The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1853-01-24

Alderman Stnrtevant: Dut MS OBJECT Will be 70 In
fame the passions of you and your learned associate
who sits at your side, and who issued the Injunction
and as far as possible to cause different sentiment
than mere judgment to influence his feelings in the
advice be may give you. Iregret that such circum-
stances should appear in this case, for deem it to
be of the greatest possible importance, and
in which the judgment Of the Court should be I'M
swayed by private feeling or passion. know very
well that the learned Judge will endeavor to restrain
as far az possible the promptings of feeling of
sentiment against what may seem to be intentional
personal disrespect. say 'may SEEM for do not
think it was so intended; but have learned by ex-
perence that Judges, as well as aldermen, men.
/ find it said by one of the wisest Judges who
ever sat, and whose opinions are most frequent
ly cited, That exciting cases make bad pre-
cedents they inflame the passions seduce
the judgment, and silence the voice of reason !;
such cases make bad precedents and are cautiously
to be followed" | hope as little as possible that
that remark will be found applicable to this case,
and more than that am not disposed to say about
the resolution in question am not here TO discuss
that resolution nor its proprety and have only to
say II this Court has any jurisdiction in respect to
that resolution at ALL it arises under provision of the
statute which has no application 10 the motion which
am here called upon To argue; mean that provision
contained in section TO- 27S second Revised Statutes
having reference to the power Of the court TO punish
criminally persons guilty Of certain acts of criminal
contempt and misbehaviOr; but, however the Alder
men who passed that resolution are involved in an
application under that act, think shall be able to
tionable some persons may deem the form Of that
resolution, or may deem it, or have right TO ex
press an opinion upon tit does not come within
any OF the provisions authorisng the punishment OF
IT as criminal contempt. But shall say no more
about that resolution; ] conceive it is improperly
brought here, and for no other purpose than the
evil one TO which I have referred The learned
counsel then submitted the following points =
The injunction was not intended to restrain, does
not by its terms apply to- and does not purport to
restrain the Common Council from re-considcrinp
the resolution in question, and agreeing to pass or
TO reject the same. II rejects by implication the
proposal Of the complaint that such restraint shall
be imposed. This, 1t is presumed, was because the
grounds on which the plaintiffs sought to impose il
frivolous. All acts Of this nature are revocabe
at the pleasure of the Council Britton W. Corp Of
N. T., Oct. Term, lS44. Brick Church Va. Mayor
&c. Cow. 542; S. r. Cow. co., Neither the
charter, nor any known practice of the courts has
ever subjected to preliminary judicial restraint the
mere legislative action of the Common Council.
Consequently, 1t could not be supposed that the
court intended to exercise such power unless
express words TO that effect were found in the
injunction. or such construction Of its terms was
unavoidable Where legislative act Is within the
power and discretion oi q municipal council, i j.