New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1857-05-22

in IL County Kings and In TeekJ paper The C1n
SIC. ~ The BOARD % coH..iorer- named in the
ton Of ''lI ~ ~ tA'iI llasuht " pl" 'h- ~
sd, Sa.sy Hook or i1rd OF ta' for peas arriving tie
Port Of New York .i,k with tn yellow ivcro p
tia dsseSe nn the PT5sent Oiarantine 'l b. r-iov-
this act to soe o,h,r rae snd may desina,e .I
ing % board any pr-On persons k with yeoW fever
o,he pesih'uhl disease until The preen Quarantine shall BE-
such temporary accommodation shall rot exceed the Of
a0". spd sha b. approved By the Governor Lieutenant.
Governor AID OntrScr msoTiy Of them and provided.
detention II yc.i. Hi b sstet 10 the pre.eh. ~. and
r-gustion.o thr o1srsliint S,oe ofth- Po
MIR. Lot &. Clark made the opening argument on
behalf Of the plaintiff, the scope Of which is suiii-
Clcntly apparent from the outlines thereof submitted
TO the Court in the following
FONTS FOR THI PLAISTGFF.
The plant j. filed by the sin4- who Is tax payer
thAlf Of hnss and al other TAX asking injunction
ssa.: the defsndsnts who appointed r
the removal the Quarantine. to restrain them from making
contracts for The erection Of hospital fences snd docks without
sdver;isii ard ling them 81 public sale required by the
.,th section ct ihc s.t under which thy Appointed The
lection quoted shovel az preceding TO put out such
without putting them up a; public auction We ,ay;
Fi: That the Language Of the act plain and explicit.
bddsT" The Commissioners get their authority from this set
snd to strictly The words far 3. it can '4
details and mode conducting the auction but Do author
eonfneon would Re 10 sv the Whole mater open to their
discretion. and would render the section sbsurdity
.f"Ttan h 20 intention Il the Lsure It syaeiy va. to
secure fair competition for ser due public
tice ard prevent the Conni.ione' from giving them 70
fsvOrite speoulAttG in them thy oATe might do
similar provision found in tho Charter Of the City Of New
York, and it, ob q 90 oosr tn dO'E against iayots
fraud aid private -pecuon and thus TO s-ouIe the public
hight.
Third Ifthi. construction Of The sixth section b.
then the Commissioner proceeding in pPabe ioiaon VI
10 or suction .houl5 re,sued No injury
requiring -,c compliance with the ,.tufe bat much
Fourth TIL Commanders also violating Tbs twenty first
section Of the ,ct which reqire them :; provide Temporary
Ho.s mt
,Ss rIo,oe ind ru., rcs,rn@d viii rnske their onrsS,,
for such accommodations at Sesuines Point which about ten
This is .atuc creating new and comforting special
powers snd should b. construed strictly.
Fh 1t The wellsettlrd law in this district that tax
di2eI tex payers to refrain publ ocr from coumns an
which III work mcbief TO himself and those fr whom he
81. A4. .s ss He isH 81 hho al she
s. i at P Ds IS BARB A Rees at
y How PR 49, Shepard sst Wood IS How r X. "i Wood
In any aspect this ase the plaintiff entitled 20 the relief
demanded an the defendant should be restrained during the
AnGunIxT FOR THE DEFENDANTS.
Mr.. VIM. Curtis Noyes, in reply, observed that the
fret question To be considered whether n tar
payer # The STATE had right to an injunction
rcttrainng the executive officers Of the State from all
any action Atax-payer Of municipal. corporation
may, il cases where the property of the city Is in dan
ger under the decisions OF this district procure
Injunction Bu, thus far Court in this latter rain"
OF inupction. yet gone 1t would he evasion Of the
princplc the be- sued There remedies
though The may be indicted. may be removed om
What would BE- the consequence Of allowing such rule
The Legislature esecses The legislative oycr-isnty Of tbs
body which the agent Of the people from performing duties
them because according 10 bis Interpretation OF
the law, they NOT doing them properly any one can
taxpayer for ten cent. can do go l..
it that the psnsn has inerr in the pecunsry
affairs Of that body to which he pays ta1esl
Der Of what may be considered qua, pr.,e win
they be restrained in civil, private suit yhrn they may be
lead the qualification of every STATUTE and eventually to an
Nor does this M under the ofhe Code applicable
70 pass to the otcr points which that the Commissioners
have proceeded in conformity with th" provisions of IN"
statute regards the manner OF putting out hs contracts "
the location selected.
Judge Clerke-Was the order to show cause based
on the latter objection
Mr.. Cark-No, but it necessarily arises out OF what
il stated in the complaint.
Mr.. Noyes said that he would argue that point.
Even if the command to locate Sandy Hook were
positive IL would not fall within the complaint, sincc
that should in that case, have ayerred that the Com
nissioners proceeding In fraud ct the net Bat
the command il not positive. II -, To great extent
left in the dison rtun of thc ComIs siDnrrs. " ~ or
"ntar Sandy lloOk" is the expression. Ihls Is near
Sandy I0ck-but ten miles. S'Suin"s Point l. ~
near Sandy Hok as any place, but C'nry Island,
which is only matter of a couple of miles nearer.
Ii must huvc been within the contemplation OF the
Legislature.
MI Noycs passed to the other questions presented.
All The sections down to Sec. Il refer to permanent
Ouarnntine They were pertinent to that alone. The
Sth section shows how much discretion IL le;t III the
Commissioners The time spent in advertising max.
ing contracts, and erecting temporary, buildings would
baye been so great that the Summer would have come
before the change could have been made. The 2lst
section leaves the matter, regards temporary
erecons, within the discretion of the Commissioners.
But the whole matter whether for a temporary or
Permanent Quarantine left in the discretion OF the
Commissioners. BY the argument of the other side 1t
is maintained that the contract system has been 20
crg in that it is fair presumption that II was 10
be spphtd in this az in other cases and that safely
ard properly due is to be confined to one clause of
the section. ,
Mr.. Moves proceeded, after depicting the evils of
the public auction system, to argue thai its Adoption
was # in the discretion of the Commissioners AMI
that the disputed clause applied to the whole section
in which it occurred.
Mr. Clark replied urging ntaly the same points
as those taken in the Of his first argument.
Decision reserved.