." 
 
 James Graham, a Scotchman, was appointed by royal patent 
 as the first Recorder, and he held the office, with the exception of 
 an interval of about two years, from 1683 to 1701. That he was 
 held in high public esteem is indicated by the fact that for many 
 years he held not only the important office of Recorder, but also 
 the office of Attorney-General of the Province, acted as Counsel 
 for the City, and was the City's sole representative in the Provin- 
 cial Assembly. 
 
24 
 
 Until the year 183 1 both the Mayor and the Recorder were 
 members of the Common Council. The Recorder was also judge 
 of the Mayor's Court. For over one hundred years the Recorder 
 was the chief legal officer of the City. 
 
 From the time of the granting of the Dongan Charter in 1686 
 down to about the close of the year 1800 the minutes of the Com- 
 mon Council contain numerous entries as to matters that were 
 referred to the Recorder for action or advice. He was directed 
 to institute proceedings on behalf of the corporation and to de- 
 fend actions brought against the corporation, and was frequently 
 asked to prepare leases, ordinances and memorials or petitions 
 to the Governor or the King. The following entry in the minutes 
 of the Common Council of December 8, 1691, shows the manner 
 in which the Recorder was paid for his services as counsel : 
 
 "Ordered that the Recorder have Twelve shillings for 
 each Patent of the Severall Lotts granted by the Citty, one 
 halfe to be paid by the Citty, the other halfe by the Buyer." 
 
 The names of the Recorders of The City of New York from 
 the creation of the office in 1683 to the time when the Recorder 
 apparently ceased to act as Counsel for the City are as follows: 
 
 James Graham, from 1683 to 1688. 
 
 (Vacant in 1689 to 1690.) 
 
 William Pinhorne, from 1691 to 1693. 
 
 James Graham, from 1693 to 170T. 
 
 Abraham Gouverneur, from 1701 to 1703. 
 
 Sampson Shelton Broughton, from 1703 to 1705. 
 
 John Tudor, from 1705 to 1709. 
 
 May Bickley, from 1709 to 17 12. 
 
 David Jamison, from 1712 to 1725. 
 
 Francis Harrison, from 1725 to 1735. 
 
 Daniel Horsmanden, from 1735 to 1747. 
 
 Simeon Johnson, from 1737 to 1769. 
 
 Thomas Jones, from 1769 to 1773. 
 
 Robert R. Livingston, from 1773 to 1774. 
 
25 
 
 John Watts, Jr., 1774 to 1776. 
 
 (No records during the Revolutionary War.) 
 
 Richard Varick, from 1783 to 1789. 
 
 Samuel Jones, from 1780 to 1796. 
 
 James Keat, from 1796 to 1798. 
 
 Richard Harrison, from 1798 to 1800. 
 
 About the year 1691, entries begin to appear in the minutes 
 of the Common Council showing the employment of other counsel 
 either to assist the Recorder or to render specified legal services 
 to the Council. This custom of retaining special counsel lasted 
 down to the time of the Revolution in 1776. 
 
 Earliest Records of the Retainer of Other Counsel, 1691 to 1776 
 
 The first record of the employment of Counsel on behalf of 
 the City appears in the minutes of the Common Council of July 
 7, 1691. The Council had adopted a resolution as follows: 
 
 "Ordered, that the Sheriffe Seize all Flower or bread that 
 Shall come to this Citty which haue been boalted or bakt 
 without the Libertyes of the Same." 
 
 In order that this resolution might be carried into effect the 
 Council made the following order : 
 
 "Ordered, that Capt. Skuyler & Capt. Willson [Aldermen 
 Brandt Schuyler and Ebenezer Willson] reteine three 
 Lawyers on behalfe of the Citty." 
 
 The earliest mention of any name other than that of the Re- 
 corder in connection with a retainer as Counsel for the City is 
 contained in the following resolution, which appears in the 
 minutes of the Common Council of September 29, 1691 : 
 
 "Att a Meeting att the Citty hall of Said City on Tuesday 
 the 29th Septemb A° 1691. 
 Present — John Lawrence, ESqr Mayor, etc. 
 
 Ordered that a new Address be drawne up by Mr. Emett 
 to the Gouernor and Councill Relaeting to a bill passed the 
 house of Representatiues concerning the Priuiledges of the 
 Citty * * *. 
 
20 
 
 Ordered that the former Attorneys appointed by the Com- 
 on Council for the Accon of the fflower be Imployed and 
 payd their ffees by the Treasurer in an accon Comenced by 
 the Widdow Banker against Thomas Clarke," 
 
 A sequel to the foregoing is found in the minutes of October 
 7, 1691, in which it was 
 
 "ORDERED that the Treasurer pay unto Attorneys 
 Thirty Shillings a ps. that are reteined about the fflower and 
 unto the Attor Generall Three pounds." 
 
 It was at the same meeting also directed that six pounds be 
 paid unto "Mr. Greyham" [probably James Graham, the first Re- 
 corder] for drawing up the act for the privilege of the City. 
 
 At a meeting on Oclober 15, 1691, it was 
 
 "Ordered, that if any matter or Suit att Law relating to 
 this Citty be commenced att the next Supreatn Court of 
 Judicatur that the Lawyers formerly Retain'd by the City be 
 feed as formerly to Defend the Same." 
 
 The Council minutes of October 5, 1692, show who the "three 
 attorneys" were, who are mentioned as having been retained dur- 
 ing the preceding year in the "Flour Case." At that meeting 
 it was 
 
 "Ordered, that the Treasurer pay to the Attorney Generall 
 three pounds and to the other attorneys, Mr. Emett and 
 Tuder, each one Pound Tenn Shillings for their ffees on acctt 
 of the fflower to appear at the Supreame Court on behalfe of 
 the Citty." 
 
 The Attorney-General referred to was Mr. James Graham, the 
 first Recorder of the City. During that period he held the two 
 offices of Attorney-General of the Province of New York and 
 Recorder of the City of New York. The minutes of the Council 
 contain many references to the allowance of his bills for services 
 rendered as counsel for the City, but this remarkable entry ap- 
 pears in the minutes of October 13, 1694: 
 
27 
 
 ■'RESOLVED that in Consideration of ye Many Services 
 done for this Citty by James Graham ESqr Recorder of the 
 Same a Certaine Lott of Ground lying in the Queen Street 
 [now Pearl street] in the Said Citty being thirty foot in 
 breadth fronting to the Said Street, & fourty foot in the 
 Rear be Granted unto him as an Acknowledgment thereof & 
 ORDER'D that the Mayor Execute A Deed Accordingly for 
 the Same." 
 
 Mr. Graham, in addition to his other, offices, was also a mem- 
 ber of the Assembly at this same period. We find the following 
 record in the minutes of June ii, 1697: 
 
 "ORDERED that ye Mayor Direct A Warrant to the 
 Treasurer to pay to James Graham ESqr the Sum of fourteen 
 pounds ten Shilings Currt Money of New Yorke, itt being 
 for twenty Nine days Service as A Representative of this 
 Citty in the last Sessions of Assembly." 
 
 Mr. James Emott is the first counsel for the City other than 
 the Recorder whose name is given in the Council minutes. He 
 seems to have had numerous retainers from time to time in 
 various actions pending, particularly in relation to the ferries and 
 in relation to lands under water. The first reference to Mr. 
 Emott in the minutes is given above as one of the three attorneys 
 in the ''Flour Case." The last time his name is mentioned is in 
 a statement submitted at the meeting of the 15th of November, 
 I709, from which it appears that he had been paid on account of 
 the judgment in "the old Ferry House matter" thirty-five pounds. 
 He afterwards retired to New Jersey, as appears from references 
 in the Colonial Records, and died at his country estate there. 
 
 The "Mr. Tuder" referred to as the third attorney in the 
 "Flour Case, ' was John Tudor, who subsequently was appointed 
 Recorder and held that office from 1705 to 1709. 
 
 A minute taken from the meeting of November 2, 1700, mdi- 
 cates the course of the City's law business at the time : 
 
 "ORDERED that the Recorder (Calling such to his As- 
 sistance as he shall think fitt) Examine into the Laws, Or- 
 
28 
 
 ders and Ordinances of this Citty and make reporte of such 
 of them as will be needful to be continued and of such as 
 Ought to be repealed and also to Report to this Courte by 
 the first conveniency wt Laws are Nessessary to be made 
 and Added to the same for the better Rule and Government 
 of the Inhabitants thereof." 
 
 It was at the same meeting directed that the "Mayor fee 
 Council for the Citty for the sueing att law the said John Eu- 
 watse," the action being in relation to the ferry. John Euwatse 
 had taken a lease of the ferry from Manhattan Island to Nassau 
 [Long] Island, and had failed to pay the rent. A new lease of 
 the ferry had been made to Dirck Benson, but Mr. Benson re- 
 fused to comply with certain orders of the Council as to the ferry 
 house. 
 
 It was at the meeting of February 15, 1702, 
 
 "ORDERED that Mr. Recorder and Mr. James Emott be 
 the Council of the Citty And in the Name of this Corporation 
 Commence process Against the said Dirck Benson. Accord- 
 ing to such speedy Methods for the Recovery of the same as 
 they Shall think fitt and that the Mayor Issue his Warrt. to 
 the Treasurer for the payment of the Charge thereof." 
 
 A third lease of the ferry was made, this time to Isaac D. 
 Riemer, who was afterwards appointed Mayor of the City. 
 
 At a meeting on March 9, 1702 (3), it was 
 
 "ORDER'D further that the Council in the Name of this 
 Corporation Commence an Action Against Mr. Isaac D. 
 Riemer for the Rent of the house att the Ferry due to this 
 City. And also that Mr. Emott speak to John Euwoutse to 
 pay the Money he Owes this Corporation & that if he Re- 
 fuses so to doe that Mr. Emott take out Process Agt. him." 
 
 The Recorder acted as counsel for the City in numerous mat- 
 tors without the assistance of outside counsel. This is shown by 
 
29 
 
 an entry in the minutes of October ii, 1710, at which meeting it 
 
 was 
 
 "ORDER'D that the Mayor Issue his Warrant to the 
 1'reasurer to pay to May Bickley Esqr. or Order the sum of 
 ■ Eleaven pounds ten shillings Currt. Money of New York it 
 being for fees in the Action of sickles ads. Turneur in 1768, 
 tees for Attending the Council for Opposing the passing the 
 Bills about the Repair of the highways and for Attending 
 the Assembly several times to Oppose the passing of the 
 Bill for Enforcing the Covenants of the Lease of the ferry 
 which is Allowed." 
 
 May Bickley was at this time Recorder of the City and the 
 entry indicates that the City even at that early date was repre- 
 sented by counsel before the Legislature. 
 
 That the Recorder received fees for his services as counsel in 
 addition to the salary of his office also appears from the follow- 
 ing entries: 
 
 At the meeting of August 26, 1713, it was ordered that 
 
 "David Jamison, Esq., Recorder of this City, do file A 
 Declaration in Ejectment agt. some Casual Ejector and do 
 what Else may be Proper in the Law to Assert the Right of 
 this Corporation to the Lands and Commons of this City on 
 this island Manhattans to Low water Marke." 
 
 At the meeting of June 7, 1726, it was 
 
 "Order'd the Mayor Issue his Warrant to the Treasurer 
 to pay to Francis Harison, ESqr., Recorder of this City or 
 Order the sum of Nine pounds Currt. Money of New York 
 for Sundry services done for this Corporation Mentioned in 
 his Memorial Exhibited to this Court on the i8th day of 
 April last past which was Considered Audited and Allowed." 
 
 At the meeting of March 24, 1726, it was 
 
 "Order'd that in Case any prosecution be Commenced agt. 
 this Corporation or the Justices of this City and County who 
 
30 
 
 are the Mayor, Recorder and Aldermen of this Corporation 
 for the Incommodiousness and Insufficiency of the Gaols ; that 
 Mr. Recorder and Mr. Joseph Murray and Mr. John Cham- 
 bers, Attorneys-at-Law be Retained as Council for this Cor- 
 poration to defend the same, And that Mr. Mayor Issue War- 
 rants to the Treasurer to pay to each of them five pounds as 
 a Retaining fee." 
 
 Mr. John Chambers was a native of the City of New York, 
 who, during this period, seems to have filled numerous offices in 
 connection with the City Government. He was an Assistant Alder- 
 man from 1729 to 1733. He was retained on several occasions as 
 counsel apparently at times when he was not otherwise connected 
 with the Corporation, and he subsequently (as appears from the 
 meeting of the Common Council of July 30, 1728) returned the 
 retaining fee which he and Mr. Murray received, "expressing their 
 zeal and Affection for the good and Welfare of this Corporation, 
 and that they shall always to the utmost of their power defend this 
 Corporation against any Attempts to disturb or molest them in their 
 lawful rights and priviledges." The freedom of the City was at 
 this meeting conferred both upon Mr. Chambers and upon his asso- 
 ciate, Joseph Murray. 
 
 The William Smith retained with Mr. Chambers was a nephew 
 of "Tangier" Smith and "Port Royal" Smith. He was an Alder- 
 man from 1702 to 1712. He was first retained in an action "in 
 ejectment" wherein Casper Kimber, on the demise of Cornelius Cor- 
 trecht and others, were plaintiffs, and Thos. DeKey defendant; his 
 account in the sum of nine pounds nine shillings 3 pence was or- 
 dered paid at a Common Council meeting of February 28, 1827. 
 He had numerous retainers from the Council. 
 
 A custom began apparently about 1743 of engaging counsel 
 upon general retainers, for at the meeting of July 30, 1743, it was 
 
 "Order'd the Mayor Issue his Warrant to the Treasurer 
 to pay to Richard NichoUs, or order, the sum of eight pounds 
 current money of this Colony, to be by him paid to James 
 Alexander; Joseph Murray; William Smith and John Cham- 
 
31 
 
 bers, Esqrs. (that is to say, fforty shillings to each of them) As 
 a General Retainer as Council for this Corporation in all 
 causes to be bro't by or against them." 
 
 The habit still continued of giving the Recorder general super- 
 vision, however, as is evidenced by an entry in the minutes of 
 February i, 1745 (6), as follows: 
 
 "Mr. Mayor produced to this Board a Copy of a Petition 
 preferred to the Generall Assembly by the Trustees of the 
 Township of Brookland [Brooklyn] which Copy was deliv- 
 ered him by the Clerk of the Generall Assembly. 
 
 Whereupon this Board Ordered That the Mayor be De- 
 sired to Give Daniel Horsmanden and Joseph Murray, Esqrs. 
 five pounds, twelve shillings Each As a Retainer for this Cor- 
 poration, and That he Desire them to Appear for this Cor- 
 poration before the Generall Assembly As soon as Conveniently 
 May be and Oppose the Granting the Prayer of that Petition 
 by Such Arguments as they Shall Think Most Proper." 
 
 Daniel Horsmanden was Recorder of The City of New York 
 from 1735 to 1747. He was subsequently a member of the Gov- 
 ernor's Council and later Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of 
 Judicature. The last reference to his services in the city records 
 is at the meeting of October 2, 1747, at which it was 
 
 "ORDER'D the Mayor to Issue his Warrant to the Treas- 
 urer to pay to Daniel Horsmanden, Esqr., Late Recorder of 
 this City, Or Order, the Sum of seventy pounds Current 
 money of this Colony in full for Services by him done for this 
 Corporation for Seven Years last past." 
 
 Abraham Lodge is the next counsel of whom we have any rec- 
 ord. At a Common Council meeting held on September 12, 1750, 
 it was 
 
 "ORDERD that an action of Trespass and Ejectment be 
 brought on the Demise of this Corporation against John Van 
 Zandt for Incroaching on and Enclosing part of the Common 
 Lands of this Corporation, and that Abraham Lodge be At- 
 
32 
 
 torney on Record in prosecuting said action and that he Draw 
 a warrant of Attorney for prosecuting said Action, and that 
 he affix the seal of this Corporation thereto, and that the Same 
 be signed by the Mayor." 
 
 Abraham Lodge appears to have been first connected with the 
 Q)rporation in the capacity of Deputy Clerk to the Common Coun- 
 cil. He was retained in several matters, particularly in the "Har- 
 lem land dispute," and in an action brought against the Mayor in 
 relation to the market fees, and his last official connection with the 
 City as Counsel is disclosed by an entry in the Council minutes of 
 July 22, 1757, directing the commencement of an action "to deter- 
 mine whether the fees of the stalls and standings of the several 
 markets of this City belong to the said Mayor as Clerk thereof, or 
 to this corporation." 
 
