The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1857-06-18


sansve and Affirmative provisisns Of the constitution
completely exhauspg The subject OF such provisions AND
50, By implication, excluding Legislation within the same
H. III In fact claimed by the paintfs that the act In
repunant 70 The constitution upon one or toe
other Of the grounds last stated In one or both Of two par
l. That he Offices created by the act and filed by
the under the Governors appointment are such
by ele1ton Of local constituency or by appointment Of
some local authority that Is to say, that these Com MT
town or village officers, whose Office In existence
when the contribution was adopted. Cons Act l. sec
= That the acs eIects new and anomalous district
unknown TO the constution." and that the constitution
by necessary implication the Legislature to erect
for any permanent purpose Of civil government dr.
trics unknow to the Fundamental la 10 other words
that there Commissioners of the Metropolitan Police
trct either county city, wn or village officers
other in territorial or functional authority are officers
OF tcope and vigor of authority both to- rtora aod
functional not named IN tho constitution ptr Consistent
herewith. 1t obvious that these two objections cannot
stand tgeber and their conc OF itself suggests the an
ever both, sz -rhst these Commissioners are W nu
limited territory, oepoaries Of oecai function of
state power In ts nature coerminous with the State
exercise dsfrbuve and capable Of delegation the of
the legislature
The fourth point was that
The Commissioners Of Metropolitan Police District
ere not either county, city, village officers Their
rctons extend the whole district embracing four
countess which contain two cities and many towns; ami il
he substantive of extending police system
district Of the STATE limited by county CITY or town
lines, be valid the Oomm-si ners, ~bose authority Is CO
cNtcnfive
signaon Of office less extensive thsn the district.
H. Bot if the district when their administration OF
the police authority Of he State extended were coterm
with county, city, town village, they would not
be county, city, town or village officers.
az The nature of the function Of the administration Of
the police power Of the State Is sovereign and cenats
exercise must reach every part Of the ates ramica
tons must severaly circumscribed distrct may
be administered within those circumscribed districts by
State officers entrusted 70 local officers. Whether
the officers designated for this duty state oeicers
county or city officers will d. pend not on the .phere but
the OF heir official authority. lin the matter Of
whiting barb C. r, bia: Citations undor second sub
Of 1st point (suyra) and In supplement (infra)
(B That the aocusomed, even univ rsl policy, OF
the State had been to acreoit and empower by statute
connty, city, town village officers to perform carain
duties classes Of duties clearly would disable the
State from adopting, ia dis re,inn, and different
policy Of commits oDng Its officers to discharge those
duties This would be TO make the local officers the
ters Of the Legislature in this regard ont Of the fact that
the Legislature had always been the master of the local
officers.
H.-But II these Commissioners be county, city, town
village s1cers within tho meaning tho constitution,
they "ocers whose office been by Ia ;"
since tho adoption Of the constitution and their appoint
ment is open to legislative control The act of 1863 rat
Introduced, In and function, the Office or "Commis
sioner CT Police" and first established department capa.
bic Of control by Beard OF Commissioners claws 1874,
ch 3lb; Laws 1916, ch 3o2 Laws 1853, ch 22s; Cons
He thousht perfectly clear tina. unless the State gov
errmen kept out Of the counties BY such boundaries
tho general government Ia kept out Of the States 1t had
perfect authority the matter He said that the fact
that the state had been In the habit OF delegatng certain
afterwards to appoint its officers perform the like
duties. His fifth point <as-
finh Pont-The act in question in It's plan and effect Of
establishing metropolitan Police District and proe ling
r the government thereof Is in no respect repugnant 70
the constitution.
me act does not destroy or obIterate any OF the d.
Visions OF the State recognized by the constitution In
fact existing ut the time OF its adoption docs Ia tho
remotest degree touch their integrity or aes. their har
Tonious relation 10 the State other in the frame
and scheme Of government established and 10 be main
taped under the constitution.
civil government or for any governmental purpose any
civil division OF the State. civil division Of a State
for the purposes Of government EXISTS only when wtnn
It's limits has lnzaon and administration N sepA-
rate, however subordinate and SPECIAL, government
III The act in intent and effect purpose and plan,
exercise OF the police power Of the state by deegaou
from tho State government to a Board of Commissioner.
tho population within certain existing civil divisions
Of the State, whose local governments and mags aces
made TO operate, in their several functions in
cuuon Of the legislative win.
