The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1855-06-19

"
speculation he is not apt to stand back for such
trides as bowie knives, hemp collars, and tar
and feathers. Besides, Notwithstanding al the
pretences of the administration to the contrary,
it is very likely that Governor Reeder returns
under strong assurances Of protection from the
Kitchen Cabinet. Then, again, it will not do
for Mr.. Pierce to fall out with the Pennsylva
democracy. Forney might desert him. Let
the Governor return.
The POLICE C0MMITTEE-JUDGE Days DE-
OIsIoN.-We give, in our impression to-day, the
decision given yesterday by Judge DAILY in the
Common Pleas in the matter of Alderman
Briggs against Mackellar, Webster and McCann
The defendants, it will be recollected, are con-
nected with the police department. They re-
fused to answer questions put to them by Al
derman Briggs as chairman of an investigating
committee of the Common Council; whereupon
the Alderman applied to the Common Pleas
Court for an attachment SO that defendants, If
hereafter proceeded against as in cases of
contempt. Judge DAly's decision is lengthy
and elaborate; but he is of opinion that the
Board of Aldermen had the right to constitute
such committee, and that the witnesses are
bound to answer questions relevant to the m M
agement Of the police department. Judge
DAILY further said that an order would be made
that the witnesses appear at the next meeting
Of the committee, to be examined on any matters
embraced in the resolution of March fifteenth.
This is the decision in effect, and it seems to
be founded upon the belief entertained by Judge
DAILY that the city charter gives the Common
Council supervision over the police dep artment.
But it seems as yet an open question whether
or not committee of any Legislative body have
the right to compel attendance and answers Of
witnesses. The Board Of Aldermen finds itself
now in the same position Of that Of the State
Legislatures and Congress. AL these bodies
are in the habit Of constituting committees with
power to send for persons and papers," but
there is no statute law compelling the persons
SO sent for to answer. Even Parliamentary
law, which Judge Daily quotes literally, makes
distinction in regard to the questions which
witness is bound to answer; and it must
be remembered that Parliamentary law is not
binding out Of the House which legalizes
30 much of It as is required by its rules. It
has been for many years disputed question
whether any legislative body had the right to
imprison witness for contumaoy, aud the de-
cision under consideration at the present time
does not settle the matter. Six or seven years
ago the members of the United States Senate
read an important treaty in the New YORK
HERALD before 1t had been officially promulgat-
ed. The Senate summoned one Of the He
RAIDS Washington correspondents. He refused
to answer any questions, and was remanded
into the custody Of the Sergeant at Arms,
where he remained until the Senate adj ourned
The power of that body then ceased, and he
was released from an imprisonment which was
rather pleasant than otherwise.
Now, the United States Senate is the highest
legislative body in the republic, and it has
some executive powers. 1t is quite certain that
the power of the Board Of Aldermen does not
exceed that Of the Senate. It is the opinion of
several eminent jurists that the Senate exceeded
its power in the matter Of our correspondent,
and the time has cone, we think, when the
question ought to be settled by the ighest judi
cisl power in the State The defendants in the po-
lice case ought to carry it up and contest IL until
such decision is obtained. The worst thing
that can happen to them is q short imprieon
ment in cool place, and they can be cheered
in the meanwhile by the regular receipt Of their
salaries and the consciousness that they are