The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1857-05-02

ooposing the success of the scheme which both of them
have equally at heart Aside from the question Of the
judicial mprudence which such purpose and the
Illegally OF such proceeding the counsel for the Commits
siones have determined to call the attention OF your honor
10 the singular aspect IN which tho Is presented and
TO declare that while leaving the proprety OF any
further proceedings in to your homer, without any
further suggestions from them that ina smuch udg
nent in fictitious suit entitled TO very he respect and
has no force as an authority they will not In manner
lend their aid or countenance TO II and while they avow
their anxiety to facilitate by all proper and legal means,
speedy decision Of the great questions In controversy they
VIII not under any circumstances render any assistance
To that end by any irregular before any tribunal
chosen by the Mayor and his advisers or any
out Of the regular Of judicial business as already
assigned by the Justices Of this court in the allotment OF
their duties that any disposition that exist to accee-
rate the first trial Of the quo rdranto or any subsequent
hearing appeal in the same the Police Commissioners
always have been and always will be ready to meet ana
that their whole action thus far in every proceeding com
Menced against them In the courts 10 question the validity
e courts and resist the delays Of the opponents Oh INC
law.
Mr. Noyes having thus presented the views Of the
counsel tor the Commissioners in reference 10 tnis
proceeding, withdrew and during the remainder Oh 'ne
sitting the Commissioners were not Represented ny ooun
Sci
Mr. OConor on behalf OF the people said argument
tiat has been advanced in reference 70 tns aer rs
In % as Gd aSu has read true on, Of
fact II is matter perfectly notorious, and the learned
COUNSEL to these gentlemen know na ,ne SeSe @ns
soner seek TO pro,ract and pocrasnae the decision OF
This question by using all those mary methods Of
allowed TO use. They wish to make the cause OF public
Justice in the city of New York and the settlement Of
Gus consequences OF that often obseryed-upon evil,
the laws delay. +" That is their ooject.
far as hs That hsy ARE Tn 70 Sas
-manestly, palpaby untrue. There is not citizen OF
this who hears it, and hears the rest Of the
of the learned counsel who does not know
TO be untrue. What have they to gain by thus procras
Amazing the decision Of the main question: Why, they
have this 70 gain If they can establish satisfaction
If le no
their technical and formal point that no preliminary
injunction DO allowed 70 restrain them from acting,
and that they be permitted 10 act until final udg
ment they put themselves in condition TO claim, and
unless resist with force and violence-to hold this
constitutional right-without as yet having obtained
Che opinion of single respectable counsel, under
his hand, that be believes !! to be constitutional
say without their having obtained, and, verify
believe without their being able to obtain the sig
nature Of single respectable counsel that he, on his
seracty lawyer and gentleman, believes 1t to be
Constitutional they wish avail themselves Of technical
objections by which they hope to get rid Of the injunction
pending the litigation, and place themselves in cond
on during this long period OF many months, to force
their way into this office, IT, by means Of the physical
force Of desperate men, hungry for the profits and the
Bpos OF office, they conrive 70 overcome that physical
Sesigaaoe cch that event. 10 tie great disgrace of public
5Gsice, aeI necessarily Be opposed TO their prsons This
stand. Now sir standing in that attitude, Judge Russell
being 10 be sure Of opinion that this act unconstuton
al being OF opinion that he might rghfully disregard It
and obey the mandates of the pre- existing law has felt
himself not only justified but authorized to say, and
he has said 81 will not obey the existing
6 a court Of justice TO compel me TO do So"
That presents suitable opportunity 70 bring issue be-
fore the The Attorney General brings the issue
before the Court Some controversies involve difficult
questions Of fact and II Is impossible for court OF justice
90 dispose of such controversies properly without having
plaintiff and defendant before the Court parties who
really In hostile attitude. But this case presents nothing
but the Naked simple question OF constitutional law, sis
this act valid or non' All that is needed Is the simple
machinery Of quo warranto or maudamus, drawn up in
common FORM and presenting this plain direct and sim
pie issue These gentlemen however in the suits against
themselves, have determined that they will not permit
such an issue 10 be formed within period which would
admit OF the question being disposed OF until next fall
early period lie presents the by his refusal
10 act Commissioner. The Attorney General proceeds
against him the form ola mapdamus The issue formed
What does this Court want In order TO decide the question
understsodngy2 1t wants 10 hear an argument on the
points Of law from the counsel representing these Commits
sioners. They decline to present that argument Az in
the OF the Injunction they seek by pretence and tech
meal formal objection to impede the course OF justice and
obliged of second hand to assert untruly
willingness 10 meet II, and meet promptly. Now the
argue this question: you will say that you will step aside
from the regular OF law regular plcadngs aud
roceedngs brought before you and say that this an
which IL Is not discreet TO permit 70 be carried Tor
ward before your submit sir that there no obligation
the Court TO adopt that course and that there would be
proprie,y in adopting it, Whatever may be the opinion
az Judge RUSSELL he has perfect right TO say he will
NOT act until the question be decided by the courts.
