New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1857-04-30
ARGUMENTS ON TIE WRIT or QUO wAB-
RAkTO

Of Police Commissioners from exercising the duties #
their Office pending tho question Of the alleged unon-
stituOnaiiy Of the Metropolitan Police bIa hov
ral'd by the s,ue of the writ Of qro carroph. 4
large audience present and heard the arguments.
| The parfle- were represented a. heretOtOrr.
William Curtis Noyes. in behalf If the defendants.
made the opening argument He said tina. ~ case
Pre-en'ed single proposition OF law which o. should
discuse with very little reference tn eNtnic circum
| stances. The question 70 determine whether
| by the Judicial power, all the power Of ne L-gi-s-
ture, and large portion OF the power OF the EIecu-
tive, should BE- PaTay wed. II conflict between
the two great branchcs of Government inferior and
| subordinate assuming authority over power supe-
nor. An ac; had been passed creating Metropolitan
| Police District and the Judicial power had been in
| vOked to prevent the execution Of the law. This
| POWER too, had been invoked 1arfc. fact quite
! anomalous in such proceedings. We now to
whether the Judicial iuerposition should remain
the records Of the Court. The complaint was strictly
what was originally known as proceeding
III the nature Of 9'% tcGrronfo: to try
title TO office, int the object was
TO oust the parties now in Office on the ground
that the law creating the District was unconstitutional
This va. proceeding under the Code instead OF the
Revised Statutes the Revived Statutes being subst-
ued in place Of the statutes in the 9th OF Ann. IL was
proceeding which did not affect except incidentally
any property it SIMPLY -eaied to the tile OF an o.
nee exercised by the defendants and claimed by
the rc.atOr. II proceeding By party ont Of Of
6ce by d Legislature OmnipOteut in everything eX
ce.t where it restricted by the Constitution aud
to place a pnrty in power who was excluded By that
act. Tie mpan admitted that the defendants were
in Office. II must be a proceeding by party out u
ofce against persons in Office by act Of Legislature
or el-c the ga '0va"to could not issue
The complaint began then By stating that
the Police DepGTIcu. was in the hands OF The cAecu
tive power at the head of which was the Governor.
Upon this proceeding the injunction had been issued
which they sought 10 dissolve. The relator
showed BY his complaint that he sustained By the
local of the CITY of
New-York-thii local Legislature, the creation of
the State Legislature, maintaining the Mayor in his
effort to break down a law Of the Legislature. They
sought also u suspend its operation until the case
could be herd on its merits. The question was
whether the defendant be in office
The Court-Is that the only evidence in the case
Mr.. NOyee-It is all they have put in.
The Coury-What does he state Is the reason for
asking the Injunction!
Mr.. Noyes-No'hng but that; unless they be
strained IL fears that the peace of the city viii be
dsngerdd. The simple legal question, the counsel
cOntendeC was whether the injunction IN such pro-
&c, ding this could be sustained in aid of quo
Harrar'e What was Its effect 1t restrained,
through the executive officers, the Governor who in
pursuance Of act of the Legislature, was exercs-
inc the sovereignty Of the State through It's agents.
II thess Police Commissioners could be restrained the
Governor could be restrained in making the appoint
nents That would be an Illegal act. If a branch of
the Executive could be restrained the Executive him.
self could be restrained if he acted contrary to law.
But the Commissioners were also judicial tribunal as
vel IL executive; they tried policemen. Ihsi1juncton
restrained them from qucling arotil one shouldoccur
II was O general principle that Courts took no cognlz
ance Of cases where the sOyerc IN power of foreign
State was concerned. In support of this the counsel
cited the Of the Duke OF Brunswick agt the
Duke of Hanover 9th Bcvan. In that case the King
of England was a British subject. He had appointed
a guardian for a subject, the plaintiff The Cpurt re-
fsed to entertain jurisdiction in the case ON the gen.
