New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1857-07-03

pied one and nothing Is suggested from which II cas
&c implied unless il IL the provision that county and
city officers shs be chosen 10 the counties and cities.
But this does not prove that the then existing functions
of cousfy and city officers swaysto continue TO
exist and 10 be performed in the cities and cosnties
No one win contend that the Legislature could not
abolish the Office and the functions Of any officer
wbose office not constitutional one, but was one
created smply by legb lstiye act Should they de-
temine to-day that the Office Of public administrator,
street commissioner, Or any other officer whose
ofIico was not established by the Constitutions had
become unnecessary useless, they could abolish the
fce and the functions together. Should they deter
mine that the functions OF public ADMINISTRATOR for
instance, should be no longer local, but public conye
Sience would .S be promoted BY s''song an Once
extep-ive with the State, there Is nothing in the
Constitution to prohibi, such an act Of legisla-
lion. But suppose il should be copsdered that
1shment Of such an oiice, with Jurisdiction over tho
maritime counties Of the State In neither ue a. J
conceive would there be any constitutional objection
to giving effsc to the views Of the Legislature BY
and change the mode of appointment The local coa-
situency would in the cases supposed become map
plioable The constitutional provision would no longer
meet the case and il would be left TO the Legislature
TO provide such mode of appointment as Il should
Judge expedent Now in the before us, the
Legislature must be considered 10 have determined
that public convenience and the public good would be
promoted by abolirhing the local character CT the
police Of the four counties mentioned in the BILL and
creating a new jurisdiction embracing them all. The
defendants cOnn rel explained the stroog public
necessity which he supposed there was for the new
arrangement. With this question We have moth
ing to do; but, certainly, it is not impossible to
suppose that there might be adequate public mo-
tv.s for The consolidation Of the police force Of
the four counties. II such motives could In.
the nature Of things exist TO assume, for the
purposes Of this question: that they did exist. Where
Them is the prob btion in the Constitution forbdding
the abolition Of the local police arrangements Of the
City of New-YOrk II cannot be implied from the
suffrage conferred upon the people and local suthoh-
ties to choose the police officers while they local.
This would subordinate the public necessities and in.
teiests which might lead to the abolition Of the local
office to the franchise vested in the locality Of select
ing the officer. But the more just view is that the
franchise was created on account Of the public inter-
ests connected with the office and not that the Office
was created account of the franchise. The public
benefits resulting from the office lead to the creation
Of the local constituency. When IL is determined BY
the authority to which the Constitution has commit.
ted the solution OF such questions, that the Offices ~
county Offices longer necessary or expedient
we cannot say that they must be continued as county
offices in order that the constitute ncy sha not be en
appointed in the enjoyment Of the franchise.
Some subordinate questions have been argued, but
the views above expressed correct dispose Of the
case We Of the opinion that the judgment Of the
Supreme Court should be affirmed, and it is accord
iDgy affirmed.
Comstock, j., and Brown j.. dissented