New-York daily tribune., 1857-04-27
!, hnd hern inirnsted by law to thesc Conrni,-

Thy uicht iust as well ask fDr IN injunction -
Prevent the Secretary Of War from cafry;aS or I,
fis duties because ~ some way he va a. a. -
upon the right of private citzsH a. 10 i'h 80 - ,b
i,rdi, n TO extend over these three coun,,' VI '
complaint of the Mayor Il Neg,i,y.A, i. o..
rot have n lad lucn' 10 the ctsr III ',.". % -
|, yvor,d roy H. decided IN the CoUd oi hppA' ''''
"vI'u 10 nts 49,, .,';ousiy propose that these Conn
,;.;'rr. .bo,ld h.. restrained unal next Autumn on
~ ,j,t - Mnyor Wood from performing thrr
ouiics in cher counties -. mad. he NJ Lv.ld.
E,(,t pf,rr an injunction a. provisional remedy
c,r ;ss,e !, must appear by the compliant that IN
rlaintfT i entitled to the relief demanded, and th't
f cauno, wa; without J-Ty t 'he u.aI " nave ina.
,.lief awarded. Code Sec @i9.l
Sco,3, In Judging of tn question whether the
,lant;G il entitled to tn, reii f demanded the Court
must look to the ola law, and to that alone. Il Alb
Ti,rd. To make out that the case is one in which
the plaintiff is entitled 10 the rief demanded It must
app al tha tho relief ia within the competency OF ne
Count 10 grant, and that the piainn nus nI!e 10 H.
We deDy both
Fourth: The relief demanded is that the Police act
BE- declared unoOh-ut' nal, and that the delenuan"
b. prohibited from executing It. Neither Is "i'' o
F,Gh, No Conr has evor yet arrogsted to tsclf the
right to declare by direct proceeding an "ct " I
Legislature Unconstitutional III Is ohy aS "+ 80; -
to the main question in a contest between Pa'iI
fore il that o Court in judging OF the case o"u u o
which law is ap icable 10 it. The Court nus ~ JaI'
dictiOn ever law, but the rght oHi %
and ~ Incidental 10 the flSht VI
Judge whether the Constitution and statute are IT,
Tcconcilable (Marbury ag, Madison, Cranch, loo:l
S,rfh; So no Court has ever yet arrogdted 10 iLeh
tie night to prohibit by an I'M uncon IN 80 hHny "or
,Ls ,cut;on o AL act Of the Legislature. IL - only
an invasion II private right OF the pGlty winch the
Court can prohibit, and thus Judge lncid .ntay
whether the alleged invasion be or be not Jushed Dy
the Ian Of the land existing in the Constitution ard
the statute. Osborn agt. Bauk L. S. Wheat, 1881
Sercnth: As Court Of Equity this Court can den
only with questions Of prop~rty AttoIney-'5enern
at. Mayor OF Liverpool Ny. and Cr, 1873; FTewn
agt. Lewis, 4 My. and CT, 2l9)
E,gh!A. This Court has right to inquire into the
motives with which the Legislature passed an act.
FLETCHER agt. Peek, Crahch 1907
Ninth: A court Of equity has right TO try the title
% office That con only be done by an action in mo
nature Of quo warranto, prosecuted by the Attorney
General Code, sec. 432.; Paige, 50; affirmed
Hill, 25yD
Tenih: The plaintiff has no title to sue in this
tiou He claiis to sue a. Mayor and taxpayer. AZ
Mayor be cannot withou! joining with hin ;he
Recorder and City Judge hs uhaer
1he old law or in case vi their refusal Ia JON making
,hem defendants. Code, sec. 'll9). AS taxpayer
he has no right, for two reasons frst he doc iio
,ece that she law viii add 70 the DuTdehs Oh tnG
tS,-payers; second, il he had 10 alleged ne couu
nat sue because the utmost extent 10 which this cou'
la allowed "a taxpayer 10 rue, Is wnen ne comes mo
curt against the Corporation as trustee, claiming
that breach Of trust has been OF - aD9u. W pe %
,ptted 10 the prejudice Of the trust iuhd, 10 whch ne
ps n tnx.Dayer contributes. (Chrstopber agt mayor,
- Barb, d67 DE Boum agt Mayor, 10 baro., ~
And even these cases have been denied Dy me ou-
perior Court 2 Duer, G6S, and dlsregarded III Ile
Iourt of Appeals in the case Of Davis agt Ihe
Mayor, &c. ..