 That there was no exclusive retainer in behalf of any individual 
 counsel, is shown by the record of a meeting of the Common Coun- 
 cil held September 6, 1753, at which there was retained Mr. Joseph 
 Murray, Mr. William Smith, Mr. Benjamin Nicoll and Mr. Wil- 
 liam Smith, Jr., for an opinion 
 
 "wheather the Ground and Soil from high to Low Water Mark 
 at Brookland Ferry be in this Corporation or not and if they 
 Should be of Opinion that the said Ground and Soil belong to 
 this Corporation that an Action of Trespass and Ejectment be 
 forthwith Commenced in the name of this Corporation against 
 Jacob Remsen for an Encroachment By him made on the 
 part of the said Ground and Soil at the said Brookland Ferry." 
 
 Benjamin Nicoll appears first in the City records as having been 
 engaged chiefly in matters adverse to the City. He seems to have 
 had only one other retainer in addition to the matter in relation to 
 the ferry, and this was when, at a meeting of the Common Council, 
 held March 26, 1759, it was 
 
 "ORDER'D that the Clerk of this Board prepare a warrant 
 of attorney To alderman Scott to Enable him to Bring an Ac- 
 tion of Trespass and Ejectments in the Name of the Mayor 
 
33 
 
 aldermen and Commonalty of the City of New York against 
 the Executors or Devisees of David Jonathan Provoost De- 
 ceased and that the Said Clerk Affix the Seal of this Cor- 
 poration thereto to be Signed by Mr. Mayor and further OR- 
 DER'D that Mr. Nicoll be appointed to assist Mr. Scott in 
 the Carrying on and Prosecuting of the Said Action to 
 Effect." 
 
 The following minute is from the records of the Common 
 Council of July 30, 1765 : 
 
 "Alderman Hicks, who was Authorized By two Certain 
 Orders of this Board, the one made and entered on the 19th 
 of February Last and the other on the 22d of April, follow- 
 ing to take the Opinions of William Smith, Junr, John Mo- 
 rine Scott and William Livingston, Esqrs., whether the Re- 
 corder when the Mayor calls a Common Council and is pres- 
 ent and it has a Right to set and Vote in Common Council 
 as a member thereof; reported to this Board that he made a 
 State of the Case," etc. 
 
 John Morin Scott appears to have been first officially connect- 
 ed with the City's administration as an Alderman for "The Out- 
 Ward," from 1757 to 1762, and served on numerous committees 
 of the Common Council. He had several retainers in addition to 
 those hereinbefore shown, the last of these, being shown in the 
 following minute of the Common Council of October 14, 1772: 
 
 "This Board being in Doubt, whether Benjamin Blagge, 
 Esqr. Can Legally Execute the Offices of Coroner and Jus- 
 tice of the peace for this City & County together, and in 
 order to remove said Doubt, have agreed to take the opinion 
 of the following Gentlemen of the Law (to wit) the Attorney 
 General [John Tabor Kempe], Mr. William Smith, Mr. 
 Scott, Mr. Duane, Mr. S. Jones, Mr. Kissam, Mr. 
 [Peter] Jay & Mr. Ths. Smith: ORDER'D that Mr. Re- 
 corder be desired to make a Case for them agreeable to the 
 directions of the Charter." 
 
34 
 
 /ames Duane was retained in the "Hunter's Quay Case," in 
 which he was assisted by William Smith, Jr., William Livingston 
 and Benjamin Kissam, as appears from the records of the Com- 
 mon Council of August 24, 1767. He was also employed by reso- 
 lution of January 24, 1771, to defend an indictment brought 
 against the City by the Grand Jury on that day, for a nuisance in 
 maintaining what was then called the "Oswego Market." 
 
 Mr. Duane was afterwards elected Mayor of the City and held 
 that position from 1783 to 1788. He was the first Mayor after the 
 evacuation of the City by the British troops. 
 
 The retainers of Benjamin Kissam in behalf of the City, seem 
 to have been limited to the two which we have above noted. 
 
 William Livingston's name first appears in the minutes of the 
 Common Council of May i, 1752, in the following resolution: 
 
 "ORDERD that a fee of Three Pounds Be Given to Mr. 
 William Livingston to Be an Assistant to Mr. Lodge who 
 was appointed by this Board on the 12th of September, 1750 
 to Be Attorney on Record to Commence an Action of Tres- 
 pass and Ejectment on the Demise of this Corporation 
 against John Van Zandt." 
 
 He does not appear to have been retained in any matters other 
 than those already mentioned. 
 
 Samuel Jones, in the revolutionary period, was retained in the 
 "Oswego Market Indictment," and in the other matter of the 
 double office holding of Coroner Blagge before mentioned. In 
 the post-revolutionary period his opinion seems to have been 
 sought somewhat freely ; amongst other matters referred to him 
 (this time in conjunction with Alexander Hamilton) being the 
 Van Zandt-Clarke-Provoost dispute respecting a water lot facing 
 on the Burling slip at Pearl street, the subject matter of which 
 litigation is now involved in a pending action open on the books 
 of the Corporaton Counsel. After the Revolution Samuel Jones 
 was Recorder of the City, serving from 1780 to 1795, inclusive. 
 
35 
 
 There may have been other persons retained by the Common 
 Council, but the names mentioned are the only ones appearing 
 in the minutes down to the time of the Revolution in 1776. 
 
 The Revolutionary Period, 1776 to 1783. 
 
 During the Revolutionary period from 1776 to 1783 the City 
 was under military rule, with a Provost Marshal at the head of the 
 government. The treaty of peace of December, 1783, between the 
 United States and Great Britain, under which the Colonies sepa- 
 rated from the mother country, did not change the character of 
 the City Government. The Governor of the State and his Coun- 
 cil appointed the Mayor, Recorder, SheriflF and Coroner, but the 
 Aldermen and other municipal officers were elected. 
 
 The Post-Revolutionary Period, 1783 to 1800. 
 
 From the time of the evacuation of New York by the British 
 troops on November 25, 1783, down to and including the year 
 1800, the legal affairs of the City appear to have been adminis- 
 tered entirely by the Recorders of the City. Richard Varick was 
 Recorder from 1783 to 1789, Samuel Jones from 1780 to 1795, 
 James Keat from 1796 to 1798 and Richard Harrison from 1798 
 to 1800. 
 
 At the Charter election held in November, 1800, the Federal- 
 ists, who had been in power since the Revolution, were defeated by 
 the Anti-Federalists, who at that time began to assume the name of 
 Republicans and were called by their opponents Democrats. Richard 
 Varick was then Mayor and John J. Prevoost Recorder ; the for- 
 mer had held the office uninterruptedly since the year 1789. 
 
 The First "Corporation Attorneys," 1801 to 1839. 
 
 The office or oosition of "Attorney of the Corporation" was 
 first created by the Common Council in 1801. On March 23d of 
 that year Anthony Dey was appointed as "Attorney to this Cor- 
 poration" and was directed to take charge of all proceedings to 
 collect penalties. His fees were fixed at one-half of the amount of 
 
3<5 
 
 penalties recovered. This was the origin of the office of "Corpo- 
 ration Attorney" which existed down to the time of the consolida- 
 tion of the Greater New York on January i, 1898, when the name 
 of the office was changed to the "Bureau of Penalties." 
 
 In the earliest revisions of the City ordinances, the first ordinance 
 in each case relates to "the due observance of the Lord's day, called 
 Sunday." Before the year 1801 the "High Constable" was charged 
 with the duty of enforcing this law. During that year the law was 
 amended and the Attorney for the Corporation was directed to take 
 charge of all such proceedings. 
 
 In 1 801 Edward Livingston received the appointment of Mayor 
 of New York. 
 
 The election of Aldermen in 1802, which carried with it political 
 control of the City, was marked by extreme violence. DeWitt Clin- 
 ton, a nephew of Governor George Qinton, was the leader of the 
 Republicans and was opposed by the family of the Livingstons, a 
 wealthy and powerful combination, and a faction led by Aaron 
 Burr. A duel was fought between DeWitt Clinton and Robert 
 Swartwout, a friend of Aaron Burr, in which Mr, Swartwout was 
 wounded. The Federalists defeated the Republicans. 
 
 On August 8, 1803, at a meeting of the Common Council a reso- 
 lution was adopted removing Anthony Dey from the position of 
 Attorney for the Corporation and appointing in his place Isaac A. 
 Van Hook, with the title of "Attorney and Counsel of the Board." 
 
 During the year 1803 Edward Livingston, who had received an 
 appointment as United States District Attorney for the District of 
 New York, resigned the office of Mayor and was succeeded by 
 DeWitt Qinton, at that time a United States Senator, who had 
 resigned his position for the Mayoralty. 
 
 On November 10, 1804, Maturin Livingston was appointed Re- 
 corder of New York. The City Government up to that time had 
 been kept in the hands of the Federalists, but during this year for 
 the first time the Republicans obtained a majority in the Board. 
 At a Republican caucus in 1804, at which the Mayor (DeWitt Clin- 
 
37 
 
 ton), the Recorder (Maturin Livingston) and eleven Aldermen 
 were present, the following action was taken : 
 
 "Proceedings to be Confidential." 
 
 "Street Commissioner to be removed — Unanimous. 
 
 "Comptroller to be removed — Unanimous. 
 
 "Superintendent of Alms House to be removed — Unanimou?. 
 
 "Superintendent of Scavengers to be removed — Unanimous. 
 
 "Commissioner of Public Repairs to be removed — Unanimous. 
 
 "Attorney of the Board to be removed — Unanimous. 
 
 "Counsel of the Board to be removed — Unanimous. 
 
 "Etc., etc." 
 
 As a result of this caucus Isaac A. Van Hook was removed by 
 the Council on December 24, 1804, and Samuel Cowdrey was elected 
 as "Attorney for the Corporation." Mr. Cowdrey subsequently 
 complained that the fees of his office were too uncertain, and a 
 resolution was adopted by the Council fixing the fees of the At- 
 torney at $2 for all proceedings where the penalty was under $25, 
 and $5 for all proceedings where the penalty recovered amounted 
 to $25 or over. 
 
 At the election of 1806, the Federalists and "Lewisites" combined, 
 obtaining a majority over the "Clintonians," and the Mayor, Re- 
 corder and all other municipal officers, including the Attorney to 
 the Corporation, were removed. Marinus Willett was appointed 
 Mayor and Maturin Livingston, Recorder. Samuel Cowdrey was 
 removed from the position of Attorney and Isaac A. Van Hook 
 wa.s appointed Attorney for the second time. 
 
 In 1807 the Cliiitonian Republicans regained the ascendency in 
 the State and DeWitt Clinton was reappointed Mayor and Pierre 
 C. \'an Wyck, Recorder. 
 
 On December 21, 1807, Mr. Van Hook was removed for the 
 second time from the position of Attorney to the Corporation, and 
 Samuel Cowdrey was appointed for the second time to the posi- 
 tion. 
 
38 
 
 On December 28, 1807, an amended law was passed by the 
 Common Council "for the due observance of the Lord's Day, called 
 Sunday," and one of the provisions of this law was that the At- 
 torney of the Board should be authorized after the recovery and 
 receipt of any penalty to pay over to the person giving information 
 upon which a conviction was obtained, one-half of the fine or pen- 
 alty, and directing all Constables and Marshals to apprehend all 
 offenders against the ordinance and to give such information to the 
 Attorney for the Corporation. 
 
 At the election in the fall of 1808, the Republicans were again 
 successful, but in the State election of 1809 the Federalists, for the 
 first time since 1799 carried the State. On December 18, 1809, 
 Samuel Cowdrey was removed for the second time from the posi- 
 tion of Attorney to the Board and Isaac A. Van Hook was reap- 
 pointed for the third time to the position. The Council of Apiioint- 
 ment at Albany at their first meeting, early in the year 18 10, re- 
 moved Mr. Clinton from the office of Mayor and Mr. Van Wyck 
 from the office of Recorder, appointing in their places Jacob Rad- 
 cliff, Mayor, and Josiah Ogden Hoffman, Recorder. 
 
 At the State election for the year 181 1, the Republicans were 
 again successful, and the consequence was the reappointment in the 
 spring of 181 1 of DeWitt Clinton as Mayor and Pierre C. Van 
 Wyck as Recorder. On January 20, 181 2, Mr, Van Hook was re- 
 moved from the position of Attorney to the Board for the third 
 time, and David S. Jones was appointed "Attorney and Counsel to 
 the Board." 
 
 The Charter of the City was revised in 1813, but it contained no 
 reference to any department to be known as the "Law Department" 
 or to any officer to be known as Attorney or Counsel to the Cor- 
 poration. 
 
 In March, 181 5, DeWitt Clinton was removed from the office of 
 ^ayor and John Ferguson was appointed in his place; Mr, Fer^fu- 
 son resigned in the following June and the Council appointed Jacob 
 Radcliff, Mavor. 
 
39 
 
 In the Charter election in the spring of 1816, the Republicans for 
 the first time adopted the name of Democrats. They carried the 
 election and soon afterwards David S. Jones, Attorney to the Cor- 
 poration, was removed and Ogden Edwards was appointed as "Coun- 
 sel to the Corporation" and Alpheus Sherman as "Attorney to the 
 Corporation." This was the first time when the offices of Counsel 
 and Attorney were held by different persons. Mr. Edwards held 
 office from 1816 to 1823; in 1823 he was elected a Justice of the 
 Supreme Court and held that position until 1840. Mr. Sherman 
 was Attorney to the Corporation up to May 14, 182 1, when he was 
 succeeded by Michael Ulshoeffer. Ogden Edwards was the first 
 Corporation Counsel elected to the Bench. 
 
 By a law or ordinance of the Common Council passed the 5th 
 day of May, 1817, it was directed that all fines and penalties im- 
 posed by law should be sued for and recovered in the name of the 
 Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty of The City of New York, and 
 that one-half of the penalty recovered should be paid to the person 
 giving the information upon which conviction was obtained, and 
 that the Attorney should make a report to the Comptroller once 
 each month of the actions commenced and the moneys recovered and 
 paid to informers. By an ordinance passed May 28, 182 1, the 
 salary of the "Counselor to the Board" was fixed at $400. 
 
 The Republicans were defeated at the election in 1823 by the 
 "People's Party" and William Paulding was appointed Mayor. 
 
 In October, 1823, Michael Ulshoeffer was appointed "Attorney 
 and Counselor," and held those two offices until 1829. Mr, Ul- 
 shoeffer was elected a Judge of the Court of Common Pleas in the 
 year 1834 and held that office until 1850. 
 
 In the year 1829 after the election contest between the friends 
 of Jackson and Adams, which resulted in favor of the Jackson 
 ticket, Walter Bowne was appointed Mayor. The Common Council 
 in that year appointed Robert Emmett as "Counsel to the Corpora- 
 tion," and he held the position for the following eight years. Mr. 
 Emmett was elected a Justice of the Supreme Court in 1852, and 
 served until 1855. 
 
40 
 
 On April 7, 1830, the Legislature revised the Charter of The 
 City of New York, providing for separate meetings of the two 
 Boards composing the Common Council, and leaving out the Mayor 
 and Recorder as members of the Council, but giving to the Mayor 
 the power of approving or disapproving the acts of the Common 
 Council. 
 
 In section 21 of the act referred to the right to create executive 
 departments was given in the following terms : 
 
 "The executive business of the corporation of New York 
 shall hereafter be performed by distinct departments, which it 
 shall be the duty of the common council to organize and ap- 
 point for that purpose." 
 
 The Common Council soon afterward did create a number of 
 municipal departments, but the Law Department was not one of 
 them. 
 
 At the election in the spring of 1837, Aaron Clark, IVhig, de- 
 feated John J. Morgan, Democrat, and Mr. Emmett was removed 
 from the position of Counsel to the Corporation and George F. 
 Tallman was appointed in his place. Mr. Tallman held oflFice from 
 1837 to 1839. 
 
 From 1839 to 1849 — The Office of "Counsel to the Corporation" 
 
 Created. 
 
