The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1857-06-19

pOiD!ment and the Governor and his party
should not shrink from the enforcement of the
law and the penalty. To this end we unders'a aud
that the Mayo is to be looked after; and if Mr..
Conover is prepared to await the upshot of the
prosecution we are entirely resigned
The Argument Behalf OF Municipal
Liberty I'm the Court OF Appeals.
We are not over well satisfied with the argu-
ment of the Municipal case in the Court of Ap-
Mr.. Cutting talked bad law, and Mr.. Evarts
hesped carloads of dust on the points at issue
as it was his best policy to do: but why did Mr..
O'Conor lose himself in brushwood of legal alb
stractions instead of going straight to the joint
Of the question! He used to be clear headed
counsel this case will hurt his reputation.
We are not surprised that Mr.. Cutting should
argue that all powers not expressly reserved to
the people are delegated to the State govern
ment Trash of this kind consorts properly with
the argument he is retained to make No one
knows better than he that in our republican
country, the people are the fountain head of
power, and that all powers which they have not
NNtiS''S "hu Shpteo'iy hoosStASA 0Nuy UtS
presumed and held in law to be in them still
No one knows better than Francis Cutting that
neither the Legislature nor the Governor nor the
courts nor the municipal authorities have any
right or Claim to exercise any power for which
they cannot show clear and express
warrant from the people. AS for the
Legislature, which Mr.. Cutting assumes to
che 10 DE-, 80
England, it is in fact the most obviously subor-
dinate body; it is the creature of the copstitu-
ton, and subject to the people at its birth, and
inferior to the courts, TO which its laws are sub
ject after they are made. 1t would be as easy
to Prove the Governor despotic as the Legisla-
ture sovereign. But when a man takes bad
case, we must expect to find him support 1t with
bad arguments,
Mr.. O'COnor, we think, made q still poorer
display than his brother Cutting; for he had
what Cutting had not-a decent chance to disto-
guish himself aud he is quite as cloudy as Me-.
Evarts himself What in the name of common
sepse has the derivation of the word sheriff, aud
and a discourse on gerrymandering, and
q disquisiiion on quo warranto writs and that
sort of stuff to do with the question at issue in the
case? True we fnd among Mr. O'Conors
points, one that free local government is essen
tiai to political liberty; but even this is buried
under other collateral points of no consequence
whatever, and no end Of quotations from reports
and law books which no mortal man ever could
think of wading through.
Why did not Mr.. OConor simply grasp the
one strong point in the case, namely,
whether the constitution justified the Legisla-
ture in abolishing that part Of our munich
pal liberty which enables us to provide our own
police force, and in substituting for such force
another body Of men appointed at Albany, but
paid for by us-tbe people Of this city?
Ten minutes would have enabled him, with bis
rapid uttersnce and oratoEical power, to have
exhausted the argument on this point; aud nothing
more would have been needed All the common.
place stuff in which be indulged about consttu-
tons and Sheriffs and counties and writs Of quo
earronto and other trivialities, is of no sort of
consequence to the Court Of Appeals or to any
body else: the point is-have we any rights which
the Legislature must respect, or have we none?
That single question answered, the other points
ON which the lawyers laid themselves out may be
settled any way they please, without concern
ing us.
We have a strong conviction that the Judges
OF the Court Of Appeals-who are men of large
experience and great attainments- By their
judgment show the lawyers who argued on We'd
nesdsy that in their case at all events, legal pre-
cedcnts have not crushed out oommon sense. We
look for judgment plain, practical, simple on
the main and sole point Of the controversy; de.
Gliding whether the Legislature may trample on the
city, end If yes, TO what extent the trampilg may
be pursued. We dare say the Judges may not
lie as learned in their definitions and refnements
as Mr.. Cutting and Mr.. 0'Conor; but we shall
be much mistaken if they do not please the pub
lie, ana DO their duty to the State a great deal
better.
1be Judges Of the Court OF Appeals, being
fresh at The subject and dvcstcd Of party bias
viii bc likely to view the controversy a. the
first Of a very important class Of disputes which
must necessarily arise until the respective limits
q State and city jurisdiction and authority are
clearly stakcd out They will dismiss all per-
sonal or party considerations from their mind
and will merely look at the question in its legal
historical and philosophical bearings. II they
end that the constitution warrants the spolation
of cities by the State government, then Of course
they win confirm the law; but il they find that
not only are city liberties secured by law but
that the State is without warrant in usurpations
upon them and that such usurpations must be the
ruin of all liberty, then, Of course, they will re-
jcci the law. AT any rate, We will presume 80
far upon their character and reputation as to say
that they will not, like the lawyer exhaust them
selves on frivolous subtleties, or, like the Su-
preme Court shirk the main point Of the case