The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1857-05-01

hges. There exception, indeed, In the Of
local officers that the provisions Of the oonssaton
which he would refer were enacted What thnse
local Cfoes9 He would refer 70 tho documents Of the
Convention show that. There a committee up.
pointed local officers in tho Convenon and a report
was made me- noning police "a local officers A report
was made officers local and police were not
mentioned Counsel gave the history Of tho origin Of tho
section OF the constitution In reference local officers
and ked how the Court could there
intention 10 take from the Executive Of the State the OPP
pointment Of local officers, among whom the police
Of the ctyf There was no room for question doubt
that such was the intention lie asked the Court-no
in reference to the Police Commits ousrs but
~ 10 'he 'nIel captains, omeers ana patrol
see how utterly in conflict with the constitution every
provision Of this new law. The appointment was taken
from the executive by the constitution; but this law steps
In and clothes the commits from the
execusye-wth the power Of making thee appointment
There were two grounds which he might the con
suton had carried out the purposes Of decentralization
In section Of article 10 there provision that the APP
poinment n local officers should be local. II what
could the purpose II the trainers OF the constitution Do
observed except in preserving these officers local II
fcers9 Gould tho provision DO escaped by making thon
district oacersP Counsel cited cray loi 10 show ha
this could not be done. This all tours with hem
on the question that was raised herewhat did tho Metro
poltan Police t do in regard TO the police Of New York
The commissioners were to appoint as many policemen AZ
the Supervisors might drec9 Would these poiIcenen he
asked be less local officers than they rowp Certainly
not II attempted here round the provisions Of
The nsttuon by adong other territory to Now York
much territory peceseaTy2 Ono foot Of land among
the rccks of westcheer would be good for this purpose
by this bill established and sanctioned, Of what pos
sbe value could this second section Of the tenth article Of
the constitution bel Would II rot be within the power OF
the Legislature to strike that section from the constitutional
All city town and county officers provided for by ina
section; but If the principles Of this bill were SUE
tanned, the appointment Of every ono Of them would
be plaoSd In the hands of the executive At Albany.
He would leave the subject, with the submission of
the points which he had presented few days since tS
Judge Davies By this act the property Of the city
transferred bodily from the city to the commissioners.
private property and could not be taken without
tons which they raises IN regard 10 This bill Tho
the remedy Could they this quo iuarrana obtain the
particular form of redress asked here2 Counsel tho
other side have said that tho quo 'arrano WIS criminal
proceeding and therefore thai the Injunction
adequate remedy. The Code says macy words " the
qno cardnto in criminal proceeding ia abolished" This
whole argument of the counsel, therefore, and all the
authorities which he cited, yani-hed at with
proceeding. He Judge Fdnondr) nigh. be CON
tent 10 rest here, but no would 30 farther, and
hGT h the ,ns sp remedy y o
Ss sc hS or Sas S cq ss
thorties 10 show that the injunction was proper
remedy. Tho Code abol-hing the quo ioarranto
abo he'd also the scire acias, aud made them both civil
aotsns Were they not, therefore, as civil actions, at
tended with al the incidents Of civil aciionsp Counsel
gued for some length this point TO 'he character and
force Of quo and ope alton OF the
Code upon It. He argued question the power of
this Court to grant an injunction either preliminary or na
and refer the laws 1871 page 49, sec TO- giving
10 the Supreme ie Authority formerly possessed by
the Court Of Chsnceryo john ons Chlncey Reports,
6le storys Equity Jurisprudence. Sec e69 AMI note
same So and SOL larieps Practice, 1881.
Ono would have supposed nom the argument of The
sci ORR Eoyes) yostedey that person had heard
OF the Court Of Cancery restraining criminal proceeding
by Injunction. On page ls3S OF Ianel tho story told.