 On May 14, 1839, the positions of "Counsel to the Corpora- 
 tion" and "Attorney to the Corporation" were made permanent city 
 offices by the following ordinance or law of the Common Council, 
 which was adopted under the authority conferred by the Charter 
 Revision of 1830: 
 
 "The Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty of The City of New 
 York, in Common Council convened, do ordain as follows : 
 
 "Section i. A suitable person of the degree of counsellor 
 at law in the Supreme Court shall be appointed as Counsel to 
 the Corporation; it shall be his duty to advise the two boards 
 and their committees and officers on such legal questions as 
 
41 
 
 mav from time to time arise in relation to the business of the 
 corporation, and to perform all such other services in the line 
 of his professsion connected with the business of the corpora- 
 tion as are not comprised in the duties of the Attorney. 
 
 "Sec. 2. It shall be the duty of the Counsel, at the expira- 
 * tion of every three months, to make a written report to the 
 Comptroller of the items of fees and moneys received by him 
 and due to him for services performed in matters not relating 
 to or connected with the business which he is authorized to 
 transact as Counsel to the Corporation, and if it shall appear 
 at the end of each year that he shall not have received the 
 gross sum of $4,000 he shall be entitled to receive from the 
 Corporation payment of the customary costs and fees for such 
 services as he may have been required to render to an amount 
 not exceeding such deficiency, but if the sum received by and 
 due to him from persons other than the Corporation shall ex- 
 ceed the sum of $4,000 he shall not be entitled to receive from 
 the Corporation payment for any services rendered by him for 
 them, and shall be considered as fully remunerated by the 
 emoluments derived from services rendered to others. 
 
 "Sec. 3. All ordinances and resolutions inconsistent are 
 hereby repealed." 
 
 The same ordinance continued the office of "Attorney to the 
 Corporation" in the following terms: 
 
 "Section i. A suitable person of the degree of attorney at 
 law in the Supreme Court shall be appointed as Attorney to 
 the Corporation. It shall be his duty to commence and prose- 
 cute all suits for breaches of the laws and ordinances of the 
 Corporation ; all suits arising under the charter of this City, 
 and all actions upon the laws of this State, in cases where the 
 penalty is given to this Corporation or to the Overseers of the 
 Poor of this City. 
 
 "Sec. 2. The Attorney of the Corporation shall hereafter 
 receive a salary of two thousand two hundred and fifty dollars 
 per annum, payable quarterly, and the further sum, in lieu of 
 
42 
 
 Clerk hire, of seven hundred and fifty dollars per annum, pay- 
 able quarterly, in lieu of all fees or other charges against the 
 Corporation, or against any other person or persons, on any 
 complaint for a violation of any ordinance of the Common 
 Council, but this provision shall not be construed to prevent him 
 from collecting or receiving from any person, other than the 
 Corporation, his taxable costs in any suit in any court of rec- 
 ord, and in case he shall not collect such costs from such 
 person they may be certified against ttie City upon four days' 
 notice to the Counsel to the Corporation, and upon filing a 
 copy of such certified bill with the Comptroller that officer 
 shall audit and pay the amount thereof, or the Attorney may 
 retain the same out of any moneys in his hands belonging to 
 the Corporation. 
 
 "Sec. 3. No certiorari or writ of error shall be brought by 
 the said Attorney in any suit in which judgment shall have 
 been given against the Corporation, unless upon a report of 
 the facts by the said attorney, the Common Council shall 
 order such certiorari or writ of error to be brought. 
 
 "Sec. 4. All ordinances or parts of ordinances inconsistent 
 with the preceding provisions are hereby repealed." 
 
 By this ordinance, the duties of the Counsel to the Corpora- 
 tion and the Attorney to the Corporation were for the first time 
 clearly defined. It appears that prior to the adoption of the or^ 
 dinance there had been considerable confusion on this point. The 
 provision as to the salary of the Counsel to the Corporation ap- 
 pears to us at this date to be somewhat unique. 
 
 The First "Counsel to the Corporation." 
 PETER A. COW DREY was the first person to hold the of- 
 fice of Counsel to the Corporation as thus established, and he re- 
 mained in office from May, 1839, until May 3I, 1842. Mr. Cow- 
 drey's office was at No. 140 Nassau street. The Attorney to the 
 Corporation during that period was John McKeon, of No. 109 
 Fulton street, and the Public Administrator, Elijah Morrill, of 
 
43 
 
 No. 4 Spruce street. The salary of the Public Administrator at 
 that time was $1,250 per annum. 
 
 On January 22, 1841, by an ordinance of the Common Council, 
 the Counsel to the Corporation was allovved the sum of $1,200 in 
 lieu of all charges for Assistants and Clerk hire, but the amount 
 was reduced to $600 by the "Salary Bill" passed September 12, 
 1842. The salary of the Attorney to the Corporation had been 
 fixed by the ordinance of 1839 at $2,250, but was reduced by reso- 
 lution passed May 29, 1844, to $2,000. 
 
 The Counsel to the Corporation, the Attorney and the Public 
 Administrator during the period I am now describing transacted 
 the public business in their private offices in connection with 
 their own law business. 
 
 Up to the year 1849 the offices of the "Counsel to the Corpora- 
 tion," "Attorney to the Corporation" and "Public Adminis- 
 trator," were separate and distinct ; each of these officials was ap- 
 pointed by the Common Council. 
 
 It might be mentioned here that the office of Public Adminis- 
 trator continued to be a bureau of the Law Department from 
 April 2, 1849, until May, 1895, when, by an Act of the Legis- 
 lature, it was made a separate bureau and the power to appoint 
 and remove the Public Administrator was vested in the Surro- 
 gates of New York County. 
 
 DAVID GRAHAM, Jr., succeeded Peter A. Cowdrey as Coun- 
 sel to the Corporation, and held the office from ]\Iay 31, 1842, to 
 May 9, 1843. Mr. Graham's office was at the corner of Beekman 
 and Nassau streets. At this period the Attorney to the Corpora- 
 tion was Alexander W. Bradford, of No. 51 William street, and 
 the Public Administrator Edgar Ketchum, of No. 56 John street. 
 
 The oldest record in the present Corporation Counsel's office 
 is a Register containing the actions pending in 1842, transferred 
 from Peter A. Cowdrey to David Graham, Jr. Whatever records 
 there were prior to that date were probably contained in the 
 private registers of the different counsel. 
 
44 
 
 PETER A. COWDREY was reappointed Counsel to the Cor- 
 poration on May 9, 1843, ^^^ held office during the years 1843 
 and 1844. 
 
 SAMUEL J. TILDEN was Attorney to the Corporation dur- 
 ing Mr. Cowdrey's second term of office. He was later elected 
 Governor of the State and was the Democratic candidate for 
 President of the United States against Rutherford B. Hayes. Mr. 
 Tilden had an office at No. 14 Pine street. He had a Clerk, a 
 Marshal and a Constable as his office force. The Public Admin- 
 istrator during this period was William M. Mitchell, whose office 
 was at No. 52 John street. 
 
 The salary of Counsel to the Corporation was fixed, in the lat- 
 ter part of 1843, at $3,000, the salary of the Attorney to the Cor- 
 poration at $2,500 and the salary of the Public Administrator at 
 $1,250. 
 
 JOHN LEVERIDGE, of No. 145 Cherry street, was appoint- 
 ed Counsel to the Corporation in 1844; Stephen Sammons, of No. 
 7 Chambers street, was Attorney to the Corporation, and Harris 
 Wilson, of No. 13 Chambers street. Public Administrator. A 
 resolution, passed May 29, 1844, reduced the salary of Counsel 
 to the Corporation to $2,000, but allowed $1,600 for Clerk hire. 
 
 JAMES T. BRADY was appointed Counsel to the Corpora- 
 tion in 1845, a"<^^ Peter B. Sweeny and three other persons were 
 employed as Clerks in the office. Allan W. Sniffen was appoint- 
 ed as Attorney to the Corporation and H. P. Wanmaker, Public 
 Administrator. James T. Brady was a brother of John R. Brady, 
 a Justice of the Supreme Court. In 1846 Eugene Casserly suc- 
 ceeded Allan W. Sniffen as Attorney to the Corporation. 
 
 WILLIS HALL was appointed Counsel to the Corporation 
 in 1847; ^6 had previously held the position of Attorney General 
 of the State of New York; James Green was appointed as his As- 
 sistant and he was allowed three Clerks. Theodore E. Tomlin- 
 son was appointed Attorney to the Corporation and James S. 
 Thayer, Public Administrator. The office of Counsel to the Cor- 
 
45 
 
 poration at that period was at No, 14 Wall street, and the office 
 of the Attorney to the Corporation in the "Old Alms House;" 
 the office of the Public Administrator was at No. 7 Nassau street. 
 
 Mr. Hall continued to act as Counsel to the Corporation until 
 May, 1849. 
 
 In 1847 ^ resolution was passed by the Common Council re- 
 citing the fact that the former resolution of May 29, 1844, had 
 limited the salary of Counsel to the Corporation to $2,000, and 
 that bills had been presented to the Joint Finance Committee 
 amounting to nearly $25,000, for alleged extra services rendered 
 by persons theretofore occupying the situation of Counsel to the 
 Corporation in violation of the spirit, if not the letter, of the 
 ordinance allowing a definite salary to the Counsel, in lieu of any 
 and all fees, and directing that the salary of $2,000, and the" allow- 
 ance of $1,600, for ClefK hire was intended to cover all disburse- 
 ments for legal servic^.s of every kind rendered by the Counsel 
 and refusing to audit and allow any bills for additional services. 
 
 In May, 1848, however, another ordinance was passed creating 
 a department to the city government to be known as the Law 
 Department, "the chief officer whereof shall be denominated as 
 the Council of the Corporation" (spelled in that manner) and 
 ordering that the said officer should keep his office in rooms in 
 the City Hall ; that he should be appointed by the Common Coun- 
 cil and receive a salary of $3,500 per annum, which salary should 
 be in full for all services as Attorney, Counsel, Solicitor, Proctor, 
 or Conveyancer, and that the said salary should be in lieu of all 
 costs at law or in equity and of all fees and other charges against 
 the Corporation, Supervisors or Departments, 
 
 The ordinance further provided that the "Council" should take 
 an oath of office and file a bond in the sum of $2,000, before en- 
 tering upon his duties, and that he should attend to all business 
 not committed to the Attorney of the Corporation. 
 
 The ordinance also provided that all fees and costs collected 
 should be paid into the City Treasury at the close of each month. 
 
46 
 
 and that two Clerks might be appointed, one at a salary of $i,ooo 
 and the other at a salary of $600. 
 
 The Registers of the present Law Department are continuous, 
 beginning with the year 1848. The resolution of May, 1848, 
 therefore accomplished at least one good result by providing for 
 a separate office where proper books and records might be kept. 
 
 The "Law Department" Created by the Legislature, 1849 to 1856. 
 
 The Law Department was first created by legislative authority 
 as an executive department of The City of New York by the Act 
 of April 2, 1849, which amended the Charter of The City of New 
 York. 
 
 By this Act the office of "Counsel to the Corporation" was 
 made elective. The term of office was fixed at three years. The 
 office of the "Attorney to the Corporation" was made a bureau of 
 the Law Department, the head of which was to be known as the 
 "Corporation Attorney." The office of the Public Administrator 
 was also made a bureau of the Law Department and the appoint- 
 ment of both of these officers was vested in the Counsel to the 
 Corporation. 
 
 The section of the law referred to, said : 
 
 "There shall be an executive department, known as the 
 'Law Department,' which shall have the charge of and con- 
 duct all the law business of the corporation and of the de- 
 partments thereof and all other law business in which the 
 City shall be interested when so ordered by the corporation ; 
 and shall have the charge of and conduct the legal proceed- 
 ings necessary in opening, widening, or altering streets ; and 
 draw the leases, deeds and other papers connected with the 
 Finance Department; and the chief officer thereof shall be 
 called the 'Counsel to the Corporation.' " 
 
 HENRY E. DAVIES (the father of Julien T. Davies) was the 
 first person elected to the office of Counsel to the Corporation, 
 which position he held from May, 1849, to December 31, 1852. 
 Mr. Davies reappointed Theodore E. Tomlinson as Corporation 
 
47 
 
 Attorney and James S. Thayer as Public Administrator. After 
 the expiration of his term of office, he formed the partnership of 
 Da vies & Scudder (Henry J. Scudder), and in that firm Mr. James 
 C. Carter filled the position of managing clerk. Henry E. Davies 
 was elected to the Supreme Court bench and was a Justice of that 
 Court from 1855 until 1859, when he was elected a Judge of the 
 Court of Appeals for a term of eight years. During the last two 
 years of his term he was Chief Judge of that Court. 
 
 ROBERT J. DILLON was the next Counsel to the Corpora- 
 tion. He was elected in 1852 and held office from January i, 1853, 
 to January i, 1856. The salary of the Counsel to the Corporation 
 was $3,500 at this time, but he was allowed to tax fees in street 
 opening proceedings. By an act of the Legislature passed April 
 I, 1854, a yearly allowance of $6,500 was granted in lieu of all fees 
 in street opening matters. This gave the Corporation Counsel a 
 total salary of $10,000. Daniel E. Sickles was Corporation At- 
 torney during the first year of this administration and Peter B. 
 Sweeny was Public Administrator. While Mr. Dillon was Cor- 
 poration Counsel, Abraham R. Lawrence, subsequently a Justice 
 of the Supreme Court, became a Clerk in the office. Daniel E. 
 Sickles, the Corporation Attorney under Mr. Dillon, was suc- 
 ceeded by John B. Haskin. The offices of all of the branches of 
 the Law Departrhent at that time were located at No. 51 Cham- 
 bers street. 
 
 LORENZO B. SHEPARD (the father of Edward M. Shep- 
 ard) was the last Corporation Counsel in the period that I am 
 now describing and he held office from January i, 1856, until the 
 time of his death in September, 1856. George H. Purser was 
 Corporation Attorney during that time and Peter B. Sweeny was 
 Public Administrator. 
 
 RICHARD BUSTLED was appointed in 1856 to fill the un- 
 expired term of Mr. Shepard, and was elected in the fall of that 
 year to serve for the three years commencing on January i, 1857, 
 and ending on January i, i860. 
 
48 
 
 The Revised Ordinances of 1856 set forth very fully the duties 
 of the Law Department and its two bureaus, but the ordinances 
 are substantially a re-enactment of thie Act of the Legislature 
 passed in 1849. 
 
 This completes the list of Corporation Counsels down to the year 
 1857, and I have already given, at the beginning of this report, the 
 names of the persons holding office during the fifty years from 1857 
 to 1907. 
 
 The New York Office in 1856. 
 
 It is very interesting to compare the office as it existed in 1856 
 with the Department at the close of 1906. 
 
 Mr. Campbell, our Chief Clerk, informs me that he was ap- 
 pointed to the position of Copyist in 1857 by Hon. Abraham R. 
 Lawrence, who was an Assistant under the then Corporation Coun- 
 sel, Hon. Richard Busteed. Mr. Busteed had at that time two 
 Assistants, Abraham R. Lawrence and Moses Ely. The entire force 
 of the office, in addition to the Corporation Counsel, consisted of the 
 Assistant just named, a Street Clerk, a Real Estate Clerk, a Law 
 Clerk, two Copyists and one Messenger — nine persons in all. 
 
 The office of the Law Department in 1857 was on the second 
 floor of No. 237 Broadway. It continued there until i860, when it 
 was removed to No. 82 Nassau street. In 1874, while Hon. E. 
 Delafield Smith was Corporation Counsel, the offices were re- 
 moved to the "Staats Zeitung"' Building at No. 2 Tryon Row, 
 where they remained until the latter part of 1906. At that time 
 the present quarters in the new Hall of Records, although not 
 completed, were made tenantable and the main office is now com« 
 fortably housed in that beautiful building. 
 
 Mr. William C. Trull, now an eminent member of our bar, 
 became connected with the office of the Corporation Counsel in 
 1861, when Greene C. Bronson filled that office. Mr. Trull and 
 Henry H. Anderson were Assistants. In 1863 John E. Develin 
 succeeded Judge Bronson and John K. Hackett was appointed to 
 succeed Mr. Anderson. Mr. Trull continued in office during the 
 term of Mr. Develin, who was succeeded by Hon. Richard O'Gor- 
 
49 
 
 man. Mr. David J. Dean, of whom I shall have occasion to speak 
 hereafter, became Judge O'Gorman's Assistant. 
 
