New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1847-03-24

J
: luoes Abrshsn Hs;6e's Co-nslss 3 Tnpson 10
ses q LEONARD DAVID Vaneervoort and SszEel Brad
hurst ln-er IT, whcA declares that i any -
psrvisor sh1 rflse neslee; 70 perform s.y q the
duties which stsl - required q Inn y law
neuhr Of To- Beard Of Supervisors he shall for every
such o-ence fo-feif ihe sun o. 50 o. u TIA
verde; hss sgzinsf therthe cause cArred tn ire
suprene Ccur and after fsl arsufnsnf Judgment ren
cered thereon srd b tbs Judgment me former decision
Of TIE Court affirmed and iris Judgment was CARED U
By sppes 10 lie Cour for the Correction OF ETU-s sd
10 December at Alarmed BY that Court rendering the
judgments sqinsi their Sus ard complete Tor The pen
slres ard coss
The under,us vii not s,ecify the omissions in the
Report Of the rnsorify Of the Law Committee and &C
eep.ed b hii Bosr3-they are apparent on comPari
son with tbs statement bu' be con eeo % pom; OF
ne Report nudsa 10 IN PAGE rs Of the Committees
Report and TIE resolution granting leave to TIE pennou.
er 20 withdrew rs petition were Cd prcsen,saon .sia
90 the table urnied and taken up and TIE reso-
IL ou offered that the Controller pay ihs faaEfs si'sT
ia reference rscseor 'alf7- aouce nd va not set
ed y the Board.
TIE assertion IN the Report thsi the Common C0un-
CT ressted The payment Of such salary the ground Of
the unconstitstonsty OF the hE is groundless-they
never were -. ed vote Ire question, and a. the
Report which assumed that gro1rd was peI1ted 10 20
under the table the contrary Is tne TAR pres1mpiion
The remark that the az, meaning tia, Of ls4l, was
passed 70 prevent the Corporation huEsing the law OF
$40 Is entirely grsiuitous and without foundation IN
fact and equally 90 the assertion that majority Of ,hc
sad sw ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS IL shown that tie Com
mon Council did not determine bat rather otherwise
and the supervisors BY REJECTING - they did the resou
ton offered ~ l-8l, b. the supervisor Of The Sev
suteeBth Ward and b. positive vote, two Of toe Peu
toners viz the Mayor. Robert II. Morris, aud limp
sonvouns IN the rcgaFe expressly sad ihey DID not
refuse % pay On that ground.
TIE fact Is the law Of ls4 passed 10 enable toe
Judges obtain payment q their salaries then long Ia
without the expense Of suit against the CoPo
ration. and which Il was supposed would ne prevented
BY making il the duty Of the Board Of Supervisors 20
audit and allow them
The Court for the Correction Of Errors when the
question Of the quo Ssani0 against The Aldermen for
sitting Judges was brought before iham GA an appeal
from ihe Supreme Court whose decision WAS s1verse
20 the Aldermen Did decide thzt much o; the sw A.
removed the Aldermen from the bench not having been
passed BY iwothird yoto imperative altering Toe
Charter thereby reversing the decision OF the supreme
CUgTibgi they decided the law isr a. 1t re-
lated the appointment OF the Judges and the payment
their salaries nconsttuii8uathis portion Of the
law s separate aud ndefn3 n ~ character and hss
bearing or connection win that which excluded the
Aldermen, and the whele history % legislation
shows that neither the Corporation or Legislature ever
supposed that lbs Courts OF Justice could not be ADDED
o. Increased by The Legislature without interfering
with the Cry Charter is rishts-so thought Mr Nor
when Recorder and presiding 10 tho Court Of Gcner
a. Sessions when the question WA trsi raised-
The Report ssyI page JTgl The Board Of super
vifOrs by sw directed - sudif and allow All esal
claims against the City and County % New fork-thc
law regulating the general duties OF the Board of super
visors and which The undersigned presumcs 20 be tie
Law 10 which the Report aiudes sghori ses snd d.
them % sTs1ias settle and allow All accounts
chargeable - inst the County The law VI ~ make.
the salary and arrears City and County charge. and
says the Mayor Recorder snd Alderman Of the City
Of New oTk. 81 whom the Mayor or Recorder shall b.
one shall agdr and alor Il was therefore mere
ministerial duty and not judicial their powers 70 the
salaries and arrears limited and specrcto audit
and allow By a ocrts.u day amount hxed ana Ascef.
tanned by avvthey could not question the night rtc
- afIa haei h.afu b
could they beet the validity 81 the appointment
az tbs Judges vhosc rians they Wefe % allow 70 ~
tried this colstrs wsy. This settled law and the
Reports Of our state Courts show abundant esses on
this point II Johnson 5l9 Ine People W Collins
WsndAL 80, The Peopi. ". Dean &c---J Johnson,
20 Johnson l1j-s Page, i25-2i. Wendslli i0s-5.
Hill, 6l6
Ills Also vel settled law Ilswenaen p so The PEG.
