In re the City of New York

the commissioners refused to accept the services and assistance of the computers in the employ of the bureau of street openings, usually assigned to the largely clerical function of malting the computations, and who are paid monthly salaries by the city. The commissioners themselves insisted on personally making the computations. For their services for the period commencing November 9, 1902, and ending June 10, 1907, the commissioners received in the aggregate for fees and additional allowances the sum of §73,860. The engineer during the same period has received the sum of §18,390 for services in assisting them. For their services from June 10, 1907, to March 14, 1908, the commissioners now ask for the taxation of their costs in the aggregate amount of §5,830, besides an extra allowance, and the engineer asks for the sum of §3,030. During the period in question the commissioners held various sessions, upon which their claims are based. . From an examination of the record and of the affidavits I have prepared the following summary showing the character of the work, if any, done on the various dates set forth and the purposes as alleged of the different sessions. Sessions arc claimed to have been held entirely devoted to the taking of testimony, numbering in all five; sessions are claimed to have been held partly devoted to the taking of testimony and partly to the consideration in executive session of the objections and testimony, numbering in all two; sessions are claimed to have been held partly devoted to the taking of testimony and partly to the hearing of objections, numbering in all three, sessions are claimed to have been held partly devoted to the hearing of argument on objections and partly to the consideration of objections and testimony in executive session, numbering in all fifteen; sessions are claimed to have been devoted to the hearing of objections numbering in all nineteen; adjournments were had, as shown by the minutes, when the applicants claim that the same are erroneous and that executive sessions were in fact held, numbering in all six; executive sessions are claimed to have been held following the failure of objecting parties to appear and testify, numbering in all twenty-eight, and sessions are claimed to have been held devoted entirely to the consideration in executive session of the objections and testimony, numbering, in all one hundred and thirty-two. The testimony taken during this entire period covers some four hundred and fifty-five typewritten pages of the minutes in all. I have examined the record covering the dates from June 11, 1907, to March 14, 1908, inclusive,. I have also examined the papers submitted on the prior applications for additional allowances herein, upon which orders were made herein on May 1, 1906, and July 2, 1907. It is but fair to say that the city’s legal representatives have steadily and vigorously resisted every application for additional allowances and for costs heretofore made, as they are now opposing the present one. In the opposing affidavit the city alleges that the commissioners have assessed the property affected, as well as the city, ah aggregate of $1,649,938.60 in excess of the total cost and expense of the proceeding, in violation of statute.^[1] The natural effect of this has been to increase the number of the objecting parties, as well as the vigor of their opposition, and to prolong the proceeding' unnecessarily. The commissioners do not deny that in some way they levied a larger sum by way of assessment than was required, but their reply is that the