 In 1856 the entire appropriation for the Law Department, in- 
 cluding the salary of the Corporation Counsel, clerk hire and 
 office rent and all disbursements, was $36,550. In 1906 the ap- 
 propriations for the Corporation Counsel's office amounted to 
 $685,000, and this sum did not include office rent, printing, sta- 
 tionery or the cost of conducting the Bureau of Street Openings, 
 which is paid from the "Street and Park Opening Fund." But 
 during the same period the number of persons employed had in- 
 creased from 9 to 326, and the business transacted had also in- 
 creased at a similar rate. 
 
 The Office as a Stepping Stone to the Bench. 
 
 The office of Corporation Counsel has been popularly consid- 
 ered, and not without reason, as a stepping stone to the bench. 
 
 Of the gentlemen who have filled the office of Corporation 
 Counsel of The City of New York, the following twelve have 
 been elevated to seats on the bench of State and Federal Courts : 
 
 Ogden Edwards. Richard O'Gorman. 
 
 Michael UllshoefYer. George P. Andrews. 
 
 Robert Emmett. E. Henry Lacombe. 
 
 Henry E. Davies. Morgan J. O'Brien. 
 
 Richard Busteed. Henry R. Beekman. 
 
 Greene C. Bronson. Francis M. Scott. 
 
 Almet F. Jenks and Joseph A. Burr, former Corporation Coun- 
 sels of The City of Brooklyn, are now Justices of the Supreme 
 Court in Kings County. 
 
 Nineteen of the Assistants of the Corporation Counsel have 
 also been promoted to the bench. 
 
 John K. Hackett became Recorder of the City. 
 
 Howard J. Forker is a Justice of Special Sessions, Brooklyn. 
 
 Martin T. McMahon was elected a Judge of the Court of 
 General Sessions. 
 
50 
 
 Abraham R. Lawrence, Charles L. Guy, John J, Brady, Wil- 
 liam J. Carr, Henry Bischoff, Jr., and John Proctor Clarke be- 
 came Justices of the Supreme Court. The last named is now one 
 of the Justices of the Appellate Division, First Department. 
 
 Charles S. Whitman, John B. Mayo, Henry J. Steinert, Wil- 
 liam A. Sweetser, Arthur C. Butts, Charles N. Harris and Fred- 
 eric L. Kernochan were appointed City Magistrates. 
 
 Henry W. Unger was appointed a Justice of the Municipal 
 Court, Manhattan. 
 
 Philip D. Meagher and John J. Walsh are now Municipal 
 Court Justices in Brooklyn. 
 
 Altogether thirty-three Corporation Counsels or Assistants 
 have been elected or appointed to judicial positions. 
 
 A Famous Assistant. 
 
 Probably one of the most justly famous Assistants of the Cor- 
 poration Counsel since the establishment of the office was David 
 J. Dean. As a jurisconsult in Municipal law he had no superior. 
 The sweetness of his disposition and the nobleness of his char- 
 acter are still remembered by those who were his associates. 
 His capacity for hard work was unlimited, and yet at any time 
 he would turn aside from the most exacting labors to open the 
 great storehouses of his legal knowledge to the humblest As- 
 sistant. He was as modest as he was learned, and as unassuming 
 as he was profound. A man among men, his daily life was 
 adorned by unostentatious piety. He won and retained the 
 admiration and respect of all his associates, to whom he was 
 not only the ever ready and willing counsellor, but also the 
 self-sacrificing and sympathetic friend. As a soldier he served 
 his country. As a lawyer he ministered at the altar of justice 
 of this City and State. The day is yet far distant when his fame 
 will be forgotten and his name unspoken by those who knew 
 and loved him. 
 
Prominent Lawyers Formerly Associated with the Office. 
 
 A large number of lawyers who are now prominent at the 
 Bar have been connected at various times with this Department, 
 and many of them received their best training while serving as 
 members of the office staff. In addition to the persons who have 
 held the office of Corporation Counsel or who have been ele- 
 vated to the Bench I might mention the following: 
 
 Francis L. Stetson, No. 35 Wall street, New York. 
 
 William L. Turner, No. 84 Cotton Exchange, New York. 
 
 William C. Trull, No. 32 Nassau street, New York. 
 
 William H. Rand, No. 63 Wall street. New York. 
 
 Rollin M, Morgan, No. 38 Park row. New York. 
 
 Francis L. Wellman, No. 15 Wall street, New York. 
 
 Daniel E. Sickles, No. 23 Fifth avenue. New York. 
 
 Luke D. Stapleton, No. 15 William street, New York. 
 
 R. Percy Chittenden, No. 189 Montague street, Brooklyn. 
 
 James McKeen, No. 40 Wall street. New York. 
 
 Walter S. Brewster, No. 40 Wall street. New York. 
 
 Herbert B. Brush, No. 189 Montague street, Brooklyn. 
 
 Chase Mellen, No. 60 Wall street, New York. 
 
 Henry De Forest Baldwin, No. 49 Wall street, New York. 
 
 John H. Judge, No. 29 Broadway, New York. 
 
 Frank A. Irish, No. 40 Wall street. New York. 
 
 Arthur H. Masten, No. 49 Wall street. New York. . 
 
 Thomas P. Wickes, Englewood, N, J. 
 
 Charles Blandy, Xo. 7 Wall street. New York. 
 
 Charles W. Ridgway, No. 100 Broadway, New York. 
 
 Thomas F. Grady, No. 74 Broadway, New York. 
 
 Thomas E. Rush, No. 30 Broad street, New York. 
 
 Montgomery Hare, No. 30 Broad street, New York. 
 
 Arthur F. Cosby, No. 32 Nassau street, New York. 
 
 Martin Saxe, No. 280 Broadway, New York. 
 
 Adrian T. Kiernan, No. 35 Nassau street. New York. 
 
 Edward H. Hawke, Jr., No. 66 Broadway, New York. 
 
 David Rumsey, No. 32 Liberty street. New York. 
 
52 
 
 Gratz Nathan, No. io8 Fulton, street, Nevv.< York, 
 Peter B. Sweeny, Seventy-second street and Riverside drive, 
 New York. 
 
 Robert L. Wensley, No. ii Broadway, New York. 
 Thomas F. Gilroy, Jr., No. 49 Wall street, New York. 
 William W. Ladd, No, 20 Nassau street. New York. 
 Henry A. Brann, No. 302 Broadway, New York. 
 Henry B. Twombly, No. 170 Broadway, New York, 
 Edward J, McGuire, No. 52 Wall street, New York, 
 John Walsh, No, 60 Wall street, New Yoi-k, 
 Frank A. Acer, No, 277 Broadway, New York, 
 Andrew D, Parker, No, 220 Broadway, New York. 
 Matthew C. Fleming, No. 71 Broadway, New York. 
 Charles V. Gabriel, No. 320 Broadway, New York. 
 Arthur Berry, No. 180 Broadway, New York. 
 Carroll Berry, No. 180 Broadway, New York. 
 Oscar F. G. Megie, No. 302 Broadway, New York, 
 Alexander McKinney, No, 215 Montague street, Brooklyn. 
 William C. Courtney, No, 350 Fulton street, Brooklyn. 
 Michael E, Finnigan, No, 44 Court street, Brooklyn. 
 John E, Walker, No. 164 Montague street, Brooklyn. 
 Samuel H. Evins, No, 30 Broad street. New York, 
 Albert E, Hadlock, No, 135 Broadway, New York, 
 William H. Hutchinson, No, 170 Broadway, New York. 
 Alvin S. Hall, No. 37 Liberty street, New York. 
 George Landon, No. 37 Liberty street. New York, 
 William J, O'SuUivan, No. 256 Broadway, New York. 
 Wilmot T, Cox, No. 49 Wall street. New York, 
 John J, Townsend, No, 45 Cedar street. New York. 
 Leroy D, Ball, No, 290 Broadway, New York. 
 Edwin L. Abbott, No, 302 Broadway, New York. 
 John A. Beall, No, 31 Liberty street, New York. 
 Thomas J, O'Callaghan, No, 200 Broadway, New York. 
 Alfred J, Talley, No. 299 Broadway, New York, 
 John F, Cowan, No, 280 Broadway, New York, 
 Sidney J, Cowen, No, 302 Broadway, New York. 
 
53 
 
 E. Crosby Kindleberger, District Attorney's office. 
 John C. Wait, No. 220 Broadway, New York. 
 George Hill, No. 41 Park row, New York. 
 Oliver C. Semple, No. 52 William street, New York. 
 Harold S. Rankine, Buffalo, N. Y. 
 Henry M. Powell, No. 280 Broadway, New York. 
 Thomas B. Qarkson, No. 170 Broadway, New York. 
 Harold M. Smith, Hall of Records. 
 Cornelius J. Earley, No. 271 Broadway, New York. 
 Lamont McLoughlin, No. 309 Broadway, New York. 
 Spencer G. McNeary, No. 99 Nassau street, New York. 
 George E. Blackwell, No. 63 Wall street, New York. 
 Denis O'Leary, Long Island City. 
 William E. Ewing, No. 176 Broadway, New York. 
 Charles Malloy, No. 2^^ Broadway, New York. 
 Richard J. Morrisson, No. 135 Broadway, New York. 
 George Lavelle, No. 220 Broadway, New York. 
 Woolsey Carmalt, No. 82 Beaver street, New York. 
 William A. Boyd, No. 146 Broadway, New York. 
 Louis Hanneman, Xo. 140 Nassau street, New York. 
 Charles S. Beardsley, No. 32 Nassau street, New York. 
 Louis Steckler, No. 302 Broadway, New York. 
 Charles E. Lydecker, No.' 30 Broad street. New York. 
 John G. H. ]\Ieyers, No. 150 Nassau street, New York. 
 William M. Hoes. No. 69 Wall street, New York. 
 Robert Grier Monroe, No. 15 Wall street. New York. 
 John Callahan, Xo. 280 Broadway, New York. 
 P. J. Walsh, Supreme Court. 
 
 Albert E. Henschel, X^o. 11 Broadway, New York. 
 Robert C. Beatty, X^o. 43 Cedar street, X^ew York. 
 Albert Bach, No. 66 Broadway, New York. 
 Fielding L. Marshall, Xo. 32 X'^assau street. New York. 
 Douglas Mathewson, No. 265 Broadway, New York. 
 Merle O. St. John, No. 31 Nassau street. New York. 
 William F. Wilber, No. 32 Nassau street. New York. 
 Simon C. Noot, No. 320 Broadway, New York. 
 
54 
 
 Richard H. Smith, No. 277 Broadway, New York. 
 
 Ralph R. Jacobs, No. 367 Fulton street, Brooklyn. 
 
 Peter P. Smith, County Court House, Brooklyn. 
 
 Joseph P. Conway, No. 44 Court street, Brooklyn. 
 
 A few of the men just mentioned left the department because of 
 political changes, but the great majority of them left the service 
 voluntarily to enter private practice, because it offered greater 
 remuneration. 
 
 Long Service of Some Present Employees. 
 
 A number of persons are now employed in the department who 
 have been in the service for a long term of years. Those on the 
 present payroll who have served continuously for more than fifteen 
 years are as follows: 
 
 Andrew T. Campbell, Chief Clerk, fifty years. 
 
 William J. Hodge, Messenger, forty-one years. 
 
 Richard B. Greenwood, Assistant (Brooklyn Office), thirty-two 
 years. 
 
 James M. Valles, Librarian, thirty-two years. 
 
 James J, McGrath, Clerk (Bureau of Penalties), thirty-two years. 
 
 Edwin J. Freedman, Assistant, twenty-six years. 
 
 William H. Lake, Examiner, twenty-three years. 
 
 Thomas E. Kennedy, Messenger, twenty-three years. 
 
 George L. Sterling, Assistant, twenty-two years. 
 
 John L. O'Brien, Assistant, twenty-two years. 
 
 John H. Greener, Assistant Chief Clerk, twenty-one years. 
 
 Charles A. O'Neil, Assistant, twenty years. 
 
 Charles D. Olendorf, Assistant, eighteen years. 
 
 William E. Fay, Clerk (Bureau of Penalties), eighteen years. 
 
 Jeremiah Maher, Clerk, eighteen years. 
 
 A. T. Campbell, Jr., Assistant, eighteen years. 
 
 Terence Farley, Assistant, seventeen years. 
 
 Patrick H. Curran, Process Server (Bureau of Penalties), seven- 
 teen years. 
 
 Theodore Connoly, Assistant, sixteen years. 
 
55 
 
 Among the female Stenographers one has been in the office for 
 twenty years, one for nineteen years, four for eighteen years, one 
 for sixteen years and one for fifteen years. 
 
 "Counselor Nolan." 
 
 Soon after Mr. Whalen assumed office, he appointed Thomas F. 
 Nolan as an Assistant in the Bureau of Penalties. 
 
 The "Great Irish Barrister" continued a member of the office 
 force until the time of his death in 1900. He was a well-known 
 figure in all of our courts, and a volume of reminiscences and sayings 
 of the Counselor has been published. It is probable that he was 
 not responsible for a large part of the stories that are attributed to 
 him, but he had a keen and ready wit, which, coupled with a fine, 
 rich brogue, made him a most interesting personality. 
 
 He will be long remembered as one of the most picturesque 
 characters in the legal fraternity. 
 
 Conditions Prior to Consolidation of the Greater New York. 
 
 At the close of the year 1897, just prior to consolidation, when 
 the City and the County of New York were coterminus, fifty-six 
 persons were connected with the main office of the Law Depart- 
 ment, including twelve Assistants and five Junior Assistants. In 
 the Bureau of Street Opening there were in all forty-three persons, 
 including Assistants. In the Bureau of the Corporation Attorney, 
 changed to the "Bureau of Penalties" by the Charter of 1897, 
 there were nine persons. To the Department of Street Improve- 
 ments of the Twenty-third and Twenty-fourth Wards, one Assist- 
 ant was assigned,. and there were but four persons in the Bureau 
 for the Collection of Arrears of Personal Taxes. The entire force 
 of the Law Department then numbered one hundred and fourteen. 
 
 The Corporation Counsel's office before consolidation was a 
 great law office. 
 
 In the year 1897 the number of actions and proceedings pending 
 at the close of that year was 3,925. The number of actions and 
 
56 
 
 proceedings commenced during the year was 3,329. The number 
 of actions tried in court was 138. The number of appeals argued 
 at the Appellate Division and Appellate Term of the Supreme Court 
 was ninety-two. The number of appeals argued in the Court of 
 Appeals was thirty. The number of appeals argued in the United 
 States Circuit Court of Appeals was one, and the number of appeals 
 argued in the United States Supreme Court was one. 
 
 .The Greater New York. 
 
 On January i, 1898, The Greater New York Charter took effect, 
 under the provisions of which ninety-four municipal corporations, 
 including three cities and four counties, were welded by law into 
 one great city. The Law Department had not only its own organ- 
 ization and system to establish, but that of other departments and 
 branches of the City government. A multitude of questions suddenly 
 arose, which in many cases were of the utmost importance. It seemed 
 as if every question of law that could arise, and that, too, in its 
 most complicated form, was referred to the Corporation Counsel 
 for advice. Probably no head of a law department was ever called 
 upon to construe so many apparently conflicting laws and advise 
 heuds of departments as to the proper course to pursue. Some of 
 th< se question were of the gravest importance, involving such 
 matters as the City's debt limit, the status of various bond issues, 
 and Civil Service questions brought about by the consolidation of 
 counties, cities, villages, school districts, etc. 
 
 Most of this work fell upon the shoulders of two Assitants irt 
 the office, Theodore Connoly and George L. Sterling, and to those 
 two men there is due from this City a large debt of recognition 
 and gratitude. 
 
 After consolidation under the Charter of 1897, the marvellous 
 changes and stupendous growth commenced which have made the 
 Corporation Counsel's office of New York beyond all doubt the 
 largest law office in the world. 
 
57 
 
 Growth of Business Transacted. 
 