". Tho whole control Of the civil divisions Of the
atiop aud administration shall reach and how shall be
conduit s In the nature OF the case with the central
clamed be found in the constitution and IL there be
any touching the exercise Of by the State through
out its borders, they must be pointed ont.
the subject hand that whatever provisions In
ton Of local rights powers to and in the civil divions
the the constitution contains could not avoided
defeated by legislative changes either in the de.gu4
ton boands Of these civil divisions In the arrange
ment Of their magistrates and the powers Of their govern
mcnts. The substaa remaining the contribution would
apply, Notwithstanding the change Of name and form
Sixth Point-Tbe question Is Of tho po~cr Of the Isgs
lsure IN the police Of the state and Of all the par the
State not Of the wisdom policy OF thus that
Of such power. Brown vs. Maryland, IL Wheat, 49e.
Il must be admitted that the Il gis could repeal
All the police powers by law vested In any local au
horities
q must be admitted that the Legislature could super
add u an cxsng system OF police powers lodged In local
authorities, general system regulated by State msgis
uates and is force made up by State enrolment.
3. IL must be admitted that this additional STATE system
be an II "a IA tta
legislature may determine, or, N applied 10 The whole
state, may be accommodated In it, FORM 18th and
or the s,ste
g. II mus, be al nted that existing local police poe
such repeal may be made Alter simultaneously WITH
the establishment OF a STATE syrtem.
II. The principle Of the objection OF rcpugnancy the
constitution made 10 this act goes 10 the GENIAL OF the
essential ,overeigniy OF the state government and exa
the local authorities and the inferior civil divisions Of the
STATIC into supremacy over II
IT, on any occasion or in any necessity the STATE can
exercise, Of liz central vigor and by liz original
administration tho police set In motion by this &C,
10 any extent, form cfecf II could do In OF
famine ptscpce, Invasion in3urrecton, local or gene
raj tho Legislature the judiciary are vested WITH the
payer and with the discfetoD OF its exerciye.
q Jfths police power or the State IL abrogssed BY an
implication arising out Of the recognition o the civil d.
vsions OF the State In the constitution and oppressed
purpose 70 maintain special an subordinate local admla
istratiou within them, s impossible To the whole
body oflegklaiivc power from the fate. No egs
lsive measure does operate over within
moro Of the civil divisions Of The State and there b
no legislative OF sdmi abstraction but what bv the
authority OF the STATE might be sded 70 local officers
fer Its conduct.
90 The reasoning which this objection rests makes
the parts OF the sae greater than the whole dsprovcs
tic rule by tho oxccp'ons-annhilstes the Of
legislative power Deposited With the central 70
by exhibiting the fragments which have been lodgei
elsewhere
seventh Pont-rhe question Of repugnancy Of lutte
with tho constitution judicial question: O. deter
by comparison OF tho text or both the sensible
Of interpreted elicit The thought ID words
cypress. All considerations beyond these Il are not
forcnslc but delbcrauvc-uot Judicial but legislative
FLETCHER v. Peck, Cranch 81 Gibbons " Ogder, Q
Wheat, ISIS James rs'tcn, Paige, j., sed. IL. i3
Oakley v. Az onwall, Bronson, 3 uoms SEES Tho Poo
pic me Mayor Of Brooklyn, Rugglos CONS, 42s-a
Newell v. The People, scld., Q. Eosgles, p 81
johnson. j., PIP. p1-e9. Edmopds, j., y. iOs wc' j.,
pp. l2l-2 The People " Cowles, johnson, j., Kern,
$500. wyrehamor v. Tho People, kcrn, 3Ts Com
stock, j., PIP 1902 johnson, pr. i10-l3 seldcn, j.
pp. i2s92 Hubbard, j., pp. 46i-e3 A. Johnson, j.,
10. f13 I1d-5 Grant v Courtee, Supr Ct Gen. fern
Wright y. Pamphlet, po 8, n, II, 4)
The constitution a this Saste Is written constitution.
No distinction be taken between written constitution
and villa, ls written In the constitution The notion OF
the spirit % the consultation" something other than
Ors m ho btiv nj limit