The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1853-03-14

made what We deem suRcsnt spoisgy-we impose upon
sum Of slol 81 for The eosts and expenses Of the
REALTORS, to be paid TO then. (Applsuss and hissss
Alderman Smith has vsy properly subnittsd himself 70
the Judgment Of the Court BY concession Of his
Upon each Of them therefore, we'll - upon each OF
table, impose nne Of 500 70 b. paid 70 the trea
sury Of the city in addition TO the Of SOL 81 for the
eases warrant will be issnsd committing tho parties
prison until the fine that has been imposed Is paid
(Here again there were manifestations Of approval and
disApproval)
Judge ExxKr, who differed with the Court as TO the
amount of punishment, said
regret to say, that while fully With the gene
raj views Of this presented by the able opinion
of Judge Duer and agree TO AL the conclusions Of law
stated by him. not fortunate assent entirely
to the judgment which he has pronounced. will endea
yor therefore briefly to state in what respect dissent
In regard to the AMOUNT of fine imposed upon the delin
quent parties respectively both Aldermen and Assistant
Aldermen, have no objection to offer, Nor do find
fault with the Judgment of the Court to the particular
Of Alderman Sturtevant But II il be right and pro
per>s think it is that Alderman Sturtsvant should
be punished by imprisonment the author and pro-
moter of the resolut and preamble which condemned
the authority and impugned the motives of judge Of
this Court am at loss to perceive why the other mem
bers Of the Board OF Aldermen who approved or adopted
and voted for those resolutions and preamble should be
wholly exempted from punshment of the same charac-
ter 1t ia true that the Of Alderman Surtevant
marked by prominence than that of either of his
associates. Those resolutions and preamble were
deliberately prepared by him. and in concostng them
he would seem to have taxed the English language to
obtain terms offensive to the dignity and defiant
towards the authority of this Court gentleman could
well use. He was moreover member Of the legal pro-
esson and whatever his opinion may have been Of the
propriey legal effect Of the injunction he bound
to know that his duty lawyer and citizen forbade
was his hand that itead Of aiming the blow should
have been raised to stay such ndigny If offered to
this Court from any other quarter Therefore not only
days but If the judgment Of the Court had been that
such Imprisonment should be for the full term of thirty
days ii would have met with objection from But
while grant the suiciency Of the for punish
ing Alderman Sturtsvant with greater severity than his
associates cannot admit that there is just groaud for
great disparity Of punishment the Judgment Of
the Court has made between them The other Aldermen
who voted for those resolutions and preamble heard
them 1t would be bad compliment to the
intelligence of these gentlemen to that they did
whs s doing Tss ds
Aldermen of this city they CLAIM indulgence on
the ground Of ignorance of the true meaning and import
of those resolutions and preamble for they could not be
misunderstood by any of common capacity. In sub
sance they charge judge of this Court not only with
assuming preIogative and usurpng authority and uris
dcton without Dior of law Justification, that he
did with sinister unusti6able unworthy and interest
ed vews-in other words, with dishonest and corrupt
merely Of utterly dsregardng the order Of that Judge
but of rebukng him for making it. Nor discover
ANYTHING in the answer OF these Aldermen to the inter
BILE which offers any paation of their offence; for, al
though they dsclam the intention to offer any contempt
to the lawful authority Of this court they do not dsavow
the imputaton Of unworthy motives to the Judge or
that he had knowingly lent himself minister Of jus
tice to aid device Of the plaintiffs to defeat the grant by
ndirecton and virtually to decide the without trial.
With this view therefore, of the position Of the aldermen
regard to those resolutions and preamble Irepeat that
their offence merits punishment in my Judgment by i'm
prisonment, the same principle as that of Alderman
Surtevan though in some less degree. must not be
that the Of those at
pairing the standing woundng the personal feel
ings Of the individual judge against whom they d
rected. Certainly, OF the judges of this court
would feel affected by them, in either Of those lights
treat assault upon judicial authority and would
punish as such The judges as ministers of the law
but the servants Of the publ but they the de-
posares Of trust which it is most important to the
best interests of this community to preserve in its in
ustcthe respect Of the people for the law and those
by whom it is administered; and, painful it may be-
and as it certainly is to myself on the present
that public respect by severity of punishment, |
regard it as . duty in the performance OF which
the judges Of this court pound not to fslter
need hardly say that no public rumors to the eli
cal conduct Of any members Of the late Common Council
could possibly influence my course in this matter and
aude to such merely for tho purpose declaring
as now do that it no. for their existence aud the
apprehension Of its being supposed that willingness to
found its way into my judgment should much less
reluctance than do, under existing circumstances in
with severity Ihavs only 70 add therefore that if the
punishment in this case had rested solely with me,
should have felt 1t my duty to have imprisoned every
other Alderman besides Alderman Surtevant who voted
for those resolutions and preamble for ten days except
Alderman Wesley Smith, who alone has in degree
apologized for doing He has acknowledged the i'm
prety Of the act and in measure excused himself by
stating that he did without due consideration at the
time. For this partial atonement should have miti-
gated his imprisonment to five days Alderman Doherty
although he violated the injunction by voting for the
grant had the decency discretion to vote against the
offensive resolutions and preamble and for taking that
course, agree in opinion with my brethren that he
should not be imprisoned and in all other respects
with the judgment of the Court
Mr.. RICHARD BUSTED, counsel for Alderman Wesley
Smith, said that he did not wish to appeal from the judg
ment Of the Court.
Before the rising of the Court the counsel on each side
arranged the orders to be entered in the The
tce Of the appeal and the dertaking were put on
behalf Of the defendants and after desrtory
versaon the Court decided Ii the notice Of appeal
the filing of the undertaking would operate stay Of
proceedings
Mr. Field moved the Court to enter an order to that
effect.
If the other party issued out the warrant of commitment
pending the appeal they should do at their risk
Alderman Sturtevant will be- therefore at large and
the imposition Of the fines suspended until the decision
Of the Court of Appeals.
Where will the Broa iway Railroad end? We do not
the location of the terminus; but where will the
litigation, the njuncons, the decisions the speeches
and appeals termnateY We cannot answer where. But
wheni Mayhap sometime in 1883