New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1852-02-05
NEW-YORK LEGISLATURE.

SENATE. ALBANY, Wednesday, Feb. 4.
Mr. MORGAN presented memorial from the man
ayers Of the New-York State Institution for the
Deaf and Dumb, for an appropriation.
CANAL CONTRACTS.
Mr.. VANDERBILT, from the Judiciary Committee,
to whom was referred the resolution OF the Canal
Board, in the following words:
Resolved That for the purpose of testing the legality of
the Canal Board II any over The Same that we respect
fully TO the LeglatuTe provide by law for
question mentoned IN this resolution.
reported that the resolution the part of the Ca
nal Board seems to aim at two points firsE the
validity OF the contracts, and second the further
power of the Canal Board Ii is NOT the intention
Of the Committee, in considering this resolution 10
volunteer any Opinion IN reference to the validity OF
the contracts referred to, or to conccde that any
power exists IN the Canal Board over the same, or
IN any manner under the present reference TO ex-
press opinion on these points We conceive
that our duty should now be confined to the ques-
tion whether law ought TO be passed requiring an
immediate submission of the subject OF the Tesoiu.
ton to the Court OF Appeals.
The novelty of the whole matter, the fac. that the
passage Of the proposed law would De precedent
Tor future ieglslaIion the resuis on the judiciary
system Of our state, the operation of law on the
contracts already entered lntO the effect TO be pro-
duced the mnCs OF the Court OF last resort OF this
State, and the shelter afforded TO our pdolc officers
in the discharge OF their PLAIN duties, all coAspe 10
render the subject of grave Importance.
The Court ofAppess Is the Court OF last resort -
which the citizen applies for iedress The name az
fixed TO that tribunal by the Constiu ION Imports
that it was intended as exclusively Appellate
Court and although the 5th section OF The 6.h art-
Gle OF the Constitution PROVIDES that The Legislature
shall have the same power To alter aud regulate the
Jurisdictions IN Law and equity as they have hereto
tore possessed yet 1t is believed that never IN TINS
State has the Court OF last resort had imposed upon
II the duty OF advising IN advance the Legislative or
executive officers OF the Government.
Your Committee have been unable, III all the past
legislative history OF the State, TO ma precedent
Justify the SUBMISSION asked Tor In me resolution
and the only neatly analogous case they nave been
able to discover IN England is oy NO means one
which would lead them 10 recommend the passage
OF law Tor the objects contemplated by the resolu-
Gon. In GLAND, submissions of q similar chaIac-
ter sometimes made to the twelve Judges sitting
In the Exchequer Chamber. rhis Colrt, 1t is true,
is an Appellate Court but from It's judo there
Is still an appeal 10 the Lords AS the Court oil last
resort ard OF ultimate appeal. In this State
have no such Coarg, were there such, the question
might be relieved OF some OF Its emoarrassments
In the judgment OF your Committee, IL would be
papaby unjust TO Individual contractors to fOresiall,
by an or parte opinion upoDthe validity ofthelr con-
tracts with the State officers, the jus gmen. Of the
Court of last resort If these contractors, TO the
number OF many hundreds, could be brought into
Court TO maintain their rights, the proceedings, II
not an nractlon Of the constitutional sanction OF
trial by jury, would be most unwleldy and most in
termlnable, 10 the great embarrassment and detri-
meDt IN the meantime, of individual contractors and
the pubic Interests. IL would also establish prece-
Gent by which new advlsiDgou'ies mls oe aodedto
the Court IN every period of excitement or d,sap-
poiniment, thereby affecting the independence OF the
judiciary, aid defeating the wholesome purposes for
which the Court was created.
And finally, yeur Committee believe that the
prompt and searching investigation into the alleged
Canal fraucs nov III progress, demanded auke oy
justice TO the parties accused and 10 the puoic In
terests, would, III the opinion OF the Committee, be
msdiIected and impeced by thus unprecedented
manner OF questioning the validity of tne Canal
contracts and your Committee 90 net deem IL wise
TO add additional duties 10 Court already ourdened,
and concerning which fears already entertained
that itmay fail 10 accomplish the purposes Tor whlcn
was originally intended Your COMMITTEE tnere-
fore believe that no such law ought to DC passed py
the Legislature.
Mr.. CoNGER moved to postpone the acceptance OF
the Report for the present, and that It be pFnied
Mr.. TABER, as one OF the COMMITTEE VINO had made
the reso..ton, said that the request o. the lanai
Board would rot be compiled wltn for nany reasons
which he deemed unans ~erable, and nc hOpeu thas
the seuse would not consent by any Delay 'ha' Such
action would be taken
Mr. CoENKIL looked upop this subject as too i'm
poriant 10 be disposed Of IN so hasiy manner. lie
moved 70 lay The report on the table.
MI VAN scHooSRovES expressed the hope thaI IL
might De OlspOsec OF without delay. lie presumed
that every member had thoroughly examined the
subject, ana the Judiciary Committee, made up of
gentlemen OF sagacous wisdom and ack no vile dyed
ability, hao by unanimous report, declared them
selves adverse 10 any action the res button of the
Canal Board. lie expressed his eradication a. the
unanimous action OF the Committee. and he did not
believe ten votes could De secured III the Senate In
opposition 10 It's acceptance He had hoped that the
question might be disposed OF at once.
Mr. PIERCE WAS willing 10 vote for an immediate
concurrence with the report OF tue Committee. He
had looked upon the whole action OF the Board as
though there vas an attempt 10 Shuttle OF the re-
sponsibiliiy, and make others Dear tse Diane, and
be desired i, 10 be distinctly uncerslooi ina. the
assertion, that this movement was ineaded as hos
tile TO the original law, Sc far as ne vas concerned
was without founoatlon. lie again expressed MS
readiness 10 concur with the views OF the Committee
Mr.. CORNELL did not see the force OF Inc srgn-
ment Of the Senator. that this question should DC
disposed of in such hot haste tie m'sht concuI IN
every supyest,on with the Committee, sill he was
not willing TO acl without iDvesegsron ana exami-
nation, particularly when the subject pIeseh'ea 20
% important IN all its bearings.
Mr.. BABcocK foto we'd, and advocated the ihmeur
ate acceptance OF the Report.
M. CORNELL rejoined, urging postpoaement oi
action Oh account of the importance oi the pfoPoe-
uon lie assumed that the proposition OF tue oom
miitee was OF vital importance 10 the State and pub