New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1855-06-22
IMPORTANT QUESTION.
Is THE BROOKLYN CITY COURT LEGALLY
ORGANIZED

grounds IN tho case a. the People agt ESekei Bad
win, indicted for selling liquor to be drunk on the
piemists, contrary to the State law
The defendan. pleaded to the jurisdiction, and
The Hon. j. A. Lori opened the case for the de-
fense He referred in the first instance TO the City
Court act of ls4s establishing this Court, and des-
cribed it, organization under that statute, which was
in compliance with the Constitution, tert g. sec. lsy
If Uniform Organization and Jurisdiction, as toe
Constitution required, with that the Oswego Court
which was established by clap. 134 OF the lows, p:
leo of the laws Of 1919 was the pattern or model
Court coming into effect as il did, before that estab-
lthing the City Court of Brooklyn; add bong the
frt ns iued after the passage of the Constitu-
ton, which gave to the Legislature the right and
power to regulate the organization Of the : City
" COurts' throughout the State.
The organization was the machinery by which JUS
tce 10 to be administered, and the machinery OF this
Court WIS entirely different from that OF the Osyego
Court which composed of Recorder aud two AL
dermen.
The Constitution gave no power to the Legislature
TO constitute Supervisors Judicial Officers, and in do
ing 80 The consolidation act or present charter OF the
City of Brooklyn was unconstitutional 1t made tho
Supervisors elected County Oicers Judges OF the
City Court Of Brooklyn, and enabled them as such to
pass upon questions involving the liberty and property
Of cirens. BY tie rule the Legislature might
appoint hem Judges of the Court Of Oyer aud Term
iLer and 70 empower them to hang man.
They also claimed to exercise this power to the OK
clusion Of the Aldermen of the City, whose powers as
they claimed ceased on the Isl Dul he con-
tended that the powers Of the Aldermen were still ex-
ktent.
The Constitution declared that the Legislature shall
make provision for the removal OF all officers except
judicial ones, and the County Courts cun remove all
Officers of inferior Courss. The County Court could
not remove these gentlemen, who claimed to sit as
Judges distinct from their office rs Supervisors. IL
they were removed Supervisors, would they be re-
moved from their Office as Judges Of that Court lie
submitted that their very existence Judges of this
Court was based upon their position as Supervisors,
upon whom the Legislature had conferred the power
Of Judges-two powers which the Constitution did not
admit TO exist in the same body. They existed by the
appointment of the legislature They were not
elected as the Constitution required. Which of the
Supervisors were TO cit Was it to be by their own
volition by the invitation and favor of the City
Judee7 Upon all these grounds he submitted that
Il ere was not now any Court OF competent criminal
jurisdiction now in session.
The District.Auo,ney replied. He and the learned
counsel on the other side had addressed them as
Court. They saw Court papably before them.
But was often the that things did not exist in
law which did in fact If he entertained the opinions
of the defendants and was arraigned before three
private gentlemen of the City of Brooklyn, he would
r. ist with such arms as he clothed with by law
and nature.
The first point taker by the defendants Counsel was
that the act not in conformity with the Oswego
act In the first place he commended that the uni
fomiiy was TO be settled by the Legislature. The only
difference in names, tribe which the Constitution
never entertained. They were authorized TO modify
the uniformity by constituting one, two, or three
Judges. Again, who should say that the Oswego act
wac to he the pattern. The last act passed to be
considered as the expression of their will, and
it might es well he argued that the Court OF
Oswego should conform to this: But he
conteiided that they were uniform There was no
difference whatever. There WAS one Judge two
Afsis,ant-Judges elected, Clerk, a Seal, Jury.
Absolute identity wat not required The resemblance
was carried still further. The gentlemen were elected
from the Wards. as were the Aldermen. and they
were elected for Legislative duties, as were the Alder.
men But was not necessary to show their positions
were identical, and it was only - their position
as Judges that their position could be shown to be
different He supposed the principle was the same as
that which the Court of Oyer and fermDer was con-
stituied that the Layman should, and the La Judge
| be in the determination of one
INVOLVES the liberties of their fellow-cizens, and
their knowledge and common-sense. As to the ques-
ton Of ousling the Aldermen that did not ARISE As
to their not being Judicial officers the Charter of the
consolidated cities made them se-giying to them the
same power as the Aldermen they had in the city of
BROOKLYN. They had as much right rTtufe otIcis 20
sit az Judges of that Court they had to sit in the
Poad of Supervisors. Hhese gentlemen being elected
for those purposes, there to do their duty and
| tloy Tho prosecution) had all tho right of going
| on. and insisted that they should go on.
Much had always been said about " the genius of our
! institutions" But where was the genius to be
| found When gentlemen talked of that they were
likely to lead suiors into quaRmes and courts into
Disasters Objections, too, on the ground OF constltu
tonality as plenty as baekberrles; but the
Courts formerly were entertained with great caution,
| great deiberat0n and great clrcumspecton lie In
yoked now the same federation, the same circum-
erection and the same Difference 10 the peoples WILL
| MIR. Hamilton closed the argument Experience
had shown day after day and year after year that
Legislatures did exceed the power given them, and
IL cir acts were annued by not only State Courts but
tie highest Courts. The Federal Legislatures were
not tree from these bunders, as was shown by tie de-
csions of the Supreme Court OF the United States.
He agreed with the District Attorney that grave de-
liberation ard circumspecon were called for, and he
was confident the Court, though their decision should
throw them from their seats would exercise ana abide
by the MAXIM Fiat justitia radt cGum. The gentle
| man had said they addressed it as Court. Must
| they not address it as Court Did Their call
ing it Court make it so He was sure
the Disrict-Attorney did not mean all he
lie had said TO using the strsng arms nature had
| given bin. There is said he) blood enough In this
| case This Liquor Law, Sir, will be the cause OF
bloo6shed enough. OF that am well sure. But let
not us suggest i-let not US invite it. Let all as dis
erect men band together to have our rights, whatever
thew may be- determined by The legal tribunals OF our
country He then proceeded seyiGtem to reply to the
| District Attorneys positions-following Mr.. Lofts
Arguments and maintaining that the oswego ACT
| IA the one dassed first after the Constitution
was 10 be taken Is the standard and that
| the ore passed afterward and not in uniform
"ity" with il was unconstitutional, since if 1t were
otherwise nnumerable inconvenience would arise or
The article in the Constitution would be dead letter.
He conended at length that there was great want OF
uniformity, since the great principle was that the
Courts should be composed Of the same elements not
| tie sumo number of men; and even In this respect
there in point of fact difference The subsutu,
ton Of the Supervisors for the Aldermen was total
departure from the original or model act.
Mr. Lott in conclusion, remarked that when Court
was constituted according to the Constitution any act
wleh Dtrtred with or destroyed 1t was unconstitu-
| tiopal.
Judge Culver said that the mater suggested to them
BY Counsel required some investigation and consider
alton 1t was of some Importance, and after confer
ring, they (the Court would give their decision on
Saturday morning. Tomorrow they would probably