 Immediately after consolidation, the business of the Law De- 
 partment began to increase rapidly. The following comparative 
 table showing the results accomplished during the first year of the 
 Greater City and the year 1906 will illustrate this point : 
 
 1898. 1906. 
 Number of action and proceedings 
 
 pending in main office at close of 
 
 year , 5,512 25,440 
 
 Number of actions tried in court. ... 118 389 
 Number of Appeals argued at Appellate 
 
 Division 157 204 
 
 Number of appeals argued at Court of 
 
 Appeals 35 51 
 
 Number of motions argued 616 1,124 
 
 Number of written opinions rendered 
 
 to departments 523 1,766 
 
 Number of contracts drafted, approved 
 
 as to form, etc 636 2,957 
 
 Number of judgments against City... 2,015 394 
 
 Amount of judgments against City. . . $1,454,214 04 $506,334 09 
 
 Number of judgments in favor of City. 88 200 
 
 Amount of judgments in favor of City. $17,238 48 $76,210 21 
 
 Amount collected by main office 18,727 88 170,932 87 
 
 Amount collected by whole department . 60,748 50 323,610 52 
 
 Number of persons in department.... 115 321 
 
 The great increases will be noted in each of the above items 
 except the number of judgments against the City and the 
 amount of those judgments. The Corporation Counsel is very 
 glad to be able to report that the number and amount of such 
 judgments was less in 1906 than in any year since consolidation. 
 
58 
 
 PRESENT ORGANIZATION OF THE DEPARTMENT. 
 
 Section 255 of the Charter provides: "There shall be a Law 
 Department of The City of New York, the head of which shall 
 be called the Corporation Counsel, who shall be the attorney 
 and counsel of The City of New York, the Mayor, Board of 
 Aldermen, and each and every officer, Board and Department of 
 said City." 
 
 By virtue of section 257 of the Charter, there must be an 
 office of the Corporation Counsel located in the Borough of 
 Brooklyn. In his discretion, the Corporation Counsel may 
 establish branch offices in each of the boroughs of Richmond. 
 Queens and The Bronx. Connected with and a part of the Law 
 Department are the Bureau of Street Openings, the Bureau of 
 Penalties and the Bureau for the Collection of Arrears of Per- 
 sonal Taxes. There are also assistants of the Corporation Coun- 
 sel assigned to the Tenement House Department and the Bureau 
 of Public Buildings. 
 
 Section 255 of the Charter further provides that the Corpora- 
 tion Counsel "shall have charge and conduct of the legal pro- 
 ceedings necessary in opening, widening, the altering and closing 
 of streets, and in acquiring real estate or interest therein for 
 the City by condemnation proceedings, and the preparation of 
 all leases, deeds, contracts, bonds and other legal papers of the 
 City or of or connected with any Department, Board or officer 
 thereof, and he shall approve as to form all contracts, leases, 
 deeds and other legal papers. The Corporation Counsel, except 
 as otherwise herein provided for, shall have the right to institute 
 actions in law or equity and proceedings provided by the Code 
 of Civil Procedure or by law in any court. State or National, to 
 maintain, defend or establish the rights, interests, revenues, 
 property, privileges, franchises or demands of the City, or any 
 part or portion thereof or of the people thereof, or to collect any 
 money, debts, fines or penalties, or to enforce the laws and 
 ordinances." 
 
59 
 
 Under the authority of the section of the Charter above 
 cited, the Department is now organized as follows: 
 
 THE MAIN OFFICE, in the Hall of Records, Borough of 
 Manhattan. 
 
 THE BROOKLYN BRANCH OFFICE, in the Borough 
 Hall, in that borough. 
 
 THE BUREAU OF STREET OPENINGS, at No. 99 West 
 Broadway, Manhattan. 
 
 THE BUREAU OF PENALTIES, at No. 119 Nassau street, 
 Manhattan. 
 
 THE BUREAU FOR THE COLLECTION OF ARREARS 
 OF PERSONAL TAXES, at No. 280 Broadway, Manhattan. 
 
 THE TENEMENT HOUSE DEPARTMENT AND 
 BUILDING BUREAU BRANCH OFFICE, at No. 44 East 
 Twenty-third street, Manhattan. 
 
 THE MAIN OFFICE. 
 
 Removal of Office. 
 
 For many years the work of the main office was handicapped 
 by the lack of proper office room and accommodations. Several 
 assistants were crowded into each small room and the stenog- 
 raphers and clerks, during the latter years, were obliged to work 
 under conditions which would not have been tolerated in a 
 factory or "sweatshop." During the early part of November, 
 1906, the Corporation Counsel and his personal staff took pos- 
 session of the partly finished quarters in the new Hall of Records, 
 and the moving of the office took place gradually until about 
 December 15, 1906, when the entire force was installed in the 
 new building. 
 
 It was necessary to move the records and papers with the 
 utmost care to prevent confusion and the work was not com- 
 pleted until February 20, 1907. The papers in hundreds of 
 thousands of actions, and letters and other documents which 
 probably numbered in the millions, all the records of the Law 
 
Department for fifty years, the large library and the books and 
 papers of about sixty assistants were moved with almost no 
 interruption of business. Considering the great difficulty of the 
 task and the opportunities for losing or mislaying papers the 
 moving was accomplished in a most orderly and successful 
 manner. 
 
 The New Building. 
 
 The new quarters in the Hall of Records include the sixth, 
 seventh and eighth floors. The building was not well designed 
 for division into separate offices for assistants, and the con- 
 tractor has only recently completed the furnishings, but for the 
 first time in many years the office staff are provided with large, 
 well lighted rooms in which their work may be done under 
 healthy and comfortable conditions. It was a most grateful 
 change and there is no doubt that these improved accommoda- 
 tions will result in a greater activity and efficiency throughout 
 the office. 
 
 The Hall of Records is probably as nearly fireproof as a 
 building can be made. The construction throughout is of steel 
 and masonry, the floors are of mosaic, the walls are of fireproof 
 brick, the stairways, wainscoting and door and window frames 
 are of marble. New furniture was provided for the entire build- 
 ing. The desks, chairs and tables are made of mahogany with 
 marble bases, and all filing cases, bookcases, wardrobes and 
 shelving are of steel. The electric lighting fixtures are of bronze 
 and are unusually handsome. The building is equipped with a 
 vacuum cleaning system, and an automatic system of heating 
 and ventilation. Filtered ice water is provided at a tap at each 
 basin. Nothing seems to have been omitted which was neces- 
 sary to make the building a first class, up-to-date structure, and 
 the results reflect the greatest credit on the architects, engineers 
 and contractors and the City officials who were employed on the 
 work. 
 
 The library of the Department, containing about 8,000 
 volumes, occupies a floor space of about 32 feet by 130 feet. The 
 
6i 
 
 law books are arranged in steel cases built in alcoves and the 
 room is well supplied with reading desks and tables, making it 
 one of the most handsome and complete law libraries in the City. 
 
 The rooms provided for the assistants are occupied by two per- 
 sons on an average, and each desk is supplied with special electric 
 lighting, a telephone extension and call bells for stenographers 
 and office boys. 
 
 The quarters assigned to the clerical and stenographic force are 
 large, airy and well lighted. 
 
 On the eighth floor several very large rooms are devoted to the 
 files for papers in "Done" suits and proceedings, communications, 
 printed papers and other documents. It is one of the largest sys- 
 tems of metal files ever built. 
 
 When the Hall of Records was designed it was the purpose of 
 the Corporation Counsel to bring together under one roof all of the 
 bureaus and branch offices except the one in Brooklyn, but the De- 
 partment had increased to such an extent by the time the building 
 was completed that it was found impossible to accommodate more 
 than the main ofiice, and the time will surely arrive, and perhaps 
 it may not be many years hence, when even the main office will 
 again become crowded. 
 
 The growth of the Greater New York is marvellous, and the 
 work of the Law Department becomes greater in volume and more 
 complicated in its nature each year. 
 
 Reorganization of Main Office. 
 I have already alluded to the fact that while the Honorable Wil- 
 liam C. Whitney was Counsel to the Corporation, the business of 
 the main office had grown to such an extent that it became neces- 
 sary to reorganize the office, and that Mr. Whitney first inaugurated 
 the plan of dividing the office work according to the subjet matter 
 involved, and assigning each distinctive class of litigation to a 
 particular Assistant. That system was continued by the Hon. 
 George P. Andrews, who succeeded Mr. Whitney, and by the Hon. 
 E. Henry Lacombe, who followed Judge Andrews. 
 
62 
 
 Soon after Mr. Lacombe assumed office, the Mayor, Hon. Wil- 
 liam R. Grace, appointed Horace E, Deming, Esq., to make a thor- 
 ough examination of the office of the Corporation Counsel, and 
 report as to conditions existing, and to make such recommendations 
 as seemed proper for the improvement of the Law Department. 
 On May 2, 1885, Mr. Deming submitted a report upon the Law De- 
 partment, and some of his recommendations were so well considered 
 that I will quote from the report : 
 
 "No one will question that each department of the City 
 government should be so organized that its appropriate work 
 will go on with reasonable efficiency and certainty whoever may 
 be its accidental chief. * * * There is already enough ac- 
 crued and current business not only to justify, but in my opin- 
 ' ion to compel for the orderly, economical and efficient conduct 
 of the City's law business, the establishment of bureaus or 
 divisions, each equipped for its appropriate work, which would 
 include in the case of each Division an Assistant as the respon- 
 sible head, with a proper corps of subordinates. The advan- 
 tages of such a course are numerous and manifest. 
 
 "It is clearly impossible for the Corporation Counsel to have 
 direct personal knowledge of the details of the immense volume 
 of business transacted by the Department of which he is the 
 head. The larger share of the business of necessity is trans- 
 acted by his subordinates. * * * 
 
 "Without some such classification as is above recommended 
 of the work of the office by subject matter into appropriate 
 Bureaus or Divisions, the very nature and extent of the legal 
 business, which demands the attention of the Corporation Coun- 
 sel's office, so diffuses the responsibility that neither credit 
 nor blame can be properly apportioned among the numerous 
 individuals who may have had to do with any particular piece 
 of business, and a careful and critical supervision of the office 
 is impossible to the Corporation Counsel. Given, however, 
 such Assistants and system as is hereby recommended, all mis- 
 cellaneous business of minor importance will pass naturally 
 
63 
 
 into the proper hands without need for specific directions. The 
 more important questions and cases, while coming to the Cor- 
 poration Counsel in the first instance, would in due course and 
 without friction, find their way also to the appropriate Division. 
 * * * Several men would have knowledge at any given 
 time of the condition of any given piece of business, and the 
 woiic of the Division would go on without great delay or incon- 
 venience, in spite of the vacations, resignations or illness of 
 some one individual. Each Division would be a school in which 
 several men were learning to transact its business. * * * 
 Consultations with the heads of the Divisions * * * would 
 keep the Corporation Counsel thoroughly advised of the condi- 
 tion to his Department, and the progress of its work, while the 
 subordinates of the Division in turn would keep the Chief of 
 the Division thoroughl}' advised as to the condition of the de- 
 partment of work intrusted to his charge." 
 
 Although this report was made in 1885 — twenty-two years ago 
 — long before the creation of the Greater New York, and at a time 
 when the volume of business was just about one-fifth of what it is 
 at present, it expresses with entire accuracy the greatest need of 
 the Department down to the time of my administration — thorough 
 organization. • 
 
 This subject of reorganizing the main ofiice is one to which 
 each of my predecessors since the time of Judge Lacombe has given 
 considerable attention. Two great difficulties have always been 
 met with — an insufficient number of Assistants and lack of office 
 space. The latter named difficulty has now disappeared, but the 
 former still exists. 
 
 Recognizing, however, that the necessity for proper organiza- 
 tion becomes greater each year, I have rearranged the staff of As- 
 sistants allowed to the main office and have created a number of 
 "Divisions," placing a Senior Assistant at the head of each and 
 dividing the remaining Assistants, Junior Assistants and Law Clerks 
 among the various Divisions. 
 
64 
 
 The following shows the organization and personnel of the De- 
 partment as it exists on May 15, 1907: 
 
 MAIN OFFICE. 
 
 THE CORPORATION COUNSEI.. 
 
 WILLIAMB. ELLISON. 
 
 David Ryan, Secretary. 
 
 In the general administration of the Department business, the 
 Corporation Counsel is assisted by a Senior Assistant and a Junior 
 Assistant. The Assistant assigned to this work also supervises the 
 preparation of opinions ; he has a general designation as Acting Cor- 
 poration Counsel, and performs the duties of the head of the 
 department in the absence of the latter, and takes charge of such 
 other matters as the Corporation Counsel may direct. 
 
 One of the most important duties of the Corporation Counsel 
 is to render advice to the Mayor and heads of Departments. The 
 extent of this part of the office business is indicated to some extent 
 by the fact that during 1906, 1,766 written opinions were rendered. 
 The questions presented for consideration and advice are apt to 
 become the subject of litigation. It has been most gratifying in 
 the past to observe the frequency with which the opinions of this 
 Department have been upheld by the courts. 
 
 I have not made a special division of this opinion work, because 
 I find that it is necessary to use the most experienced men in all 
 branches and divisions of the office to examine into the matters 
 concerning which my opinion is asked and to draft opinions relating^ 
 to subjects with which they are especially familiar. The best plan 
 that I have been able to devise is to have each request for advice 
 assigned to the Assistant most familiar with the subject under con- 
 sideration, who prepares the draft of the proposed opinion. 
 
 -In the work of general administration and the supervision of 
 opinions, the Corporation Counsel is assisted by: 
 George L. Sterling, Assistant. 
 Charles W. Miller, Junior Assistant. 
 
65 
 
 Division of Appeals. 
 One division of the main office force is that assigned to the 
 argument of appeals and other similar matters. A Senior Assistant 
 is in charge of this part of the office business, and several Assistants 
 are detailed to aid him. 
 
 During the year 1906, 258 appeals were argued or submitted. 
 
 The office is very successful in the Appellate Courts. Care is 
 exercised to appeal only those cases where there is involved some 
 important principle of law which is general in its application, or 
 where an error seems clearly to have been committed in the court 
 below. 
 
 In the appeal work, as with the opinions, it is not advisable to 
 attempt to have all of the work done by a separate force of assist- 
 ants. It is frequently necessary, because of the quantity of the 
 work, to employ assistants in other divisions to prepare the briefs, 
 and it is often desirable to have an appeal argued by the Assistant 
 who tried the case, or has special knowledge of the subject. 
 
 This division is organized as follows: 
 
 Theodore Connoly, Assistant in Charge; Terence Farley, Thomas 
 F. Noonan and Royal E. T. Riggs, Assistants, and Alexander L. 
 Strouse, Junior Assistant. 
 
 Division for Real Estate Matters and Condemnation Proceedings 
 Where the Land is Within The City of New York. 
 
 Another division of the office conducts condemnation proceed- 
 ings other than street openings. A Senior Assistant is in charge 
 of this division and he and the Assistants assigned to him try all 
 proceedings to acquire title to lands within the City needed for 
 dock purposes, bridge approaches, sites for public schools, libraries, 
 fire houses, pumping stations, and for other public purposes. 
 
 During 1906 this division, among other things, closed twenty- 
 two proceedings by confirmation of reports in which the awards 
 amounted to $5,150,985.90. 
 
66 
 
 The persons comprising the division are as follows: 
 
 Charles D. Olendorf, Assistant in Charge; Edwin J. Freedman, 
 
 Joel B. Squier, Oliver Goldsmith and Francis J. Byrne, Assistants, 
 
 and Henry W. Mayo, Junior Assistant. 
 
 Division for Real Estate Matters and Condemnation Proceedings 
 Where the Land is Not Within the City of New York. 
 The counsel who attend to matters relating to the City water 
 supply are included in this division. The proceedings now being 
 commenced to acquire title for the new "Catskill Water Supply" 
 will make this part of the office work in the near future one of the 
 most important divisions of the office force. 
 
 A report as to the present condition of these proceedings is 
 given later: 
 
 The Counsel now employed in these proceedings are: 
 Henry T. Dykman, Isidor J. Beaudrias, John J. Linson and 
 Henry W. Wheeler. 
 
 Division for Tax Matters. 
 
 To another division are assigned all certiorari proceedings to 
 review assessments for taxation on real and personal property (of 
 which there are now i,66o pending), franchise tax cases and water 
 rate proceedings. 
 
 This division is composed of : 
 
 George S. Coleman, Assistant in Charge; Andrew T. Campbell, 
 Jr., William H. King and Curtis A. Peters, Assistants. 
 
 Division for Franchises. 
 
 Another division has charge of the actions now being tried to 
 test the constitutionality of the eighty-cent gas bill, and all other 
 similar cases brought by gas, electric light and other public utility 
 corporations. 
 
 The division consists of: 
 
 William P. Burr, Assistant in Charge; Louis Hahlo, Alfred W. 
 Booraem and William J. Clarke, Assistants. 
 