PIE " SUP Kings CO that whenever the Board Of Su-
pcrvsors have a specific, n4ndsinry duty 10 perform.
defined oy the act imposing such duty 10 audit and
allow they have discretion Ia The ms'fcr but must
perform II sccsrcins 10 t1e terms OF TIE Law and 10
strict lettarwhen acting under the Law prescribing
their general duties. which says they are TO examine
settle and slow also The PeoPevs sup Duehess they
have discretion which they are bound 20 exercise 10
good fsith-to examine that the subject mstter a
County charge paid for BY the County oui in the
case Of the Judges salaries submitted 70 the Board Of
Supervisors for their action. the Legislature By their
solemn SET defined and declared the arrears Of salaries
kId The salary become due Of the Judges b be Coun
y charges the amount thereof 10 be settled ~ TIE pre-
was T. settle the amount BY that Act and 70 audit and
slowr-end such being their duty alone, they had 10
discretion 10 judicial duty whatever The andcrsisned
therefore dacrs In the Committee Ia the views enter
tanned by them who hold out the idea that the super
referred 70 had dLsereuon-ihe same "a under
the general Law.
The Report Of the Con1iftee siges reasons for TIE
scou u he Supefysofs and aedges excuses for their
non iOrmGlce Of the sPeoihe duty directed 10 oe per
formed By them. BY vel defined Law. which 10
equally erroneous with ihe- views OF the Ia" on HE
sub jecL
The Committee AK the provision OF the la~
Imposing penalty OF $3.50 intended Tor anything *.
eepi refusal 10 perform well known duty Was It
intended 70 mUlct ia damages inc.y'cuAis who from
mistaken sense Of duty or from ignorance Of the law
have refused ~ sudit bill OF claim Your Committee
think not and think would De dangerous 70 place Su
pervlsors IN such position. see hePoFt-Pages I'D
and SEQ
The answer 70 this is that the petitioners did refuse
% perform well known duty, settled BY lss, and pre-
serb-d BY IL That II vAs not from misAker sense OF
duty they acted appears from heE seton IN the Board
detailed the proceedings and from the preamble
and resolutions offered by CT them, Mayor Mors)
by which they were advised Of their duty the same
saying the said salaries nay b. By suit recovered
against the CITY Of NeNYork with costs "a and il
the duty Of The Bos-d Of Supervisors % oosy the a~
and prevent coats beag MADE how can the assertion
% made the idea entertained that ihey acted from
mistaken vi d1y @Acn oae ~ the nGmoer VI TIE
petitioners (Monis) bad three dimes formally sad the
Judges be pad and that too. under me soen-
uity Of lis ofciA osths --once when presitug IN he
their appointment and oined Nih them 10 the perform
Of services under the &C. watch gave them sAa
~ and twice when lie offered Tie preamble and rrso-
lsons the Board Of supervisoFs and laeIe nothing
whatever may 30 suggested By the Committee n me
performance VI the duty required By The act directing
TIE salaries and arrears % Dc srdited and allowed
which can tSke away or impair eczsc.enti0gs dis
charge OF duty, o. TIE Independence Of "ooeJ40g
Supervisor.
Admitting for one moment tia, the Supervisors we're
gnorani OF the lsw they svurn 70 administer and
bound % obey "snIznce Of tie lsv : excuse and
honest eonvicron hat AAs night ~ DO what the
law declares 70 b ega vii Dot ake the act nn0eeEt
would mistaken Of dg;ysne orence consists
IN TIE refusal 70 perform the act and not "a The intent
or motive - DEMO. = f67-l Wendell ?. IL Every
tcniorAl 10 necessarily Ulf1 one and -, TOO.
mistake IL point OF lES ~Eich person Of ordinary
discrerOa bound and presumed 70 know . IN criminal
cases no excuse and o. gecf VI ocisl duty made
nictablc and II need any other 5e changed
OF tound % b corrupt The 01eEce Of these super
ysors beside sab ectng item the penalty inc-cta-
be AL msdeIue AMOR Eod punishable such BY me
and imprisOnrneni-i Revised statute vol 5-1 sec.
46l The case Ia johnson, Wa very SIMILAR ~ n tnls
The Supervisor prosecuted ior the penalty iOs DOT
oo-ying Of the Legislature sree'tne sum d be
rzise1 ter the building erks o-lce. Judgment was
gwen a-znst hin aud the Supreme Court sustained X
II. hss been eoncl1sive.y shown tat Inc prevl0us
Common Council tthz; Of l-i0 and i-sl) expressed
opinion ca the subct and ne Suggestion thar The Su
1@rvi-o-s a--S n accordance herewith = another Of
the errors IN tact q tss Comurts and 4 . evident
TIA, tn Supervisors sreed Illegally with fZl know
- aIaanI A. - afsf