The Attorney General believing this act to be void,
has perfect right TO proceed 10 coerce Judge Russell 10
act under the prcexstng law. And why should oe
said tina, the suit is collusive or unfair in any respect
while the thus presented because OF the opinion On
the part Judge RUSSELL when he says, let those VINO
entertain different opinion come in and argue the qucs
ma, ~ n" n,nes A. they mchi in their own name IL
obey III. They could join issue NJ once on the quo
~arrano served on them Now, apprehend thai Would
H. II. png aside from the regular administration Of JUS
ice 20 take cognzaDce idle prccnce on the part OF
these Cou1 ssioners intended merely 10 red justice and
10 Keep back the fun and fair and hna decision OF this
case Cor your Honor withhold your Judgment, pro or
essl tls therefore trust that II your honor viii
not feel your duty any way summarily to interfere
nnd lc preyent this matter being carried forward and
1adgnenl given, but, on the contrary, that you VII
facilitate that proceeding your honor aotermnc u1la
matter In our favor may Monday next before the
general The general term viii thus have cogntzance
the question, and have ccgnZance too, OF thai very mo-
on wLck TIC learned gentlemen have seen ht to make IN
q manner somewhat peculiar hero Thcy have made the
motion and fed nom the answer TO H. and He'd from yoor
honcrs Judgment on H. If ihe general term gee W 70 re-,
so We will probably have our remedy. apprchend the
general term will do no such thing. When the matter
zoe. before the Court Of Appeals they ctn determine why
there any why they should not proceed To udg
yueu for the sake 81 Tue public peace AMI Tor the sake o
preserving order harmony and good government have
40 NOR 10 say in reference ~ this particular mot on.
tave something TO LAY In reference 70 ue case Your
honor permit Us 10 20 on.
Certainly tina, where the Attorney General 81 the
Ssaic, using e name of The people Of the STATE on ono
eide aud Judge of one Of the highest courts Of the city
IL the cer although there may be concert OF action
for ocrtsn purposes, there i no unlawful COLLISION Ger
tlnly shall lot tsi there ~ on Tie evidence when
fAs been furnished these papers. r. Cumming All
say above referred to- II would be- an Impeachment on
ue OF the Attorney General who sued 10 DO sa
mere hearsay evidence, when no opportunity Wa fnr
nshcd FOR an answer. But hts been aid that this
whole cc goes up before tho general term, viii DO
ferscc,ly competcnt b. renew this affidavit there With
slew b. the discretion &C the general term. II u
na question a right ~ 10 the practice y
question 10 the Court whether they win 20 on
and hear a case under circumstances which arr,
ftrctg speaking not hostile. Now, the Code
sndcr ~hrh We proceeding generally, though not ia
Gao Of tnandsfnus dos cont,n, all lawyers know
tYoyisitn which u somewhat 10 s spirit analogous 10
case Ike this. where there 4 question Of difference,
N mat dcrcucc may be the subject Of civil acton OF
hoal an scon evCn leo Ear ~ uaiD u allows parties
a. arrce urpn case concerning tho facts which the
ery depends, and " present submission OF thc
pame a. the Court which would have jurisdiction if an
action bd been brought But undoubtedly II must appear
nv affidavit that the controversy IL real that there
rcal o,ee,.on between The parties. This might DO quail
son ~ sI events and the proceeding must be in good
go r.ha OF Tho nari.cs And then IL