; 67 
 
 Division for Legislation and Elections. 
 
 It has always been necessary to detail one of the Assistants to 
 attend at Albany during the sessions of the Legislature to protect 
 the right of the City. Many bills are introduced at every session 
 for the purpose of legalizing unjust claims against the City, and 
 there is a great quantity of other attempted legislation which would 
 be prejudicial to the City's interests. 
 
 The Assistant Corporation Counsel in charge of this work 
 appears before the various committees and opposes all such legis- 
 lation. 
 
 I have placed one of my Assistants, Mr. Arthur C. Butts, in 
 charge of this Division. At other times during the year Mr. 
 Butts is engaged in election cases, and other matters. 
 
 Division for Contract Litigation. 
 
 Another division consists of those Assistants who are 
 assigned to try the numerous actions on contract against the 
 City. 
 
 The following persons are assigned to this division : 
 James T. Malone, Assistant in Charge; Thomas F. Byrne, As- 
 sistant; Francis Martin, Junior Assistant, and Thomas G. Price, 
 La7v Clerk. 
 
 Division for Actions in Tort. 
 Another division contains the Assistants who try personal 
 injury actions. On account of the addition of six additional 
 Justices to the trial parts of the Supreme Court in New York 
 County, it has been necessary recently to increase the force 
 assigned to try accident cases, and the division now contains : 
 
 Cornelius F. Collins, Assistant in Charge; John C. Breckinridge, 
 Josiah A, Stover, Solon Berrick, J. Gabriel Britt, Francis X. Mc- 
 Quade and John W. Goff, Jr., Assistants, and L Townsend Burden, 
 Jr., and Frank E. Smith, Junior Assistants. 
 
68 
 
 Division for Affirmative Actions. 
 
 When I assumed office I discovered that one class of cases 
 had apparently not received adequate attention. I refer to the 
 actions in which The City of New York is plaintiflF. I therefore 
 created a "Division of Affirmative Actions" to handle such mat- 
 ters exclusively. 
 
 During the past six months 238 actions have been brought 
 against the New York City Railway Company on claims for 
 paving between its tracks, in which the amount claimed is 
 $1,403,688.48. All paving claims transmitted to this Department 
 up to January i, 1907, are now in suit, and a number will be 
 tried before the courts adjourn for the summer. 
 
 Actions have also been commenced against the New York 
 City Railway Company for car license fees on all claims down to 
 the year 1906. The amount claimed in these suits is $408,990, 
 and some of the cases will be tried during May or June. 
 
 No part of the office business is more important than the 
 vigorous prosecution of actions in which the City is plaintiff. 
 In order that these cases may receive proper attention I have 
 assigned to the work the following : 
 
 Frank B. Pierce, Assistant in Charge; and Seymour P. Danzig, 
 Law Clerk. 
 
 Division for the Mayor's Office. 
 It has been the custom for many years to assign one of the 
 Assistants permanently to the office of the Mayor. I have 
 designated Mr. Franklin Chase Hoyt for that work. 
 
 Division for Board of Education. 
 The number of cases brought against the Board of Education 
 has increased to such an extent of late that, at the request of the 
 Board, I have created a separate division to attend exclusively 
 to such actions, and have placed in charge of the division one 
 of my assistants, Mr. Stephen O'Brien, and have assigned Mr. 
 Charles Mclntyre, Assistant, to aid him. 
 
69 
 
 Division for Civil Service Matters. 
 
 The number of actions and proceedings involving Civil Service 
 questions has made it necessary to make a separate division 
 of such cases, and I have placed Mr. William B, Crowell, 
 Assistant, in charge of this line of cases, and assigned Henry J. 
 Shields, Clerk, to assist him. 
 
 Division for Preparation and Approval as to Form of Documents. 
 
 During the year 1906 two thousand nine hundred and fifty- 
 seven contracts were approved as to form, and three hundred 
 and fifty-three other contracts were revised and seven hundred 
 and twenty advertisements for bids approved as to form. The 
 number of bonds, leases, releases, agreements and deeds ap- 
 proved as to form brought the total number of documents con- 
 sidered and acted upon by this Department up to a total of four 
 thousand eight hundred and seventy-one. 
 
 Mr. John L. O'Brien, an Assistant, has been assigned to take 
 charge of this division, and he is assisted by George H. Cowie, Law 
 Clerk. 
 
 Division for Miscellaneous Business. 
 
 In addition to these separate divisions, it is also necessary to 
 maintain a general office force for the trial of actions not em- 
 braced under the subjects mentioned, such as Civil Service cases, 
 mandamus and certiorari proceedings, actions for damages to 
 property, actions for wages and salary, for goods sold and de- 
 livered or for services rendered, suits to foreclose liens and mort- 
 gages, admiralty suits, injunction suits, taxpayers' actions, real 
 property actions, and all other cases not handled by the other 
 divisions. There is a great quantity of miscellaneous litigation 
 which it is not possible to accurately classify for which a large 
 general office force is necessary. Under this division are in- 
 cluded also those Assistants who handle the litigation in the 
 Boroughs of Queens, Richmond and The Bronx. 
 
70 
 
 The persons comprised in this division are as follows: 
 Edward S. Malone, Richard H. Mitchell, John Widdecombe, 
 Charles A. O'Neil, John F. O'Brien, James P. K^enan, Arthur 
 Sweeny, George P. Nicholson, Edmund C. Viemeister and Leonce 
 Fuller, Assistants; William H. Doherty and Loring- T. Hildreth, 
 Junior Assistants. 
 
 The remainder of the main office force is organized as follows : 
 CHIEF CLERK'S OFFICE. 
 
 CHIEF CLERK. 
 
 Andrew T. Campbell. 
 
 ASSISTANT CHIEF CLERK. 
 
 John H. Greener. 
 
 Clerks. 
 John R. Salmon, William H. Kehoe. Joseph H. Johnston, John 
 F. Flynn, Jeremiah Maher, David F. Dennehy, George F. Brennan, 
 Henry A. McCrimlisk, John W. Brophy and John A. Leddy. 
 
 Junior Clerks. 
 James S. Robinson, Leo P. LeBlanc, Victor D. Hosey, Louis 
 Pittarelli, Frank Oggeri, James Padian, Thomas F. Ward, Arthur 
 H. Kerns, Lester N. Bennett, William Augenmeyer, Albert L. Ward, 
 John J. McGovern and Martin J. Devine. 
 
 Office Boys. 
 Joseph Maas, Joseph A. McKeever, Anthony Horn, Thomas 
 J. J. Condon, Frank X. Leonard, John A. McGuane, Charles M. 
 Pregenzer, Thomas A. Finn, Edward J. Spears and George J. 
 Joyce. 
 
 Male Stenographers and Typewriters. 
 
 James F. Campbell and John J. Finnigan. 
 
 - Stenographers and Typewriters. 
 Alice Meany, Adelaide, B. Mulcahy, Margaret E. O'Reilly, 
 Martha J. Neville, Margaret A. Cooney, Agnes M. Colleton, Mary 
 
71 
 
 H. O'Connell, Agnes C. Bog-gs, Elizabeth Vibbard, Mary F. Man- 
 gan, Gertrude A. Walsh, Kathryn L. Masterson, Margaret Mac- 
 donald, Margaret A. Leary, Ella L. Garland, Qara M, Zimmer- 
 niann, Mary B. Faulkner, Margaret C. Kissinger, Mary A. Lenz 
 and Anna Albert. 
 
 Typezvriting Copyists. 
 Mary Doran Byrnes, Minnie E. Flood, Catherine H. Duffy, Jo- 
 sephine McGown. Margaret T. Pyne, Katherine B. Duval and 
 Nellie V. Oark. 
 
 Librarian. 
 James M. Valles. 
 
 Examiners. 
 William H. Lake, Eugene J. Hughes, Joseph H. Miles and James 
 M. Donohue. 
 
 Messengers. 
 
 William J. Hodge, Thomas E. Kennedy and Joseph G. Fuller. 
 
 Process Server. 
 Peter Donnelly. 
 
 Attendant to Corporation Counsel. 
 Anthony McCarthy. 
 
 Summary of Main Office Force. 
 The force of the main office at the present time is made up as 
 follows : 
 
 The Corporation Counsel, his Secretary and Attendant, forty- 
 three Assistants, seven Junior Assistants, four Law Clerks, one Li- 
 brarian, the Chief Qerk, the Assistant Chief Clerk, ten Qerks, thir- 
 teen Junior Clerks, ten Office Boys, twenty-two Stenographers, 
 seven Typewriting Copyists, four Examiners, three Messengers 
 and one Process Server. 
 
 Total number of persons in the main office is one hundred and 
 thirty. 
 
12 
 
 Brooklyn Office. 
 
 The branch office in Brooklyn handles cases brought in Kings 
 County and other matters affecting the Borough of Brooklyn. The 
 great number of actions begun in the County of Kings would per- 
 haps make it necessary to always maintain a branch office in that 
 county, even if the charter had not made it mandator)-. 
 
 There are certain lines of work, such as the approval of con- 
 tracts, leases and other papers, tax certiorari cases and the render- 
 ing of opinions,- which should manifestly be handled in one place 
 only, and such matters are attended to by the main office. Most 
 of the other cases brought in Kings County are handled by the 
 assistants in Brooklyn. 
 
 The office force in the Brooklyn office at the present time is as 
 follows : 
 
 ASSISTANT CORPORATION COUNSEL IN CHARGE. 
 
 James D. Bell. 
 
 Assistants. 
 Richard B. Greenwood, Jr. Patrick E. Callahan, Edward Lazan- 
 sky, Daniel D. Whitney, Jr., James W. Covert, Jerome W. Coombs, 
 James T. O'Neill and Martin Flanagan. 
 
 Junior Assistants. 
 Edward H. Wilson, David Joyce, Joseph H. Gardiner, Jr., 
 and Philip N. Harrison. 
 
 Laiv Clerks. 
 Charles J. Druhan, Charles R. Hartmann and John J. Kean. 
 
 Chief Clerk. 
 Samuel K. Probasco. 
 
 Junior Clerks. 
 Charles F. Kahlert, Morris Titoonek and Robert P. S. Han- 
 ley. 
 
73 
 
 Stenographers and Typewriters. 
 
 Catherine F. Farrell, Rose Donald, Elizabeth F. Barrett, 
 Frances L. Berry and Mary C. Farrell. 
 
 Typeuriting Copyist. 
 Agnes M. Dorman. 
 
 Telephone Sivitchboard Operator. 
 Frances Young. 
 
 Process Server. 
 Thomas A, Murphy. 
 
 * Attendant to First Assistant. 
 
 Henry Ritter. 
 Entire force, twenty-nine persons. 
 
 Branch Offices in Other Boroughs. 
 
 Up to the close of 1906 separate branch offices were main- 
 tained in the Boroughs of Queens, Richmond and The Bronx. In 
 the Hall of Records, however, it was found that there would be 
 sufficient room to bring into the main office the assistants and 
 subordinates in the three branch offices referred to. Although 
 there were some advantages in having separate offices in the differ- 
 ent boroughs, it has been found that on the whole better results 
 are obtained and there is an economy of work in having the 
 department centralized as far as practicable. One advantage in 
 having most of the force under one roof is the avoidance of 
 assistants duplicating each other's work. Another advantage is 
 the fact that the assistants, by being near each other, may be 
 mutually helpful. But the great benefit of centralization is that 
 it makes it possible for the head of the department to give better 
 general direction to the department business and makes it possi- 
 ble to carry out broad general plans and policies in the handling 
 of the City's law business. 
 
74 
 
 In the future therefore the general offices (not including the 
 bureaus which will be spoken of hereafter) will consist of the main 
 office in the Hall of Records, Manhattan, and the branch office in 
 the Borough of Brooklyn. 
 
 BUREAU OF STREET OPENINGS. 
 
 This bureau is created by the Charter, and conducts, as the name 
 implies, all proceedings to acquire title to lands for streets, parks 
 and other public purposes. 
 
 The extent of the business assigned to the bureau may be indi- 
 cated by the following statistics, taken from the report of the 
 bureau for the year 1906. 
 
 During the year 419 reports of Commissioners of Estimate and 
 Assessment were under consideration. Of these 96 were confirmed 
 and II others have been moved for confirmation. In the pro- 
 ceedings where reports were confirmed title was acquired to over 
 forty-eight miles of new streets. The awards in these proceedings 
 amounted to $12,269,897.20, and the assessments to $6,034,989.78. 
 
 In the II proceedings moved for confirmation the awards 
 amount to $626,706.84, and the assessments to $1,187,409.03. The 
 length of streets to be acquired is approximately seven and three- 
 tenths miles. 
 
 In addition to the above, 312 other proceedings received atten- 
 tion during the year, the status of which is as follows: 
 
 Final reports signed 13 
 
 Final instructions received 61 
 
 Hearing or considering objections. 34 
 
 Preliminary abstracts in course of preparation 44 
 
 Awaiting final maps ' 6 
 
 Considering awards 13 
 
 Taking testimony 73 
 
 Awaiting damage maps 68 
 
75 
 
 Other items from the annual report are as follows: 
 
 Opinions and letters drafted 2,237 
 
 Appeals argued 26 
 
 Commissioners appointed 288 
 
 Because of the large number of proceedings to open streets in 
 Kings and Queens counties, branch offices of the Bureau of Street 
 Openings have been opened in the boroughs of Brooklyn and 
 Queens. It will probably be necessary in the near future to greatly 
 add to the force in these branch offices to cope with the increasing 
 volume of business. To fail to promptly open new streets in these 
 boroughs would greatly retard the improvement of much unde- 
 veloped property in the outlying parts of the City. 
 
 The office force of the bureau is as follows: 
 
 ASSISTANT CORPORATION COUNSEL IN CHARGE. 
 
 John p. Dunn. 
 
 Assistants. 
 Thomas C. Blake, Thomas F. Quigley, L. Howell LaMotte, 
 William R. Keese, William A. Mathis, Edward F. Reynolds, 
 George E. Draper, David Tomlinson, Frederick W. Gahrmann, 
 James R. Fitzgerald, John J. Kearney and Michael F. Conry. 
 
 Junior Assistants. 
 Howard L. Campion, Jacinto Costa, John P. Smith, Millard F. 
 Kuh, Samuel J. Benson and Arthur J. Stern. 
 
 Chief Clerk. 
 
 Michael J. Morrison. 
 
 Bookkeeper. 
 
 Julius Hahn. 
 
 Clerks. 
 John J. Mulhall, Michael J. Curley, Charles R. Rocksch, 
 Thomas P. White, Thomas J. Kelly, John A. Kane, Michael J. 
 Sweeny, Joseph V. Carr, John J. Walsh, Luis G. Segura, James 
 Egan, Charles A. Duffy and Nathan Goldstein. 
 
76 
 
 Junior Clerks. 
 Frank C. Flynn, Charles E. Lamb, Churchill Hayden, John J. 
 McNeill, Charles P. Kramer and William I. Hurley. 
 
 Office Boys. 
 Edward F. Fagan and Harry Coorman. 
 
 Messengers. 
 
 Patrick J. Murty, Thomas Reddy, John J. Laracy and John W. 
 Thompson. 
 
 Male Stenographer and Typewriter. 
 Malcom Kerr. 
 
 Stenographers and Typewriters. 
 Ottilie S. Voorhis, Sarah E. A. Curran, May A. Byrne, Tessie 
 Glennon and Anne V, McKenna. 
 
 Typewriting Copyists. 
 
 Mary M. Glendenning, Mary G. Branagan and Elizabeth 
 Bassett. 
 
 Telephone Switchboard Operator. 
 
 Mary M. Kehoe. 
 
 Chief Computer of Assessments. 
 Owen D. Healy. 
 
 Computers of Assessments. 
 William B. R. Faber, William E. Wild, Edward A. Quirk, James 
 H, Wall, J. Monroe Boylston, Frank J, Flynn, Edward A. Reilly, 
 Patrick S. MacDwyer, Benjamin F. England, Daniel E. Bowling, 
 Jr., Augustine M. O'Neill, John A. Brophy, John D. Lyons and 
 Charles R. Ramsdell. 
 
 Topographical Draughtsmen. 
 Mortimer A. Smith, George Grote, Charles E. Qarke, Marcel 
 deGrandmont, David R. Briggs, Jr., Charles H. Stoutenburgh and 
 Benjamin Reich. 
 
