New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1853-02-07

1 No.
resolution with the intent Inst 70 shond op~,.i, Ia
snd IN the neent cxec,afo1 that BY is aecse,,
Nonic eecohe stsn 10y neni oSnetstae, tsey e,s.-
had psssed t. shouid ~ they might have aoae sar,y
acceptance A. the oss tanes they haVe uais L. -,
which they were commanded Absolutely 20 tes - sas
from making sud this grant, ~ they intended Ay a.s
MISSION ard with the.T eCuseui, has AecoCs A.. IT
hence II wosds have g nearing the law "a i,sses
they have violated tie anciou both IN letter snS
sud am corsTairco 20 add, they mean; 70 VoAis ~
Anew that they had done So
W. are ,oIS h,uevtr TIA, the uasn.hers o. ne c..
Couuc could nos have scted otnersis than they IA ri
charter bound them. 4 - said - reconsider TIE Fesos
and when recousGered u wS not merely their MA, -
hsr erry vote upon y scc0rns 70 TIE dictates A,,
own conscience arc 70 punish thc Tor the oxerc ~ -
sht would b IA ustice sEd tyranny The Saswes . ~,
ID conehsye The charter imposed rpon them no saS
sls,iue ,fv a, Is asserted When ordnance or ~,
Is returned 4 The Cc1oa Nornc a2ptoAela that tara,
consideration deperts IN 81 cases uon the viii OF tie ma
icitv snd sssrredy In the present cas-. they wer, 80
bcaid 70 rccct cr tba sCsoution 80 the tine and n ~,
manner tlsy did. ads. that even up0a TIE slpposto,
Inst thew were hound O. reconseeg INC esoaosa IA,
Provisions Of ther charter thcy we've e9ni eeanS By 10
rat GATE O. s & Uf &C rcsctua ald tresi Y Sasa os-
dercd the oTdeI Of The CoUrt was 10 iva isaetR a,
exercise OF * proper IJsl>iicten-
pass, therefore, 70 he ssi and most n?oiaa, eta
dat has betu ursCd conclusive assi ihe Pseseat M
torthe a. egcc went O. js-lsIcton m ths 90 any cas
IL "a tssin he %; t6o Common Council uoa nenl
irct before them attempted by the n antoa ss<s
thev clcse disregard. ltwa urCn tins allegation HAT =,
defense tie CcuIov Council was manly stea na,
Argument before "a sic q Is eNei1sN1y upon is tu;e &
H. men he's iu he t Instance, ecctec % place there
IN.
ycivss las been pefpeNea oy mnon eAt.ene0l rasoIx
and lealul1s, and complicated ~lth mAsy con&4esa "a
that 20 nof - 81 teca- " ~ ~. ! "a 80 ny Va
siupe N us own uaugc, ana BY no means Scat u so.
ron Tie fue ous qussloa Is, "hetef ison Ae 1c,
want o. jurisdiction ig hs Oour over tae s eet nrtr
10 which the order 81 Be- uncg on reate a oticr wsN<
M on fs ace 'r II Is CO.'S deect o. Juris ction. aud &
49, 49,, mn, m ,li csrs b thus spparenE. Tns issr
tcp Cd u Corporation and iss members 20 DESC
a.,onS ,S,,rI could under 40 c mum tlaces Sc ~,
IN 2. g..
rorsti3u the Cocu CcuncA ana 10 ueinocFs m The <
maintenance OF zen CIV = usts Neto Ossao' 10 ssfesAs
iut M twas command that under under any cruns'aa
ara uron any grounds oF any reasons hsteNer tins Cs
ueht rrcc upou the Common C0ancil an rs meAss>
II Was a, their own peril ,hat they refused b ohcy
They had no rgh regulate their crniuct BY their Ov.
opuion or the opinion OF their counsel ~ 10 the tA e
sufl.ifucy az Che legations IN the complaint ulon xhsi
the order addressed 70 them was founded For the pdsa
OF ruinng whether they would obey diSrsArd IA
Injunction they had no ush % i'9N INTO te companl Il
ri nd rs f the tian mason that the Jurisdiction OF Ia
Court nav b certain and UudouhteG ana yetthc facts All
sesators pet forth m the compliant oe wholly nsahessi
10 warrsnt to- exercise When tins rsu'cieacy e.s,s
there is want ~ equity "a tho compliant of WHICH he IN
Junction vi te coNcJ out d. :" All q. ou'.y 500 sU.
dance OF want ct uusict on that rendering the process
word ust.fes dsUbtclcuee. party lore WON an u
Junction IS served they ar tne wo1,. o CehseA0r NS
Worth that quote not permitted 20 speculate qpon tho
future decision o. thc Court IS e the equity OF We @ aad
yis ia cugh NOT % have issued People rs Spaldni
Tsec 81. suli,a, Judah, Paige, ft) add, th1a
thtre age any valid GROUNDS IN l1w, upou "co tns let
ION IN rrtcnlrtase might have Issued. although not
enc OF ne grOrtfs may be- stated IA tho cemNaint ha
t,.t has rrtdcrtu: ana IL oldcr pust be ooeyed II
eIrurecus but certainly not void am 10 = ohy certain
end manifest uyau4y thar can excuse ana protect aooe'
dtuoc.