Mr. q Conor 10 Mr.. Fiedl-I defy you TO state on
your candid opinion Us lawyer tiaI you DeneFe u's
act is constitutional.
MIR. Field TO Mr. O'COnor)--I defy you to state on
your candid opinion as q lawyer that you believe you
Lave the right 10 this remedy.
Judge Dayies-Connsel VIII please cohhhe tnem-
selves TO the argument. go, ,
Mr.. Field proceeded 10 argue that the plainuh had
nj right to ask that hese defendants should be re-
strained from acting IN Westchsster, Richmond anu
Kings County, and also that this Court had no rlght
10 giant an Injunction which would ailect directly Tue
Interests Of the people Of these counties.
Mr.. OConor in closing the case On the part OF the
plaintiff said that his Honor had shown one very ex-
Celent quality as a Judge-that was he had not de-
cided anything because he had not yet heard al the
arguments. He the Judge, held Court oil oyer anu
Teriliner, and in this he had not reversed hc
order of the title by determining hrst ana nearing ai
terward. lie Air O'CUnOr) denied that anything ut
all had been conceded his part, as was csaEed Dy
the other side. Ii was very extraordinary that tle
learned gentlemen should argue at great length and
with multiplied repetitiOns that counsel Tor paintn had
conceded that the law was valid, save as II anecied
New-York that the plaintiff had no ground oi ac-
ton except to property. thcy had conceded no
such thing. The injunction which had been apphca
for referred solely The financial relations and public
interests of the City Of New-fork. Not one single
word had they sgid about these other countless No'
one single ne word was there III the lnucuoh !hro
t,rmed 30 ar To reach then.. Ii was sheer aIter-
thuught late conception sort of graspng at straw
in the death furry despair of the case io the dlth-
ants after the counsel for the plaintiff had closed telr
observations in the case to call on his honor 10 grant
what they pleased 10 call modihcation OF the M
junction Ii WAS covert attempt by artnce to make hls
honor repeal and render iIeihc8clOuS the injunction
which he had granted. SU much tor all that nlater Us
10 concessions, which certainly pure surpusase.
His learned associate Mr Edmonds had been proceed
ing to argue this matter to his houor this morning.
when his honor, with great propriety-ss they con.
eeIVed-intenupted him, and said that the ohy pOht
in tbs whole case that could possibly demand tins
hind of inorlOcutOry Intervention was the point oi IN
Jury that might result for letting two or three days
eapae before lac Judge Davies should decide the
case anu his then deciding that this act was con-
stutonal. He the Judge, had said, and counsel ac-
aues.d it, that II not necessary to argue ON any
other than this specific queson-whether any particu-
lar incouyen any Inconvenience was likely to
result or could possibly result in the administration OF
the law the preservation o order aud tue protection
OF property the three adjacent counties, IN case ms
Injunction should stand at present during thc short
period that may elapse before the Court decided lie
the Judgel had called counsel To lay tnelr nnger
on any specific inconvenience to result Lon delay
for few days. He asked them 10 address themselves
tp that specific intelligent, simple, PLAIN inquiTy-ln
inquiry which indeed presents the only question az al
calling for this extraordinary emerSent acoh required
from his Honor. Had the learned gentleman iAlr
Eyarts raid in the whole Of his observations
one single word about any thing that rendered thls
course desirable in regard 10 the Counties oi Mugs
Richmond OF Weschester No he had not attempted
10 do So lie had merely gone back On tue Argument
presented before thus general point, that tue act
WAS an act of the Legislature-a yahd act OF the
Iegislature-and that any interference with 1t on
the pant Of the Judiciary was Illegal lie h"d TAXED
about the desire Of his clients enter on the prompt
performance of their duties; but as 10 tne lDcon-
Veniences that were 10 arise from q delay OF TWO
fhrre naNa had mt lnl1 X