 Total force, seventy-nine persons. 
 
"7 
 
 The Bureau of Penalties. 
 
 As already stated, this Bureau was created by the Charter of the 
 Greater New York to take the place of the former office of the Cor- 
 poration Attorney. 
 
 The Bureau conducts all actions and proceedings to enforce 
 corporation ordinances, all penalty proceedings instituted by the 
 Charity, Fire and Health Departments and all delinquent juror 
 cases. 
 
 The following items from the annual report of the Bureau for 
 1906 will show the variety of cases handled and the volume of 
 business : 
 
 Violations of Corporation Ordinances, 
 
 Number of complaints received and acted upon 11,817 
 
 Number of actions commenced 8,611 
 
 Appeals in such actions 5 
 
 Bastardy Proceedings. 
 
 Complaints received and acted upon 329 
 
 Number of convictions 155 
 
 Actions on bastardy bonds _ 33 
 
 Appeals from convictions .: 8 
 
 Abandonment Proceedings. 
 
 Complaints received and acted upon 573 
 
 Convictions no 
 
 Appeals from convictions 36 
 
 Actions on bonds in such cases 223 
 
 Proceedings to Compel Support of Poor Relations. 
 
 Complaints received and acted upon 30 
 
 Motions to punish for contempt 4 
 
78 
 
 Equity Suits to Compel Removal of Encroachments on Side- 
 walks, etc. 
 
 Number of actions handled 6 
 
 Appeals in such cases 4 
 
 Fire Department Cases. 
 
 "Soft coal" proceedings 7 
 
 Chimney fire complaints 86 
 
 Proceedings against theatres, hotels, lodging houses, etc., 
 
 for failure to comply with law 505 
 
 Complaints for obstructing fire hydrants 9 
 
 Complaints against dangerous chimneys 11 
 
 Complaints against open hoistways 15 
 
 Health Department Cases. 
 
 L^roceedings commenced in Manhattan 6,845 
 
 Proceedings commenced in The Bronx i ,037 
 
 Proceedings commenced in Brooklyn 3478 
 
 Proceedings commenced in Queens 264 
 
 Proceedings commenced in Riclimond 265 
 
 Total 11,889 
 
 Delinquent Juror Cases. 
 
 Number of proceedings 1,202 
 
 Collections by the Bureau during the year $39,445 63 
 
 A number of other miscellaneous proceedings were commenced 
 drniug the year not embraced in the foregoing lists. The entire 
 number of proceedings handled by the Bureau of Penalties during 
 the year 1906 was over 30,000. 
 
 The persons employed in the Bureau are as follows: 
 
79 
 
 ASSISTANT CORPORATION COUNSEL IN CHARGE. 
 
 Herman Stiefel. 
 
 Assistants. 
 Harford Pinckney Walker, Michael J. Kelly, James Dickson 
 Carr and Joseph G. Mathews. 
 
 Junior Assistant. 
 William S. Millard. 
 
 Law Clerks. 
 Timothy J. Murphy and James D. O'SuUivan. 
 
 Clerks. 
 James J. McGrath and William E. Fay. 
 
 Junior Clerks. 
 Lawrence P. Connolly, William J. Leonard and George A. 
 
 Linton. 
 
 Office Boy. 
 
 William A. Pagan. 
 
 Stenographers and Typewriters. 
 Sadie Seibert, Lillian C. Goldstein and Lorette V. Higgins. 
 
 Process Servers. 
 Patrick H. Curran, William Looney, Philip Straub, Frank J. 
 Steinbacher and Henry Lemken. 
 
 A total force of twenty-one persons. 
 
 The Bureau for the Collection of Arrears of Personal Taxes. 
 
 The Personal Tax Law of this State has been the subject 
 of much criticism during recent years, and there is no doubt that 
 in the attempt to enforce it much injustice is done. The persons 
 and corporations whom the law is designed to reach almost es- 
 cape taxation altogether, and the extra burden of a personal tax 
 falls on a comparatively small number of business concerns and 
 
8o 
 
 householders who are too conscientious to avail themselves of 
 the many opportunities to evade the tax. 
 
 Each year a long list of assessments for personal taxes is 
 prepared, founded mostly on "the mere surmises of the Deputy 
 Assessors. Before the tax books are closed most of the assess- 
 ments that could be collected are "sworn off" before the Tax 
 Commissioners and when the books are closed the list consists 
 mainly of assessments which are uncollectible. 
 
 After the expiration of the time allowed for the payment of 
 these taxes the list of arrears is sent to the Marshal for the 
 Collection of Arrears of Personal Taxes, who has power to make 
 a levy on the personal property taxed and to take other summary 
 proceedings for the collection of the arrears. When the Marshal 
 has exhausted the list it is sent to this department and the Bureau 
 for the Collection of Arrears of Personal Taxes makes a final 
 attempt to collect the tax. 
 
 When the list reaches the Law Department it contains the 
 names of thousands of persons who have paid no attention to the 
 numerous notices sent to them because they have no property, 
 real or personal, that could be levied upon under an execution. 
 The names of many non-resident corporations, non-resident in- 
 dividuals and other persons not properly assessed also appear 
 on the lists and it is really remarkable that this department is 
 able to collect any considerable amount of money by bringing 
 actions against the delinquents. 
 
 During the year 1906 the collections by the Bureau were as 
 follows : 
 
 Taxes and interest : $87,815 78 
 
 Costs collected 15.287 J-] 
 
 Total $103,103 55 
 
 During the year about 30,000 notices were mailed to de- 
 linquent taxpayers. Six thousand seven hundred and eighty 
 actions were begun. Eight hundred and thirty-two judgments 
 
8l 
 
 were entered. One thousand nine hundred and eighty-one suits 
 were settled by payment. 
 
 During the month of April, 1907, the entire office force of the 
 Bureau was completely reorganized and it is now as follows: 
 
 ASSISTANT CORPORATION COUNSEL IN CHARGE. 
 
 George O'Reilly. 
 
 Junior Assistant. 
 Loyal Leale. 
 
 Clerks. 
 Frank E. Johnson, Jr., and Edward Maas. 
 
 Junior Clerks. 
 Augustine H. Matthews, Bernard L. Carberry, Frank J. 
 Daly, William A. Thompson, Joseph Taylor and John A. Quinn. 
 
 Office Boy. 
 Max Isaacs. 
 
 Stenographers and Typewriters. 
 Mary E. Parlati, Eleanor E. McEvoy, Cora Rankin, Agnes 
 Fleming and Anna G. Feeney. 
 
 Typezvriting Copyists. 
 Gertrude S. Kramer, Anna L. Martin, M. L. Charlotte 
 Mechlin, Mabel Hamilton, Anna G. Stapleton. 
 
 Alcssenger. 
 Peter S. Prunty. 
 
 Process Servers. 
 Michael F. Murphy and twenty-two Special Process Servers, 
 paid at the rate of $1.15 for each process actually served. 
 
 The whole force numbers forty-five. 
 
82 
 
 The Tenement House and Building Bureau Branch Office. 
 
 A separate office or Bureau is also maintained to take charge 
 of proceedings to enforce the provisions of the Tenement House 
 Law and matters connected with the Building Department. 
 Probably nothing of late years has contributed more to the 
 good health and good morals of a large part of the population 
 of this City than the new Tenement House and Building Laws. 
 It is necessary, however, that these laws be most rigidly en- 
 forced, and this duty devolves to a considerable extent on the 
 branch office of this Department. 
 
 The Tenement House Law violations received and acted upon 
 during the year 1906 numbered 11,033; 2,283 actions were 
 terminated during the year, and there were 7,484 still pending at 
 the close of the year. 
 
 Ninety-two judgments were entered during the year. 
 
 Sixteen criminal proceedings were instituted. 
 
 Six hundred proceedings were commenced against premises 
 unfit for human habitation. 
 
 Five thousand three hundred and sixty-nine notices of lis 
 pendens were filed. 
 
 One hundred and eighty-one special actions were begun for 
 unlawful occupation of tenement houses. 
 
 The sum of $5,324.14 was collected during the year. 
 
 In matters relating to the Building Department the record for 
 the year was as follows: 
 
 Complaints received ^>77^ 
 
 Actions terminated i>655 
 
 Actions pending at close of year 117 
 
 Judgments entered 36 
 
 Precepts in unsafe building cases 108 
 
 Lis pendens filed 649 
 
 Money collected $4*804 33 
 
83 
 
 The persons assigned to the Bureau are as follows : 
 
 ASSISTANT CORPORATION COUNSEL IN CHARGE. 
 
 John p. O'Brien. 
 
 Assistants. 
 Samuel J. Parmenter, William T. Kennedy and Francis E. V. Dunn. 
 
 Junior Assistants. 
 Henry S. Johnston, Louis Gans and Addison B. Scoville. 
 
 Clerk. 
 Gerald G. P. Jackson. 
 
 Junior Clerks. 
 Benedict A. P. Smith, Max Oppenheimer, Harry HertzoflF and 
 William M. Sullivan. 
 
 Office Boys. 
 David Zucker, Thomas F. McDonald, William J. Daly, Jr., and 
 Edward A. Hosey. 
 
 Stenographers and Typewriters. 
 Anna E, Lamb, Rebecca Hanau and Jennie G. Murray. 
 
 Typewriting Copyists. 
 Loretto G. Lyman, Mary Liebergall and Mary F. Lane. 
 
 Process Servers. 
 Leonard Zimmerman and eight Special Process Servers, paid at 
 the rate of $1.15 for each process actually served. 
 The entire force of the bureau is thirty-six persons. 
 
 Summary: 
 The number of employees in the entire Law Department at the 
 present time is, therefore : 
 
 Main Office 130 
 
 Brooklyn Office 29 
 
 Bureau of Street Openings 79 
 
94 
 
 Bureau of Penalties 21 
 
 Bureau for the Collection of Arrears of Personal Taxes. ... 45 
 
 Tenement House Bureau 36 
 
 Total 340 
 
 Matters Relating to the Water Supply. 
 Proceedings to Condemn Land for the Water Supply. 
 
 In re Cornell Dam, Eighth Supplemental Proceeding. 
 During the past year the proceedings pending before the Com- 
 missioners of Appraisal herein have been continued and the eleventh 
 and twelfth separate reports of the Commission have been made 
 and confirmed. These reports embraced twenty-seven parcels and 
 one separate claim, for which awards amounting to $119,444.15 
 were made. 
 
 Originating in this proceeding, but subsequently sent before 
 another Commission, was parcel No. 486, in which an additional 
 award of $2,600 has- been made for one parcel. 
 
 In re Cornell Dam, Ninth Supplemental Proceeding. 
 The report of the Commission has been made and confirmed 
 during the year 1906. The report embraced five parcels and the 
 awards amounted to $19,068. 
 
 In re Byram Pond and Bear Gutter Creek (Parcels 61 and 62). 
 The report in this proceeding has been made during the present 
 year, and the award amounted to the sum of $37,154.55. 
 
 Carmel or Lake Gleneida Proceeding. 
 The trial of this proceeding was continued and concluded, and 
 a report embracing two parcels and ten separate claims made by 
 the Commission, the awards for which amounted to $37,221. 
 
 Croton Falls Reservoir (K). 
 This proceeding has been commenced by the appointment of a 
 Commission ; testimony upon twelve parcels has been completed 
 on both sides. 
 
85 
 
 Croton Falls Rcscn'oir {K), First Supplemental Proceeding. 
 A Commission has been appointed herein and testimony is now 
 being taken on behalf of the claimants. 
 
 Cross Riivr Reservoir (Additional Lands and Highways) . 
 In the construction of Cross River Dam the old roads will be 
 flooded and new highways will have to be substituted. The new 
 routes have been finally approved by the Court; Commissioners 
 have been appointed before whom the important question as to 
 whether the new routes should be constructed by the City or by 
 the towns and paid for by the City will be litigated unless an 
 amicable arrangement can be made between the towns and the 
 City. Testimony is now being taken before said Commission and 
 roads are being constructed under a stipulation. 
 
 Cross River Dam and Reservoir (Division i). 
 Four separate reports have been made by the Commission ir 
 this proceeding during the year 1906. embracing twenty parcels of 
 land, for which the awards have amounted to $164,455. 
 
 Cross River Dam and Reservoir (Second Division). 
 Three separate reports have been made by this Commission, 
 embracing twenty-one parcels of land, for which the awards made 
 were $45,875- 
 
 Byram River Diversion. 
 
 In the matter of making settlements with the owners of lands 
 having frontage on Byram river, one claim is awaiting warrant 
 from the Comptroller, two claims are awaiting adjustment of dis- 
 pute as to number of feet frontage, and seven claimants have 
 not signed agreement with Comptroller. 
 
 McUter of Taxation of City Lands, Westchester and Putnam 
 
 Counties. 
 Since the decision of the Court of Appeals making the struc- 
 tures of the City assessable for taxation, certiorari proceedings have 
 been instituted for the purpose of reviewing the question of in- 
 equality and overvaluation in 1905 and 1906, and have been referred 
 
86 
 
 to a Referee, who is now taking testimony in the matter. In the 
 certiorari proceedings for 1904, the writs were quashed ; an appeal 
 was taken to the Appellate Division, which appeal has been heard, 
 and decided in favor of the City. 
 
 Injunction Suits. 
 In connection with the certiorari proceedings, six suits were 
 brought to enjoin the' Supervisors in various towns of the county 
 from selling the land of the City for unpaid taxes of 1902. These 
 suits are at issue, but have not been tried. A preliminary injunction 
 has been granted, and the City is not desirous of moving unless 
 compelled to, and will probably withdraw these suits as soon as the 
 certiorari proceedings are determined. 
 
 Mt. Kisco Proceeding. 
 Efforts have been made from time to time on the part of the 
 Board of Health of The City of New York to have proceedings 
 taken to prevent the pollution of the City's water supply at Mt. 
 Kisco, and an agreement has been suggested between the Depart- 
 ment of Water vSupply, Gas and Electricity and the Village of Mt. 
 Kisco, whereby the sewage from said village will be satisfactorily 
 disposed of. A bill will be introduced into the Legislature with this 
 object in view. The condemnation of certain low swamp lands by 
 The City of New York may be necessary. 
 
 New Catskill Aqueduct Proceeding. 
 In this large and important undertaking preliminary steps have 
 been taken, such as the filing of maps and the advertising of appli- 
 cations for the appointment of Commissioners in various sections 
 of the work. None of these applications were heard in the year 
 1906, but it is exepcted that during 1907 several of the applications 
 will be heard and granted and condemnation proceedings immedi- 
 ately pressed by the City. 
 
«7 
 
 REPORT FOR 1906. 
 
 Recapitulation of Report of General Offices. 
 
 In outlining the organization of the department and describing 
 the business conducted by the Bureaus I have given a short sum- 
 mary of the work done by each Bureau during 1906. It now re- 
 mains for me to give a brief recapitulation of the year's work in the 
 main office and Brooklyn office. The eight schedules forming the 
 detailed report of these, the general offices, show the following 
 results for the year 1906: 
 
 SCHEDULE I. 
 
 Actions and Speci.\l Proceedings Pending at the Close of 
 
 THE Year. 
 Actions against the City — 
 
 "Prevailing rate of wages" actions 5,624 
 
 "Suspension" actions 4,217 
 
 Other actions by City employees for salary or wages 2,720 
 
 All other actions on contract I,i33 
 
 Actions on tort 5,612 
 
 Equity suits 778 
 
 Actions in which the summons only has been served. 988 
 
 Actions in which The City of New York is plaintiff 342 
 
 Tax certiorari piv^. ;edings 1,660 
 
 Other certiorari proceedings 168 
 
 Mandamus proceedings 430 
 
 Condemnation proceedings (other than street openings). 171 
 
 Assessment proceedings 663 
 
 "Change of grade" claims 901 
 
 Miscellaneous proceedings 33 
 
 Total 25^0 
 
88 
 
 SCHEDULE 2. 
 
 Number of Actions and Proceedings Begun and Terminated 
 
 During the Year, 
 
 Actions and Proceedings Begun During the Year. 
 