eral principle he had adduced. Suppose during the
late var there had been difference o opinion IN tho
If rpVson IA a SuDDOse a
bill had been filed 10 prevent the raising ot money,
would Court Of Chancery have issued bill to re-
strain the leyyng Of money Ia such an tNGcncy "a
that In the case of Thompson at. the C0InnissOn-
ers of the Canal Fund Judge Mitchell denied the mo-
ton The application was TO restrain the Commls-
soncry from making loau for the Canal Enlargement
e! Abbots ReportsI. Upon general punclpics then.
t.adsnc, to b,ing he judiciary IN collision WIN th'
Executive and Lcgi is,:ye power and IN nca case
Who coud doubt which would have 20 fail lie proposed
n how that the cope Of ujuEctUns had no, been en-
lalqcd. and further that no such injunction n"1 ever
issued before This case, the coungi roh'1Hi'u, "s'
a criminal suit. He fo;crfcd'o ) Blackstone Ioni'
nc,terios 9,S and 20 the OF the Attol
ero aranst the Utica Insurance Company. IN Johh-
sons Chancery Reports, 81 in support oi th' PIoPo-
sou. paltock III part at t!r nature oi :, o'' P.o-
ceedng, FAR a. II related 10 TIE lees OF tir .'aP
being withheld. But wHs there any preccd"h' thht IL
aid ri criminal suit Injunction had been issued tither
y. fore or after the Code The right to Issue sch an m
junction must depend upon the nature VI the COle' II
the p.ODle would be injured Dl urn E'ih-
ofice they had right 20 re.tain the acts OF the EN
ecutiye bending the action of the qa0 r0rr0pro but
he coniended that this section had no such enecl'
simply related to aud confirmed the Old dvcl.ne III
eouy affecting property and which demanded ule pro-
t'rticp of the Code. Howard sgt Ellis. Sanford
81; Linden AL. Fitz. Court Reports. 3,3 lhnden
90, Uerburu 3 Sanford Us, Troy Iron NaA company
case Howard Muri'ck case Bland i6i.i The OBJ
ect Of remedy by injunction before answer was ~
keen thing. in their present situation and not to undo
or r.-tore ANYTHING But mere the effort was to re-
store Mr. Wood to oiice.
The Comt-Does t ask to rr-iorr him
Mr. Noyer-lfii does not Il leaves me 'ty WIN no
mower /, prcser,e tranquility Mr.. Wood rays tha'
h, i. legally usu advice OF counsel, holding ana eN-
crci.ipg the Office The injunction was only auNiihry
f. the relief which was TO 90 obtained 10 equ'!'
When prupeity the subject ot htIga'ion 10 r.
.ncc, of which the Court thought TIA; either party
Iou,d not exercec the rights claimed pending the DE-
,i.on OF the question the practice was TO appoint
q receiver. H. proceeding of the nature oil g"9
r7ario, d Court could not appoint receiver anu
there fore this action could not he rs II was question
during the tendency VI which neither party could act
On Ills POINT the counsel cited Edward on Receiver,
4: Wyatt's Practical Register, 80, and Jeremy
Equity, 2;9 During the tendency OF this nJuho'Ion
TO one could exegcs. the functions OF Pohce CoUniS-
siopcr The Re.ator admitted in his complaint thai
he YVES out az Office. Thon would the Court
interpose in this matter and prevent c"nTo' o
the Police Department when there couid MOI
he receiver appointed But injunction had
never been known in a crimina! proceeding either
under statute or common law. Lord Montague agt
Dudman . Vc-ey sec 396, decided in E5l. Holder
staff aet Saunderr 9th modern 10; also 81 Daniels
Chancery Practice by Perkins, 1888 Cole on lnior-
nation on quo l-arraatos. 23C and lle. Johnsons
Chancerv Reports 40 10 '9l. Hacner at HeyDerger
Watson Sergeant lO1. To show what this State Ia"
WIS in this matter the counsel referred to Happen agt
Gray. I'd Edward Chaucery 40. decided in loi' Did
~. th.,- css dpose of tie question that by the aw
Of the State OF Ncw-York, no Such rrmed{ a, ihI'
could dc sought in a Cow, Of Equ!'y aud Il II be so