The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1853-03-08

ture 10 say That you were 10 dissolve the Common
Council tomorrow, and order O election next
week, not one out Of two Of the men who come here
to ask for this bill would go to primary meeting,
and not one Of them would take office in the new
Common Council. And, if they think such an Office
beneath them how do they think to get other proper
to take it, The course for these gentlemen to take
is plain. The resolution Of the Common Council re-
specting the Broadway Railroad is o mere license
license revokable at the will Of the Common Coun
Gil.
There has been considerable discussion before the
courts whether the grant Of the railway be in form
a contract. We have maintained that it is, in form
as well az in fact, mere revocable license; it was
maintained, the other side, that il Is contract.
But will now show that, whether it be in form
contract or not the Common Council can revoke it
whenever they please, and if the rails be laid order
them to be taken up. The principle is this what
ever agreement the corporation may make, within
the scope Of their legislative political power they
may revoke at pleasure because their legislative au
thority is always paramount to their engagements.
There several on this point; is the Brick
Church case. There the corporation made cove
nant with the church that it should have certain
piece Of ground and permission to it acemetery
The corporation afterwards passed ordinance pro-
hibitng nterments and the question was whether the
ordinance revoked the covenant. Chief Justice Saw
age delivered Judgment in the case. He said Is Cow
an page 53a) -" The defendants are corporation,
and in that capacity are authorized by their charter,
and by law TO purchase and hold sell and convey real
estate In the same manner as individuals. They are
considered person in law within the scope Of their
corporate powers, and subject to the same liabi
ties and entitled to the remedies for the violation
OF contracts, as natural persons. They are also
clothed a. well by their charter as by subsequent
statutes Of the State with legislative powers and In
the capacity Of local legislature are particularly
charged with the OF tue public morals and the
public health within their own jurisdiction. In ascer
tanning their rights and liabilities a corporation
or as al individual, we must not consider their legis
Iative Character They had no power, as party,
to make a contract which should control or ernbar-
rass their legislative powersand duties. Their enact
ments in their Legislative capacity, are TO have the
same effect upon their individual acts as upon those
Of any other persons the public at large and no
other effect Another stronger case has since oc-
CURED, that Of Brtton against the Corporation. A
contract had been made with him for cleaning the
streets and the Common Council Afterwards rescind
ed it. He sued for damages. Chief Justice Nelson,
delivering the opinion of the court that the corpora
ton had the right TO revoke the contract says the
rights and privileges thus granted, 1.-THE charter and
statutes are altogether distinct and different from
these with which the defendants invested, under
the charter, as . municipal body. The latter class