the case Of Lord Montague against Duddama case refer
red TO by Mr. Noyss Ar. Mnonds read extract from
the decision Of Lord Hardinge that case and referred
the Of the Mayor II York against Pnkerton tho
agairs, Emerton (vernon 25l. &C II Il was SAID that
thsre IN the tngh courts OF injunction
qo ,odyTano 10 obtain once, he would answer mat
not horc jurisdiction but because the
did not afise there. Hc referred b list ~ clsos to show
how far the courts had gone arorng relief prenmina
~ 70 a final bdgmcni-among them TO ID Daniels Prac
tso, $685. summers vescy, 305; Story's Equity Jrrs
prudence 9c6; Paige, So; Daniels Practise, ls69 &c
Great stress had been laid on tho great improperly OF courts
interfering with public officers who In execution Of
law Of The State Public oiicer,, u wassad could not
So, also said. that the Legislature, 10 the pas
sago Of law should not be utererod with. But he had
tscn the rains OF going through the cases 20 show how
often wag that the did interfere with tho pub
lie occrs In this country tha, power of injunction had
been exercised up TO within step of the President hun
sell; and in England gp 70 the Ministry Counsel quoted
Nhau sgains, sharp Is Barbour odacre against Hunt,
81 English Law and Equity reports, 6o3i the Attorney
General against the Mayor OF Liverpool Is, Miner and
Crase l5l s,uyvcsant against rearsa, Second avenue
oase5 is Barbour, 2i6 tho Attorney General against
Forbes, 2d Miner and Cragc 1913; Frewer and Lewis
Miner and Craigc, @!o hlb agun,t Earl Grey, g
Barbour 81 Rankin against IIuskcsson SIMON 49,
Beartwen against Armstrong, 10 Barbour, l66, Turner
egainst Hsnseer, hghsh law and equity reports, 81
Cham1hn agami the Mayor e New York, Page, BIS;
Barhour's e5I al woot against tho cly OF Brooklyn, IL
Barbour 46. These completely beag OF. tho idea
OF enjoning public officers and show how far tho
Courts will Interfere lie also referred TO tho case Of
Thompson against the Commissioners Of tho Canal fund
ri JHbott. which he claimed wn distinct recognition OF
the power % the Court against the Legislature. lie re-
erred 70 tbs Of Mezgara French criminal claimed
under the exiradiion reaiy-where the quest,n In
VOWED vW the power OF the President OF this United
s ssy 10 S ss Sf' SASn Jsso Of ho
Court udgc Edmonds NmsclO intcrfered by injunction
Tie question whether man could DO sent abroad
inlcrpositon AMI ruled that the President hal
euoh rower and the man discharged
but The judiciary Committee Of the senate with Mr. Web
sior a mcmbcr having bad tho ssoioct referred TO
them reported thai tic decision right and the appeal
was withdrawn There WA a In which the judiciary
n,erorcs With the executive Of the nation Counsel 70
erred 10 the case OF Kendall against The United n2
Psers 62.) ami The case OF stokes again Il Kendall where
al a Interference with the executive II he had
been successfu in pho,sing that Il was within thu rover
Of s Cour 10 Give r,of IN this case ne would cali tho
attention Of his Hoaor 10 rce important Ct nges that had
taken place IN Their tursp,uds1ce sioce the decisions on
nation - Law and equity the second the changing Of
wr into order and thc nird, The changing Of 9po
VdvTdnio a civs suit. Ho submitted that they had
shown that they wero entitled 10 maintain their In.
junction, and he called upon the Court 70 gran,
OF the but Of the precedent TO be established.
Ifuey had shown the, this law q clear violation OF
the scnstuionha, such violation may be attended with
disastrous results, TIA, within tho power Of tho
court TO aord the remedy that there nothing 10 the
principles rraccn9 thc COurt 70 'orbd and thn
BY granting great evils rAy be avoided, more by far
thnn by refusing iHt they had shown this, then they
called upon the Court 70 do Ia duty regardless OF oaInor
consequences fer hus dono could tho consntuton DO
defended.
Mr. n n Field FOR tho new Commissioners, handed bis
points 10 tho Court They follows
l. The injunction suued contrary 70 law and L. void,
because Issued ct general term Of the 80 prene
Court aer notice 70 tho deendant az required by tho
act OF July TO- 1851 chapter ass That act PROV ioe that
whenever any duty shall be dcvolved by law Of this State
upon any State officer board OF 0icers injunction
shsn be ssucd 10 restrain such ON ser board any
person employed by them 10 prevent the execution o.
any such law unlcs the be granted by the Supreme
Court sng In the district In which suc1 board shall DO
located or such duty eha he required 10 be performed at
general term Of said court" And second aon
CURES at least esni days. notice 10 b. given before The ap
~