New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1853-03-02

u = &c
sleeeo 20 constitute violation Of the Injunction
dDe in coed h and ia the bouest belief thru they old
rot violate it. then according 20 all the aud upon
pTDeipr. here shoUd BE- neither the nor 10 3roansnt
for The purpose OF punishmen If actual loss has re-
ssitsd 70 the relations There should be nether tine
inponHfI for the very reason that the act OF ds1 adj
enos was not wifU but done god fsta and with
Out an int non % dlsOtey. Ifthis b 90 ten il wogd
sem 20 be equally incoDiroyeisbe thai, Il, unsx-
psiDd they tend TO show that the dobe6ence was debbe
rate End designed aid thai the done usdstood
az beng e1pefsy PfohibiLsd By H. such consideration
cnnDtbe overlooked, II any final ADJUDICATION based on
cTrc principles and Justly adapted TO the Of the
case sbould not have deemed 1t Necessary have
discussed this question freely it not OF
tAe gkfs: importance that IN every that nav arse
tics prooeedIrgs should be conducted throughout
cPe app csbe equally To the of all parties offending
nth correct UNDERSTANDING Q. the meaning and object
O. e. statute uIder Which they are Prosecuted, and that
felt lIcuH bent from the confidence with which eminent
coLnti svo~ed the yeTs the7 presented 10 dstus the
accuracy o. my own previous conVicons and 70 consider
upOD tut examination whether they well founded.
On mch examination, cannot resist the oOaeahon that
the hfh nterrogaoTy pertinent and proper and sha
| the duty of the defendant to answer it.
The inteTrogstories were then read.
The following Is tue amended answer Of the Alder.
men, and read as the answer AID sturtevant to the
lpterrogatories previously declined to be answered
The atswer Of -, 10 the fifth intsrosatory flied
| tgsiBst him N this proceeding.
IgH, To the 9Th ntenogaOry he saith that he did a.
sreh meeting and Immediately after the adoption of sad
resolution. with majority Of the members of the
Board Of Aldermen in favor Of the preamble and resOu-
tors of"beh copy marked IS annexed TO the iDtero-
satCres.
That doing 20. his oly motive was to vindicate the
dignity and the shis Of the Common Council Of the
Cry Of Newfok, end o. their whoe constituency; which
dignity end rights be believed 20 De unJusy AMI illegally
stsalsd by the injunction and complaint which
founded ola portion Of whose he mad heard through
public iumOT. That the motives Of Of the
Common Council were sspersed, and their ssfrcspect
wounded by the charges me said complaint and that the
e1cunsnces under winch the injunction obtained and
served highly irritatint.
Tberesoution he'd been pending nearly two months the
chambers Of the Common Council and the Mayors aud
other pubic Offices Of the city and in the building
~ fFle Io-ror baAh
ample opportunity 10 apply or the INJUNCTION before, and
at the time men sppl ed for, there time
enough for notice the Corporation and hearing them be-
fore granting the injunction that the term OF the members
the Board OF Assistant Aldermen, part of the Common
Council 10 expire the Sd January 1883 and when
the respondent heard that an injunction had been granted
without notice, and continued b. yond the time when the
Common Council expire, and requiring the defend.
ants If IN mockerp TO show cause against ~ on TIC 9TH
OF January, he believed that it device Of the plaintiffs
TO defeat the resolution by indrecton and uay de-
eide the without .risl.
This respondent believed he still believes that the
Court had 10 jurisdiction TO grant the INJUNCTION and be,
heyng that II IS the night OF every citizen to question eod
resist the exercise Of Illegal power. be did under the n1
OF all these considerations vote for the said resolutions
but ~ dong So ne dd by no me ans intend TO quest on the
exercise Of any rghul power offer any resistance TO
the law, any contempt the lawful authority OF the
Court Sad preamble and resolutions were, therefore,
adopted by Gad Board
Mr. Bronson comp lained thu. several Of the Alder.
men have not yet answered and said If private ind-
yidual had thus treated order Of the Court he would
have been punished perhaps In the of 80 Alder
men there may be difference 1t was stated by the
Court that counsel had promised they would put in the
remainder Of the amended answer in the of the
day.
Mr. Van Buren, said he did not know that they could
require any further answer from Aid Sturevsnt. and
lie then read affidavit from Mr. Hilton, one of the
attornies for rlsintf, who present when the in.
Junction papers were served upon Aid g.
Some remarks 10 the rule Of damage Of
A The said tIaro ka
IN relation to that. Mr.. OConor thought there could
only be reference 10 regard to costs. Mr. Van Buren
replied that the reference could inquire all the
expense plaintiffs have been at in this and the Supreme
Court and injury to them by not getting the grant bu.
the Court decided that the grant void then per
| hhps they could only obtain taxed costs But the
parties should also be punished for contempt Of the
order Of the Court. lie referred to the resolutions Of
ieredby Aid Smrtevant, and adopted by majority Of
z tho Board of Aldermen which exhibited not onlya
! sross insult to Judge Campbell. who allowed the ia
junction, but to every member of the Court and it ia
Tor the Court to say what shall he the measure of pun
ishmtnt These gentlemen, who arc implicated, SOME
OF whom Magistrates OF the City and Judges OF our
Courts and should have set O better example, have
knowingly and wiully been guilty Of this contempt
! Of the Court and should be punished accordingly.
Judge Duer inquired a TO what the Assistant Alder
men sud and it replied they said they voted un-
/ der advice OF counsel that they were correct
! MIR OCcnor remarked that the Assistant Aldermen
voted on the resolutions with advice that their voting
on them would not be violation Of the order of the
Court and that the Injunction did restrain them
from merely voting the resolution as to the grant
Mr. Field said the Aldermen acted in good faith on
the view they took in maintaining the rights and dign
~ of that body and supposed that they right
they erred in their judgment Of the law public Off
ceis il VIA only an error to which every member Of
the Bar was subject and that the Court therefore
ought not 10 punish them beyond indennitying the
oprose party for any loss they might sustain In re-
card 20 tic remark that the Aldermen Magistrates
and Judges Of the Criminal Courts in this City, and
holding public Offices II has been held by OF the
Chief Justices of this State that Judge ought NOT to
be held responsible for his errors. No imputa,ions
were made or disTespect intended by them on the
lcorned Judge who granted the injunction. There had
been for considerable time before, great agitation on
DE subject of this Railroad and they felt deeply as to
charges made against them aud in this State OF excite
mont they considered the Injunction an attack upon
their Legislative rights and psssed those resolutions
they thought they had right 10 do.
Mir Bronson in reply, ssii Mr. Field had more cour-
tge than any counsel he had ever heard, because he
ssid several times thai dsrespect was intended TO
Judge Campbell; but when the Court reads the reso
luton the thing will be found 50 papsoe that thSy in
tended TO insult Judge Campbell, aud every other
member OF this Court ma, nothing more need TO be
isd about H. lie bought the way TO vindica.e their
dignity and the right. OF the Common Council would
have been to this Court and ask to have the
huneon set aside but il seems they think the way
10 yindcste the rights of the Aldermen is 70 contemn
the orders of This Court and insult its members. |
would ask your HONOR seid Judge b, what viii this
land oflaw and order 10 gres; men allowed
TO stand up and say your orders are Illegal and they
won't obey themi Whenever that comes 10 pass, we
viii then other pieces have one law for the great
man and another for the poor man. In regard to some
ofthe members going cut OF Office that could make no
difference the Cooperation does not cease and instsn-
ces are frequent in the case Of extending he Battery