The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1853-02-07
~oRTaNT LEGAL PROCEEDINGS.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
THE BROADWAY RAILROAD.
.~~~>~>>>~~~>>>~~~~~
The Common Council IN Contempt.
Attachment Against Alderman Sturtevant.
->.~~~~~~~~>~~~~e->~>-
ne Argument Of 8x-Chief Justice
Bronson.
Attachment Against Alder


~>>~~s>~S~-1~>-~>>~>~~cS~
OPINIONS OF JUDGES DUn AND BoswORTH.
aupersor Court-Gcneral Term.
DeSsre Judges Duer, Campbell Bosworth and Emmet
rssv against the Mayor, Aldermen and Comnsossalty
sf The City of NsU York.
SPEECH OF Ex-CHIEF JUSTICE BRONSON
ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFFS.
Ex-Chief Justice Bronson said-f your honors
please, in the Of the reply shall have occa
Sen 70 notice what has been said by the other side
II relation to the powers OF municipal corporations
70 pass bylaws but not at this stage Of the discus
SION. When the petition was presented to the Com
mon Council by half dozen citizens for the PRIV
oge Of laying railroad in Broadway, it was thought
by every one to be very extrayagant project wncn
was not likely to succeed. But it turned out, IN the
course of events that it became very serious affair
II was soon found that the committee 10 whom the
subject was referred by the Board OF Aldermen were
vobe TO the project and 70 onf Se adapted Then
seue of the property owners upon Broadway, as
means of indemnifying themselves against the injury
vhich the road would do to their property, united
With others in asking the Common Council to make
Tie grant to them, if it was made to anybody. With
eat going into particulars 1t is enough to say, that
instead Of the terms proposed by the committee OF
8 charge of five cents upon travellers, offers were
made to the Common Council to carry passengers
Tor three cents, and pay q million OF dollars
into the city treasury for the privilege That
win be established whenever we come to the proofs
The offers which were so advantageous to the city
and to travellers were all rejected and the grant was
made to the original applicants and their associates,
lsr merely nominal sum, with acharge upon travel
lers of five cents. Without making any charge,
ate what is matter of history that the public had
become very much alarmed about the integrity of the
Common Council az it existed the last year; and
when they saw such grant made, believe there
was but one common sentiment in the whole commu-
nifty in relation to the character OF the act Men of
Ian tbnttt ho.
ruption and that none of their rights were secure
where such an act could be done. My clients re-
solved to appeal to the laws and the judiciary for
protection They prepared their complaint, and ap-
piled TO the Judge, alleging various grounds of obec-
tion TO the grant, and obtained an injunction. The
Mayor had, in the mean time, returned the
resolution with his objection; and it was
when the Common Council threatened to go on,
notwithstanding the Veto that my clients filed the
complaint. The Injunction order was served upon
The Mayor, the head officer OF the Corporation, upon
whom process should be served and also upon each
member Of the Common Council With this docu-
ment in their pockets they met to reconsider the
Mayors message. In the Board of Aldermen they
net only passed the resolution in defiance of the in
IN effect, above the laws, and beyond the process o.
the court They not only defed the Court and its
process, but they assailed the Judge, impeached hi
motives, and administered public rebuke Thi
has made fearful ISSUE We have brought here thu
recital and resolutions which the Aldermen passed
when they made up their minds to contemn the pro
cess of the Court. We have done so, because it wa
hut Justice to them that the Court should know or
what ground they proceeded. One of the opposing
counsel said that it was document that should moi
be brought here because it calculated to inamt
the passions of men. | entirely concur with the
Sounsel that it is calculated to iname the passions
al ightminded men. But it is the act of the Alder
men and not ours; and they should not complain that
We have brought into court their apology for insult
ing the judiciary.
The counsel upon the other side said he trusted the
Court would make it apparent, by its Judgment that
The document had had no influence upon their minds.
The plain English Of that is that because the Court
for il you do not, they will say that your passions
have been excited, and they will impute to you as
they have already to the learned Judge who granted
the injunction, improper motives trust the Court
viii not give way to any such weakness. We are
here TO see whether these men are above the laws
and defy the courts and their process with im
Punity. Many men here and elsewhere are looking
anxiously for the result For myself, do not doub
that the court will uphold the laws and the admins
hon Of justice with firm hand.
1 will now, without further remark, proceed Il
consider the objections which have been urget
against eur proceedings, the excuses which Sc
up here why these men should not be punished
This is proceeding to enforce civil remedies, ant
The punishment, If they have acted improperly, il
fine or Imprisonment, or b0th-a fine sufficient to in
demny the plaintiffs and satisfy their costs and ex
penses; the Imprisonment has regard to the injury
which has been done to the whole community. Be
yond what may be done on this proceeding, the
offence is indictable at the common law as well as
by the express terms of the statute.
Now we will see what apology these men have
Tor what they have done will remark here tna'
bold defiance, which the Aldermen stood wher
they disobeyed the injunction and have been CASTING
about to find some little flaw or qulrk upon which
these men may escape; but / believe they will fine
no such loop hole.
The first objection is that the injunction is inoper
alive against the members OF the Corporation, be
cause thew are not parties to the suit. To that
hat 10 Aldermen ut-A Ilprmp
are parties to the suit. The suit is against and TIL
injunction was addressed to, the whole Corporation
10 "the Mayor, Aldermen, and Commonalty of tn
City OF New York; and upon the axiom that tn
whole includes all the parts, the injunction reached
every branch and official member Of the Corporation
They are not parties 30 the suit as individuals il !
hue but they are parties in their official capacity a.
Aldermen. When you wish to restrain corpora
ton, the Injunction is always directed to the corpo
rate body. / never found precedent for aay Other
mode of proceeding. When you want an answer
upon oath-to prove the conscience for the purpose
0getting a dscovery-you sometimes go beyond tue
corporate body, and make the directors other
agents of the corporation parties to the suit. But
never did hear that an injunction to restrain the
action of a corporation directed TO any one else
than the corporate body itself. Nor do suppose it
can be 30 directed If the corporation disregards
the Injunction it does it by the acts Of its officers
who are answerabe as individuals for the miscon-
duct. When Sheriff is restrained from selling
property upon execution, or any other officer is
restrained from doing act, it is not the officer but
the INDIVIDUAL VINO Is pIsned Or uisoDedlence. Inc
rule must necessarily be II is of no consequence
that the resolution WAS passed by the Common Coun
ell which does not include the whole corporation II
II enough that the members Of the Common
Council were included in the order. I believe i
was never yet made objection to injunc
ton, or a ground for disobeying it, that the com
mand was addressed to more persons than did act
II is settled by authority that were right in di
recting the injunction to the corporation by name
and that those members of the Common Council VIII
acted in defiance Of the order may be attached fol
the contempt. The cases are cited upon our points
and / will mention only few of them. Here the
counsel cited and commented on the cases.1 RI an
Injunction TO restrain the action OF corporation IL
mot an idle thing the rule must be that the officers
Of the body who disregard the process must answer
a. individuals for their misconduct.
The next objection to this il, that the injunction
was imperative upon the members of the Corpora