LAW DEPARTMENT,

}

OFFICE OF THE COUNSEL TO THE CORPORATION,
NEW YORK, September 29, 1888.

Hon. JAMES A. FLACK, County Clerk:

Sir, I have received your letter of the 27th instant, referring to Section 5 of Chapter 296 of the Laws of 1888, in relation to submitting a proposed amendment to the Constitution, to the electors of the State, and inquiring :

1st. Is it the duty of the County Clerk to provide ballots to be used in the county, for the purpose mentioned in said act?

2d. In what manner shall the distribution of said ballots be made to the several election districts of this county, as provided for in Section 5 of this act?

3d. How many ballots should be printed of each kind for and against the proposed amendment?

In answer I beg leave to say:

1st. That it is the duty of the County Clerk to provide and distribute the ballots, as required by the act.

2d. The method of distribution is left entirely to the discretion of the County Clerk, and he may adopt such as commends itself to his judgment.

The services of political committees may, in my judgment, be accepted and the ballots distributed through them, upon their requisition and engagement to distribute the same in the election districts.

3d. The number of ballots is also to be determined by the judgment of the County Clerk.

An equal number should be provided for and against the proposed amendment.

The number of ballots furnished should be such as to enable the committees to distribute them in the same manner and to the same extent as in the case of individual candidates.

The determination of the aggregate amount to be printed is a practical matter upon which you should exercise your best judgment, in view of the information furnished by the Registry Lists as to the number of voters, and such other information as you will receive from political committees and other sources.

I remain, yours, very respectfully,

HENRY R. BEEKMAN,

Counsel to the Corporation.

NEW YORK, November 7, 1888.

THE MAYOR, ALDERMEN AND COMMONALTY OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK:

TO ISAAC J. OLIVER'S SON (JOHN W. OLIVER), Dr.

Steam Job Printer, No. 203 Canal street.

Printed by order of the County Clerk, in compliance

with the Laws of 1888, Chapter 296, Section 5.

Received payment,

Which were received and ordered to be printed in the minutes.

The SECRETARY presented the following:

To the Honorable the Board of Estimate and Apportionment:

The petition of the undersigned respectfully represents to your Honorable Body:

That heretofore the firm of Kehr, Kellner & Co., composed of your petitioner, Peter Kehr, and John Kellner and Louis Ott, did business in the City of New York as manufacturers of desks and general office furniture, and that your petitioner, Peter Kehr, holds a general power of attorney to collect all outstandings owing said firm, the original of which is on file in the Comptroller's office.

That on March 28, 1873, said John A. Kellner procured from the Fire Department of New York City, through their Secretary, Carl Jussen, an order for "twenty-seven desks, No. 7, to be all outside of solid walnut, solid tops, plain backs, case on top to be like sketch, at $33 each, less five per cent. net cash;" and, likewise, at the same time, an order for "fourteen tables, No. 1, oak, four feet, at $13 each, less five per cent. net cash." A copy of the order, taken from the order-book of the firm, is annexed. The sketch of a desk, as they were to be furnished, as well as the sketch for a table, are also annexed.

The desks and tables, as thus ordered, were actually made as per order and sketches, and were delivered to the Fire Department of the City of New York.

The desks and tables were and yet are in actual use by said Department (and there never was any complaint made

that they were unfitted for the purpose, or not in accordance with the order and sketches).

Subsequently, in the regular course of business, the bill for said articles was presented for payment. Comptroller Andrew H. Green refused payment on the ground that your petitioner, Peter Kehr, was a member of the Board of Aldermen of the city and therefore could not be interested in any contract with any department of the City Government.

Thereupon an action was commenced against the City for the amount of the bill. The Corporation Counsel advised, when the case was reached for trial, that relief should be asked of the Legislature.

The action was thereupon discontinued without costs. In the year 1880 a relief bill was introduced in the Legislature, and passed the Assembly by a unanimous vote, but was not reached in the Senate. In the following year the bill was again introduced and passed both Assembly and Senate by a unanimous vote, but failed to become a law.

The bill was again introduced in the session of 1888, passed both houses unanimously and became a law, a certified copy of which is hereto annexed.

It will thus be seen that constant efforts were made to procure payment of the indebtedness.

The bill was duly audited on April 30, 1873.

The annexed certificate of the Commissioners of the Department shows that the articles mentioned were put in use in the Department, are still in its use and possession, and no other bill for them has been audited by the Fire Department.

It must be borne in mind that formerly the Fire Depart-1 ment made its own purchases and audited its own bills.

11

To the objection that the bill could not be paid because your petitioner was a member of the Board of Aldermen, the following answers are made:

The order for the goods was not obtained by your peti. tioner, but was gotten by Mr. John A. Kellner, and your petitioner had no knowledge of such order until the goods were made and delivered.

Section 101 of the charter does not absolutely make all contracts void, but leaves it to the option of the Comptroller.

It reads, "All such contracts in which any such person is, or becomes, interested, shall, at the option of the Comptroller, be forfeited and void."

Your petitioner respectfully submits that in this instance the City certainly sustained no injury, but, on the contrary, as appears by the certificate of the Department annexed, the goods in question have been and are in use by said Department, and there is, therefore, in equity, no valid reason for holding the contract void.

The amount of the bill for the goods furnished as aforesaid is $1,083.

Your petitioner respectfully represents that it is justly due and owing, and right, in equity and justice, to be paid, and your petitioner respectfully asks your Honorable Body to grant the certificate for its payment, with interest, as provided for in Chapter 89 of the Laws of 1888, hereto annexed.

Dated New York, December 10, 1888.

PETER KEHR.

State of New York, City and County of New York, ss.: PETER KEHR, being duly sworn, says that he is the petitioner named in the foregoing petition; that he has heard