The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1853-04-04

body having Inference their interest and
It Is therefore clear that the Common Council were
actngas political BODY upon subject purely govern
mental where Their svn discretion was paramount in
u the state and that BY an act repeating the pow
er conferred upon the Common Council or repeating or
altering the particular resolution ordinance Nv con-
clusion therefore s that court could legally inter
fere with the action Of the members Of the Coun
eli in casting their votes that Judge Campbell had no
jurisdiction grant the Injunction that the members of
the Common Council not bound to obey it, and that
their disobedence Of forms ground for the interior
Of this court Having thus disposed OF this part Of
the case the question then can TINS court inter
with the grantees in the execution OF this grantS
The solution Of that question appears TO me TO be in
volyed in what have already stated and my opinion Is
that the form Of the grant and It's terms ana condon
were within the discretion Of the Common Council.
The decisions many and uniform that the corpora
ton has right, as government to ay saiIs 10 ths
streets of the city. This being established one would
suppose there could be no question that legislative
body they have full power to exercise their own dscre
ton in performing an act admitted to be within their
power N.Y. brethren think that they can enter into the
question whether the power has been wisely exercised or
not think that is not for to decide that the law
has laced the decision o that whole matter with the
Common Council and not with the court There may
be many considerations mining the decision of the
Common Council that not proper subjects of inquiry
herethat think is the answer TO the whole argument
for this Injunction 1t said that the great difference
between the amount received from these grantees and
the amount offered by others, Is such to give the
courts right to interfere. do not think do not
think that that difference whether great little, gives
Jurisdiction, But l cannot omit saying that The
streets being private property of the corporahon the
corporation could not receive money for the of them
They could make contract in relation to them that
could not be repealed by themselves their SUCCESSORS
and the streets public property they could receive
for their not authorized by act Of the Lgs
ture By the charter and acts of the Legislature the
corporation authorized to license hackney coaches
and other vehicles carrying for hire and charge
for the license Of each such vehicle not exceeding
This is governmental power to enable the
thortes to have control those to whom
citizens entrust their persons and property. The
corporation have power authority TO receive
zed In granting licenses to omnbuses the Mayor acts
executive Office of the city Should he in the
ercse of his discretion such executive, determine
(Which he certainly has the right to do and which right
has been frequently exerced) to license but line of
omnibuses for street. and should charge that line the
maximum price for each vehicle, and another apple
should then offer three times the amount for a IL
to him, with obligation to put
many omnbuses as the person to whom the Mayer
Mayor accept that Offer and could the courts compel
him to do so It does not require much to show the alb
surdity of such position. cannot view this transac
ton OF the Common Council in any other light than
would view the act Of the Mayor in respect to such
nibuses Knight illustrate this by variety of other
amples, bat have said enough to explain the positions
upon which think this cause rests My conclusions
upon the whole matter first, that the injunction
out of the Superior Court without jurisdiction and
void second, that the Common Council has ample autho
ry to authorize the railway in question; and, third
ton of the Common Council in respect to the and
conditions on which, and the persons in whose favor that
authority should be exercised The injunction should
therefore be refused.