 Actions against the City — 
 
 "Prevailing rate of wages" actions 134 
 
 "Suspension" actions 3 
 
 Other actions by City employees for wages or salary 40 
 
 All other actions on contract 113 
 
 Actions on tort 559 
 
 Equity suits 279 
 
 Actions in which the summons only has been served. 364 
 
 Actions in which The City of New York is plaintiff 208 
 
 Tax certiorari proceedings 321 
 
 Other certiorari proceedings 58 
 
 Mandamus proceedings 447 
 
 Condemnation proceedings (other than street openings) . . 54 
 
 Assessment proceedings 2 
 
 Miscellaneous proceedings 336 
 
 Total ; 2,918 
 
 Number of Actions and Proceedings Terminated During the Year. 
 
 Actions against the City — 
 
 Actions by City employees for salary or wages 75 
 
 All other actions on contract 105 
 
 Actions on tort 501 
 
 Equity suits 248 
 
 Actions in which the summons only was served 85 
 
 "Excise rebate" cases 46 
 
 Actions in which The City of New York is plaintiff 56 
 
 Proceedings brought by the Receiver of Taxes 28 
 
 Tax certiorari proceedings 115 
 
 Other certiorari proceedings 85 
 
 ^ 
 
89 
 
 Mandamus proceedings Z'^3 
 
 Condemnation proceedings (other than street openings) ... i8 
 
 Assessment proceedings 3 
 
 Miscellaneous proceedings 3^5 
 
 Total 2,ooi 
 
 SCHEDULE 3. 
 
 Court Work During the Year. 
 
 Appeals Argued, Actions Tried, Hearings Before Referees and 
 Commissioners and Motions Argued. 
 
 Number of actions tried in courts other than Municipal 
 
 Courts 298 
 
 Number of actions tried in Municipal Courts 91 
 
 Number of appeals argued or submitted at Appellate Term 1 1 
 Number of appeals argued or submitted at Appellate Di- 
 vision 193 
 
 Number of appeals argued or submitted at the Court of 
 
 Appeals 51 
 
 Number of appeals argued at the United States Supreme 
 
 Court 2 
 
 Number of appeals argued in United States Circuit Court 
 
 of Appeals l 
 
 Number of actions and proceedings tried before referee ... 46 
 
 Number of sessions before referees 292 
 
 Number of condemnation proceedings on trial 7^ 
 
 Number of hearings before Commissioners at which testi- 
 mony was taken 954 
 
 Number of motions argued 934 
 
 Number of complaints dismissed on c^U of calendar 29 
 
90 
 
 Disposition. 
 
 The actions tried and appeals argued were disposed of as fol- 
 lows: 
 Number of actual trials in courts other than Municipal 
 
 Courts 298 
 
 Decisions in favor of the City 99 
 
 Decisions against the City 113 
 
 Decisions which were partly favorable and 
 
 partly unfavorable 12 
 
 Trials in which the jury disagreed or a 
 
 juror was withdrawn 10 
 
 Trials in which the City was only indirectly 
 
 interested 34 
 
 Cases tried in which a reference was ordered. i 
 
 Trials where a judgment was consented to 1 
 
 Cases not yet decided 7 
 
 298 
 
 Number of actual trial* in Municipal Courts 91 
 
 Decisions in favor of the City 41 
 
 Decisions against the City 43 
 
 Trials in which the jury disagreed i 
 
 Cases not yet decided 6 
 
 91 
 
 Number of appeals argued or submitted at Appellate 
 
 Division • 193 
 
 Decisions in favor of the City 130 
 
 Decisions against the City , 49 
 
 Decisions partly favorable and partly unfav- 
 orable ID 
 
 Appeals where City's interest was indirect. ... i 
 
 Cases not yet decided 3 
 
 193 
 
91 
 
 Number of appeals argued or submitted at Appellate 
 
 Term 1 1 
 
 Decisions in favor of the City 5 
 
 Decisions against the City 4 
 
 Decision partly favorable and partly unfavor- 
 able I 
 
 Appeal where City was not directly interested . i 
 
 II 
 
 Number of appeals argued or submitted at the Court of 
 
 Appeals 51 
 
 Decisions in favor of the City 34 
 
 Decisions against the City 17 . 
 
 51 
 
 One of the appeals argued in the United States Supreme Court 
 was decided in favor of the City, and in the others a reargument 
 was ordered. 
 
 The appeal argued in the United States Circuit Court of Appeals 
 was decided against the City. 
 
 SCHEDULE 4. 
 Judgments, Orders and Decrees Entered During the Year, 
 
 Number of orders and decrees entered $ 1,244 
 
 Number of judgments entered against the City 394 
 
 Number of judgments entered in favor of the City 200 
 
 Amount of judgments entered against the City $506,334 09 
 
 Amount of judgments entered in favor of the City. . . . 76,210 21 
 
92 
 
 SCHEDULE 5. 
 Payments Made from EIach Appropriation During the Year. 
 "Supplies and Contingencies, Including De- 
 ficiencies" (original appropriation) $100,000 00 
 
 Transfer from "Contingent Counsel Fees". $24,250 00 
 Transfer from "Salaries of Assistants, etc." 24.706 08 
 
 48,956 08 
 
 Total $148,956 08 
 
 Amount disbursed $1 10,241 76 
 
 Balance unexpended 38,714 32 
 
 Total $148,956 08 
 
 "Contingent Counsel Fees" (original appropria- 
 tion) $25,000 00 
 
 /.mount disbursed $75° 00 
 
 Transfer to "Supplies and Contingen- 
 cies" 24,250 00 
 
 — $25,000 00 
 
 "Fees of Experts and Other Disbursements in 
 Tax Certiorari Proceedings" (original appro- 
 priation) $40,000 00 
 
 Amount disbursed $14,770 35 
 
 Balance unexpended 25.229 65 
 
 $40,000 GO 
 
93 
 
 "Investigation of City's Claims to Lands Under 
 
 Water in Jamaica Bay" (original appropriation) $10,000 00 
 
 Amount disbursed $i»447 50 
 
 Balance unexpended 8,552 50 
 
 $10,000 00 
 
 Salaries (original appropriation) $460,000 00 
 
 Transfer to "Supplies and Contingencies" 24,706 08 
 
 Net appropriation $435»293 92 
 
 Amount disbursed $435,293 92 
 
 Total $435,293 92 
 
 SCHEDULE 6. 
 
 Moneys Received and Returned by the Corporation Counsel 
 During the Year. 
 
 Collections by Main Office — 
 
 Amount collected, exclusive of costs $160,379 10 
 
 Amount of costs collected I0.553 77 
 
 Total for Main Office $170,932 87 
 
 Collections by Bureau of Arrears of Personal Taxes. . 103,103 55 
 
 Collections by Bureau of Penalties 39.445 63 
 
 Collections by Bureau of Buildings 4,804 33 
 
 Collections by Tenement House Branch Office 5.324 14 
 
 Total collections of the Law Department $323,610 52 
 
94 
 
 SCHEDULE 7. 
 Contracts, etc., Approved During the Year, 
 
 Number of contracts approved as to form 2,957 
 
 Number of contracts revised and returned for correction. . 353 
 Number of advertisements for bids, etc., approved as to 
 
 form 720 
 
 Number of bonds approved as to form 576 
 
 Number of leases approved as to form 187 
 
 Number of releases approved as to form 42 
 
 Number of agreements approved as to form 29 
 
 Number of deeds approved as to form 7 
 
 Total 4,871 
 
 SCHEDULE 8. 
 
 Opinions Rendered to the Various Municipal Officers and 
 Departments During the Year. 
 
 Department. 
 
 Number of 
 Opinions 
 Rendered. 
 
 Finance Department 1,034 
 
 Borough Presidents 131 
 
 Department of Water Supply, Gas and Electricity. . . 102 
 
 Board of Estimate and Apportionment 63 
 
 Police Department 54 
 
 Board of Education 51 
 
 Department of Taxes and Assessments 29 
 
 Fire Department 25 
 
 Dock Department 23 
 
 Department of Charities 18 
 
95 
 
 Department. 
 
 Number of 
 Opinions 
 Rendered. 
 
 Mayor i8 
 
 Department of Buildings 17 
 
 Park Department 17 
 
 Municipal Civil Service Commission 16 
 
 Bellevue and Allied Hospitals 15 
 
 Department of Bridges 14 
 
 Street Cleaning Department 14 
 
 City Clerk 13 
 
 Bureau of Licenses 10 
 
 Board of Assessors 9 
 
 Brooklyn Grade Crossing Commission 9 
 
 Health Department 9 
 
 Board of Aldermen 8 
 
 Board of Water Supply 7 
 
 City Chamberlain 7 
 
 Department of Public Works 5 
 
 Aqueduct Commissioners , 5 
 
 Department of Correction 5 
 
 Board of Elections 4 
 
 Attorney-General 4 
 
 Register 3 
 
 Sinking Fund Commissioners 3 
 
 County Clerk w . . . . 2 
 
 Tenement House Commission 2 
 
 Register, Kings County 2 
 
 Board of Rapid Transit Railroad Commissioners. ... 2 
 
 Board of City Magistrates 2 
 
 Bureau of Franchises 2 
 
 Armory Board 2 
 
 Bureau of Weights and Measures 2 
 
 Trustees, College of the City of New York i 
 
 State Board of Tax Commissioners i 
 
96 
 
 Number of 
 Department. Opinions 
 
 ' Rendered. 
 
 Board of Examiners i 
 
 District Attorney i i 
 
 Board of County Canvassers i 
 
 Court House Board i 
 
 Richmond County Agricultural Society i 
 
 Board of Atlantic Avenue Improvement i 
 
 Total 1 ,766 
 
 I will call particular attention to only three items in the 
 foregoing recapitulation. The first is the large number of actions 
 tried and appeals argued — an ever increasing part of the work ; 
 the second is the number of opinions rendered and contracts 
 approved — the largest in the history of the department ; the third 
 is the small number and amount of judgments against the City — 
 the smallest (as I have elsewhere stated) since the time of 
 consolidation. 
 
 General Siunniary for Entire Laiv Department. 
 
 Of the 25,440 actions pending in the main office a con- 
 servative estimate of the number in which some 
 action was taken during the year 1906 is 8,000 
 
 The proceedings handled by the Street Opening Bureau 
 
 numbered 419 
 
 Proceedings handled by Bureau of Penalties 30,000 
 
 Proceedings handled by Bureau of Arrears of Personal 
 
 Taxes 30,000 
 
 Proceedings handled by Tenement House office 12,805 
 
 ^ The total number of actions and proceed- 
 ings handled by all parts of the de- 
 partment force during 1906 was there- 
 fore approximately 81,224 
 
97 
 
 Statistics are sometimes misleading and figures may conceal 
 as well as reveal the facts, but in the foregoing summary an 
 honest effort has been made to give the best obtainable informa- 
 tion, so that the person who reads this report may form a fair 
 idea of the nature and extent of the duties of the office of the 
 Corporation Counsel. 
 
 It should be borne in mind that it is a difficult matter to 
 reduce the work of a law office to mathematical tables and 
 schedules. The work on individual cases and important opinions 
 cannot be measured or tabulated and sometimes one difficult 
 proceeding — for instance a large condemnation proceeding or 
 the action now being tried to set aside the 8o-cent gas bill — 
 will require more time, effort and ability than a thousand routine 
 proceedings. But an inspection of the foregoing summary should 
 convince the reader that the Law Department of The City of New 
 York is unquestionably the largest law office in the country, and 
 that means, I presume, in the world, and that it should always be 
 maintained upon a standard which will make it a pattern and 
 example to other municipalities. 
 
 NEEDS OF THE DEPARTMENT. 
 
 A year ago the Law Department had two great needs — proper 
 accommodations for the general office and more assistants. The 
 first need has been most generously provided for, but the second, 
 through no fault of the municipal authorities, still exists. 
 
 Over two years ago my predecessor recognized the necessity for 
 several extra assistants, not young men or students, but experienced 
 lawyers, who could share with the senior assistants the more 
 important parts of the office work. The men needed could not 
 be obtained from the Civil Service lists, because lawyers of the 
 required ability and experience would not enter a Civil Service 
 examination, and it was necessary that these new assistants should 
 be selected because of their special knowledge of certain subjects. 
 But the number of assistants who might be employed without 
 Civil Service examination had been limited by the Civil Service 
 
98 
 
 Rules to seventy-five, and my predecessor accordingly made an 
 application to the State Civil Service Board to increase the number 
 of "exempt" assistants to one hundred. The application was ap- 
 proved by the Municipal Civil Service Commission and the Mayor, 
 but was disapproved by the State Civil Service Board. 
 
 Feeling that the State Civil Service Board had acted without 
 fully comprehending the conditions, I renewed the application to 
 increase the number of assistants, fixing ninety as the necessary 
 limit for the present. On this occasion, as on the former one, 
 the Civil Service Reform Association appeared and opposed the 
 application, upon the ground that the number of exempt positions 
 was already sufficient. The application has again been denied in 
 a memorandunr; in which the State Board suggests that the force 
 of Assistants may be increased by appointments from the Civil 
 Service lists. 
 
 In my judgment the placing of any considerable part of the 
 force of Assistants in the Law Department under the Civil Service 
 rules would be a menace rather than an advantage to the City, since 
 it would tend to retain in office persons of little or no ability, who 
 could not be removed except upon charges, and whose places 
 could only be filled by appointments from the Civil Service lists. 
 
 No Civil Service examination can be devised which will be any 
 test of the qualities needed in an Assistant in this Department. 
 Every Assistant is to some extent a Deputy of the Corporation 
 Counsel. He is in effect often independent counsel for the City 
 in some of the most important litigation that comes before the 
 Courts. There should be no Civil Service restrictions upon the 
 choice of Assistants by the head of the Law Department. There 
 is no more reason for subjecting such men to Civil Service rules 
 than legislators, judges or private counsel for litigants. 
 
 To criticize the motives of the State Board in refusing its ap- 
 proval of the plan submitted to it would be as idle as it might be 
 unjust. Earnest supporters of Civil Service reform have ever 
 before them the numerous instances in the past of the abuse 
 of the power of appointment, and are inclined to regard any 
 
99 
 
 application for relaxation of its principles as not made in good 
 faith. This attitude of mind has its advantage for public interest, 
 but I cannot help concluding that the City in this instance must 
 suffer from it. 
 
 What seems to be even more discouraging is that I do not 
 believe that the City can prevail against this sentiment. There 
 is, therefore, nothing to be done except to strive to use the force 
 at our command to the best possible advantage in the City's 
 service. 
 
 It must be remembered that while I have seventy-five As- 
 sistants, thirteen of them are engaged in the Street Opening 
 Bureau, nine in the Brooklyn office, five in the Bureau of Pen- 
 alties, four in the Tenement House branch, and two in the 
 Personal Tax Bureau, leaving only forty-two in the main office. 
 Of these forty-two Assistants, four are constantly employed on 
 Appellate Court work, three in condemnation proceedings, four 
 in tax certiorari proceedings, two in contract cases, three in the 
 "gas litigation" and franchise cases, six in accident cases, two 
 in "affirmative" actions, two on Board of Education cases, one 
 is permanently assigned to the Mayor's office, and during part 
 of the year one is engaged in legislative work at Albany. Most 
 of the remaining fourteen Assistants are engaged to some ex- 
 tent on special work where they have acquired considerable 
 experience, and there are, therefore, not men enough available 
 to take up new matters which demand prompt attention. 
 
 The practical result of the denial of my application for leave 
 to appoint more Assistants is that much work of an important 
 character does not receive the prompt attention that I desire it 
 should have, and there is no force available to take up the large 
 and ever increasing arrears of business. Had my application 
 been granted, I could have perfected my plans for office or- 
 ganization and could have devised some system for bringing the 
 arrears of work of the Department more nearly up to date. 
 
ICO 
 
 Conclusion. 
 
 The foregoing is a brief history of the Law Department, an 
 outline of the present general organization of the Department 
 and a recapitulation of the work for the year 1906. I cannot 
 close this report, however, without adding this personal word in 
 relation to the office staflf. I have been deeply gratified by the 
 earnest, hearty co-operation on the part of my Assistants and 
 heads of bureaus; I have appreciated the industry and faithful- 
 ness of the clerical force and subordinates, and I have found 
 throughout the department a loyalty to the head of the office 
 and a devotion to duty which I am glad in this public manner to 
 acknowledge. 
 
 Yours respectfully, 
 
 WILLIAM B. ELLISON, 
 
 Corporation Counsel. 
 
M202976 
 
 
 THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRJWY 
 
I 
 
 I