Atoush tie want OF equity and the want Of nrsicnos
les vs. Justly observed by the eNlencheee aud learned
counsel who last adlcsed rs) are frequently conioandd
not only bv eNt.wuc but by Judses ye me distinction
,l G go ars,e. rirni Il ,sfV re- sonabe and nteShe "A
well rs certsu and established TH distinction nosrvtr.
csuno, bus THINK va 20 eopiusisP'e SA'o' o's afht
the defendants ard g j. ths tht enderds
large potion OF the observations that were made and
thores citet, wholly iuapl cHbie 70 ho true ami only
o now btiofrus It's however, that question: lons
a. la again sta ~ that mean 20 consider and discus
Wa he order OF ts Count which Illegal exercise of
rovr was galded BY tho Common Council, void upoa
ia cef Tie Ord commanded the Common Council net
., rant 20 Jacob tp ana others any other penon
the ugt liberty aud privilege OF laying down double
any cher track, iof railway IN Broadway.
Az the tine tins injunction was obtained arosoutcn,
making such a grant Jacob sharp and others about 10
be by the Common Council and tho
OF the Injunction en- brscc tins resolution, and were
doubedy TO restrain It's adoption, u Is reasonable 10
constue Ire Orcr exactly as would DO necessary TO con-
srue it, had 1t eter 10 aud rected the resolution, and
express words hId lrbdden the Common Council TO recon-
sdt and adoptit Il this construction, therefore, thai
adopt aud tor the purposes OF tas opinion shall treat tho
resolution ordinance by law and ia reconsidef',oa
ard adoption as properly acts OF leSsatlon ia the uls
setse In which the term legislation can be justly appaA
the sets of body. Making these oonces-ona tie
a, NAL Of the jurisdiction OF this Court amounts 10 tins that
Cont of Fqufy If general uTisdcton has no power in
any or any purpose, 70 restrain e e5 action
OF ncipal corporation, nor IN any manner % interfere
itt or ropfro It's legislative scTetoU matter 10 what
abIect he action may DO directed nor no" manifest ant
80 H. yiostou al law oven of the provisions Of ia own
III after that II NAV involve and matter by wnat notv
Of fear partay corruption ITS discretion may be gov.
erned how extensive and repafeoe The mischief that
in the particular may be certain 20 result 20 indvdnaa
OK the public from It's thr, ateued exercise.
II this be- true a. proposition OF law then the njaetica
order of this Cont from the want OF jurisdiction manles
ON ~ face vLas who " void II the proposition be not
true TIE order valid and should have been obeyed Ia
usce the counsel OF the defendants must be admitted
that they shtauk from maintaining the truth OF the pro-
Of their argument admitted no alternative In reply %
question put by the Court lt expressly affirmed fhs,
should the Common Council attempt by ordinances
and from motives mnhfestly corrupt, To convey for
grossly inadeouafe or merely nominal consideration, oil
the corporate property Of the City neither TINS nor any
other Court, would have power TO suppress by an niae
ton the medSted fraud or when eonsunmaed 70 fseni
the Ennt or punish It's authors, or diyest them Of
fuits there could be- remedy, are told bot from he
force Of public opinion and the action Of tae people
an ensuing election and al TINS upon lhe siounau
neither the pTopeiy nor the honesty OF the poceodnfa
legislative body nor while they are pending even issn
legality, ever be ade subiect OF Judicial inla IT,
u nust be confessed, is startling doctrine We all hhb
TO be 20 when announced and rejoice that we are nov
able to say, with entire conviction that applied os ms
niopa corporation Il ~ Just a. grounde@ IN hs -
seems TO as II Il immoral IN its principle, and ceanI
would De pemicous IN s effect The doctrine inst alsa
NAV be- true when applied 10 the Legislature Of the sn
which, a. a coordinate branch Of the Government repre-
cnting and exercising in its sphere tho sovereignty 20
people Is, for political reGsons OF manifest foce wn'J
exempt IN all ITS proceedings from any legal procesWP
oical control; but the doctrine i not nor Bany poruosu
IT, true when applied to subordinate nuacPai i ss
.
end even political power il yet in the exercise Of 81 ~
powers, Just subject 10 the authority and eonuo ~
Courts OF justice 90 egol process, legal Iestrsint te'
legal correction, any herbody or person naaA NV
fetal 49,,
The supposon that there exists important
or any distinction whatever, between municipal eo'Pos
ton nd any other coronation Aggregate IN respect 20 ne
powers OF Of Justice it proceedings eney
grauitoUs ard, Il to Ine, il destitute o. aon
Il certainly IL OF authority The couusel could refer US
case nor have found any, ia which tie Judgment ~
the Court las proceeded upon such Distinction mol
h., d af i'm
abe discover that by any udge or iurst the exsspe
Of such siincton hss been asserted or iDtlHeo'
Were IL otherwise-lad Guch decisions been found 10 20
Fpgsh report those Of our sister Steshad u ,1ea
uroSed thai in Englsud Ia other states the snppof
f.trcfon Il the established law should stil b. con-
ri cd 10 sy that 70 Jaw which must refuse 10 follow,
i The sn ressc that II Is directly inconsistent With fhs
yars,,ouut authority Of Constitution. The Coo.
rtution Of The Stale declares that all corporations el
by the sht aud shall be subject 20 be s1si In 81
Courts IL Lac eases, q natural persona (Con arSse
There 10 10 excel ton here Of nun cipal corpO,aoas
e,ceninn Whch tie (onatItAiiun has MOI made haze