New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1855-06-19
LAW INTELLIGENCE.
THE DECISION IN THE BRIGGS AND
MCCLELLAN TROUBLE.

=, TIA Of the application n.de on behalf II he Common
Council AIT. William MeKell~ Timothy webster an
Michael McCann for Contempt
DAILY, J.-By the proofs submitted in this case
appears that the Board of Aldermen, on the 5t1 o
February, 1855, passed resolution directing TIE
Chief of Police to report TO the Board how many
Americans. Irishmen, ScotchInen, Germans, French
men, Englishmen. and other nations that were IN the
Police Department. how mcny Of the present police
men had been in prison in this any other country
how many were nstu-alized; how many have been in
the county lees than Ave years and by whom all the
members of the present police were appointed. No
report having been received, the Board tho 18th
OF March following, passed resolution, appointed
Committee consisting of Aldermen Briggs, TUCKER, and
Hoffmire TO ascertain from the Chief of Police why
she had soong delayed his response. -Four days AFTER
the passage OF this resolution the Chief of Police made
his report and the Goth of April following another
resolution was passed. empowering this Committee TO
investigate " sll frauds and corruptions in every
branch ofthe Police partment and also the manner
Z" in which the same is and has been conducted" In
pursuance of this resolution several persons were
subpenaed to appear before the Committee ss wit
nesses, among whom were the respondents, Mcclellan
Webster ard McCann- The respondents appeared in
obedience 10 the subpoena the I'd Of May and were
sworn as Witnesses bIt two of them, Webster and
McCann refused to several ioeuog that
were put them and generally refused to answer any
questions The respondent Mccain denying the right
of the Committee TO interrogate him. The respondent
Mcclellan had been previously before the COMMITTEE,
and had answered several questions, but upon this
day he refused to certain questions propounded
10 him. The present application is made for an attach
ment against these witnesses, under an oct passed by
he | api ~ A
Z" enable the Common Council of the City OF New
York TO take testimony in matter referred for inves-
LEGATION and inquiry, or for such other remedy as
may be contormabe to- or would be proper, under the
act.
By this act the Clerk Of the Common Council or his
Deputy is authorized TO issue subpen8s TO compel the
attendance of witnesses before Committee OF either
Board of the Common Council; the Chairman OF such
Committee il empowered to administer oaths 10 the
with esses appearing before the COMMITTEE and may
require them to testify in respect to any matter pend
ing before it, and upon proof OF the service OF sub
pena and of the failure OF the witness to attend or IT
the witness attends upon proof OF his refusal to take
the oath to any proper question, 1t Is maize
the duty of Judge OF this Court or OF justice OF the
Supreme Court to require the witness 10 snow cause
why he should b. attached and to adopt other and
further measures TO compel the witness TO appear and
testify and to punish dlsobedience, as tue matter
were legally pending IN Court.
The cause shown in the present case amounts to
denial of the right of the Board OF Alderman to lnstl
tuie any such investigation az that embraced IN the
resolutions referred TO; an objection which makes II
necessary that | should determine whether the Board
of Aldermen in directing this inquiry have or have not
transcribed their powers.
By the Charter granted by Gov. Dongan in 1853,
and BY the more extended Charter granted by Gov.
Montgomery in 1890, the Common Council were
clothed with Legislative powers as respects the Munci
pal Government of the City OF very comprehensive
character The body which then composed the Com
mon Cogncil, the major part OF the members COM
wal TORI, haarf TnIf from
to time TO make, ordain and establish such laws,
statutes or ordinances might seem to them useful or
necessary for the good rule or government OF the CITY,
and though under the various acts OF the Legislature
amendatory of those Charters changes aud altefa-
tons have been made in respect to many matters OF
which the Common Council before had exclusive cog
nizance the general power OF passing laws aud ordi.
nances within the limitations aud restrictions imposed
by these subsequent statutes Charters remains.
The two bodies therefore which now constitute the
Common Council founded as they are upon the prn-
cipe of popular representation, resemble In the object
fox which they created the nature Of the power conferred
and of the duties imposed upon them the mutual check which
upon each other and the order and OF their
Municipal Corporation defined be the investing Of
the people Of place with the local s9yernmeni thereof
the branches of the Corporation to whom are ntrusted the
Discretionary power of making laws the Board Of Aldermen
and the Board of Councmen should be regarded and treated as
legislative bodies
The grant to municipal corporation Of power to legse so
comprhens and general az that granted 20 the common
Council the CITY New York would seem 10 carry with II
II thew sre 10 enact laws or pass ordinances the
City they have the rsh IN the prelim-
ussgs and modes procedure which experience has pointed
be useful convenient or ndpensao 20 enable eslss
tive bodies to act sdvsed and conduct tne WIN
order and method and IL will assist TO more clear under
standing the powers which either Board OF the Common
Council necessarily possess consequence OF the "a
hoy conferred them make laws and ior
the government Of city shall consider very oey me %
bodies have the force Of law and by which their proceed
nss regulated and governed
u,aio
m which our gsatye system has been derived each OF the
two houses Parliament has from ITS earliest known re-
Hats 40 that is each house has gradually denned rs
ow powers and determined for itse the mode IN which
would uroceed 10 various OF legislation or while de-
beaing up connected with its own orsanLaton US
power rights privileges, except where certain course
cedue bs been applicable 10 both houses by the pas
SAGE OF general statute When in either house acesn mode
OF for The rule and Of that house every
therefore Of similar character and thus IN progress OF TINE
Of pecedens have been adopted forming together
regular system of procedure less different IN eaca house
which in Eng known BY the general ppeaton OF raIa
mentAry Law Ter Ct enueudo parliament ana winch when
once established is as binding upon the house adopting H. as a
law by Parliament binding upon the nstion Uos
Regina Patty ct al SAX, Ss, LORD Ray IO'' D's
Election Cases, s., 70, note
In this country the right Of either House Of the Legislature 70
e.abh and regulate the which Il will proceed Is
Cnti,nona sht az least provision decaaioy the right
exists in the Constitution Of this state and IN nit
Of the United States distinguishing the separse
powers the Houses Of Congress and "nere no C9nt
ona Limitation or restriction exists Il Is i2r snsr %
the two bodies composing the Legislature 20 90 10 ne
capacity whatever be essential TO enable them 70
The rather the
law having their foundation conyenen and necessity have
uniformly received and acted upon In this country aud the
binding authority of that law legislative bodies so Tar as Il
l. applicable form Of government has been universally
acinowedged In eed otherwise the Of egsa-
tive procedure instead Of being Is well known or capable
being sscertained would BE- Involved IN the greatest uhce
tsnty and endless confusion As 10 court Of justice
rue when settled sdudged IL binding therefore
upon the court and upon al nfeno tounas na tne
law NAV insad Of being LETT 70 the uncertain deter
nnaon every Judge In body what mas once
decided upon the proper course OF y adhered
10 thereafter oil similar This - 10 BE- understood now
ever with qualification for has been me usage 70 Ansr
during il series Of rules usually the rules OF INC pro
cedng with such changes or alterations a arc 40
de.rsbe AZ well as to adopt during he rule which
H. - "a. IN