New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1853-03-14

grant, but added lit that the grant should not then
Rave eiect-and had they done tsis the injunction
would not have been violated and the City been saved
ron The dsgraee il hes incurred snd this Court from
the painful necessity of acting upon the contemp. OF
lie order
We arc tod by the Assistant Aldermen tbs, they
were advised by counsel that the order did not restrain
them from vo:ing-but we cen hardly think the, any
counsel could have advised them that the Injunction
would not be broken If they permitted the grant Ad-
vice of counsel will not be accepted by this
excuse. II regarded at all the name Of counsel and
the advice must be shewn and If written the written
paper and sfdavi,s presented
The result ofour observstions this pan ofthe
Is, that we cannot regard favorably their answer
having been done through ignorance
Considering that they knew wha, was meant, then,
has anything occurred to mitigate the matter The
only thing lie their assertion that they believed the
Court had not jurisdiction We havedecided we hsdju
risdicon. But they say their belief was conscientious
The answer Of the Assistant Aldermen did not set up
that, but as they make the averment now. we will give
them the benefit Of it. We must believe the ADVICE
from Aid. Sturtevant. There Is very little ex-
cuse for their acting az they did.
The public disobedience of the Common Council to
mandate Of the Court wss calculsted 70 affect the
peace and good order Of society and to impair the so
diy of our institutions and the history Of the country
affords 10 parallel 10 their disbedence to the legal tn
bunas The resolution for the grant might have been
adopted II the grant were suspended If they thought
the Injunction bad been improperly issued they had
supposed would not have been corrected on
application the Court But in resisting the order the
members did so at their own peril, and when persons
so resist, they are justly punished.
The Court has the power TO interfere toresran the
Common Council in relation 10 the City property,
which is held in trust by the members not for them
selves but for<he benefit Of the public. They should
have obeyedtbe order
An unconstitutional law has force, but he who re-
sists law because he thinks i: unconstitutional may be
involved in the penalties Of treason
1.-THE Judge referred to cases where the Jurisdiction
Of the Court was shown to have been properly exer
cised in restraining vote
Remembering these facts, said the Judge, psss with
much regret 10 the preamble and resolutions Of Aid
sturtevant. The lmputations contained in them are
regarded no. only aggravation but as distinct
and serious ofense We cannot give to them the ia
vorable Interpretation asked for that they meant
merely to indicate the dignity of the Common Council
They say the Judge had issued the order without any
color Of lava charge which we have shown not to
have been correct The meaning of the resolution is
that plaintiffs knowing they could not by fair means
defeat the grant did by unfair means, and that the
Judge lent himself 10 the design This idea was cal
culsted to prejudice the public mind, destroy conf
dencc in the Judge, and degrade the Court and the
Judicial tribunals Of the country
II was a case Of wilfal contempt, and deserving Of
serious apprehension.
Neither the author Of the resolutions the others
who voted except Aid Smith has chosen to offer any
apology.
shall prepare an opinion Of our views upon the sub
ject and Judge Bosworth has already prepared one.
I will now proceed to deliver the judgment of the
Courts in each Of the
! have no doubt the sentence ofthe court will be
thought by many euien but in the present state oil
the public mind there many circumstances that make
il better we should err on the side Of moderation than
Of severity
The most aggravated case, that Of AID sturtevant,
whose resolutions were deliberate act, differed from
the others
The sentence upon him Is that he shall be
imprisoned in the City Prison IS days, pay for the
benefit of the City Treasury, the sum of $3.50 and to
the REALTORS for counsel fee and costs sl02 20.
In relation TO the other Aldermen except Aid Smith,
who has offered an excuse, and Aid. Doherty who did
no, vote on tho resolutions of AID S. the judgment Re,
City Treasury in addition sl0l 80 for costs and ex
penses Of restors
Aid DoleIty voted against the resolutions OF Aid >,
and AID Smith offered an excuse As TO each Of them
and the Assistant Aldermen charged (who laid the res
olutions of Aid upon the table, direct fine each
o. 500 TO be paid for the benefit Off City Treasury
in addition TO .Ol 80 each 10 REALTORS for counsel fee
and expenses.
In each OF the cases an order must be issued com
hitting them till the judgment is satisfied demon
straiion Of applause was made but suppressed
Judge Emmett then made remarks;
sm 40 unfortunate as 70 differ. he said in some
respects from the decision judgment, will say
few words.
assent TO the propositions of my brother Judge Du-
or but In apportoning punishment do not entirely
agree with him. and perhaps owe an apology to Judge
Duer for not stating fac, to him before he rendered
his decision.
With respect 10 the judgement, to Aid sturtevsnt
concur and &c 20 the Assistant AID concur. What
| differ in is the degree Of punishment on the other
Aldermen who voted on the resolution OF Aid. :. say,
think every one of them should have been impr.s-
oned for greater or less time When say this ought
state AZ an exception Aid Dohery because he did not
vote for H. AZ 10 Aid Smith his excuse ought 10 have
some effect but strict justice requires that he too
should be personally imprisoned
regret having 10 express my opinion OF the want Oh
suincien, severity do not know any OF the Alder
men personally except Aid. srartevant. know ru'
mors have been sos in respect 10 the Conduct OF the
/ members OF the Common Council, but am not indu'
euced by any such nors and regret that the Alder
men have been brought up under such eircums noes,
because should be sorry to have Ii thought am aetr
.ed by them and ii it were no. should be in favor
! Of a heavier punishment.
Personal feeling to the Judges does no, sctas;e me-
bur the Court owes IL to the public and the proper
administration of public justice to see its orders car
ned into effect The judges hold their Offices IS q
erea, public trust Il is not to vindese this or seA;
Judge bur to vindieste this great trust; that this pun
ishmen, is inflicted As 70 Aid Srrrevant, think his
ip,nrisonmeni should have been 30 days as ne de-