The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1857-05-27


sent appearances, Uild and waste Lands will be
compa, ativoiy cheSp and open 10 al purchasers
for cash, from virgipis to Cslifornis.
CONSERVATION or IAsnscfpal Freedom ~ shs
Suprcxae Court.
| The judgment of the Supreme Court on the con
stitutionality Of the Metropolitan Police oct, -
delivered by Messrs. Mitchell, Peabody saA
Roosevelt on Monday last, affords the most re-
| malkable confirmation of the views which have
been almost daily presented to the readers of this
sheet during the pact few weeks Though it il
ASSUMED by the newspapers and noted BY the
Clerk OF the Court that the decision Of majority
of the Bench was adverse to the pretensions OF
| the city authorities and in favor Of the State
usurpers il will be found on q careful survey e
the opinions Of the three Judges that, so far fron
this being the case, there is every reason to be.
lieve that each and all Of the three Judges conor
in the essential points of the argument on behalf
OF the city, as repeatedly put forth in these CT
lumus. We count Judges Mitchell and Peabody
on our side, as well as Judge Roosevelt
To enter into particulars. Judge Mitchell de-
votes threefOurths of his opinion to showing that
under the constitution, the Legislature has the
right to appoint Police Commissioners for one Of
more counties, notwithstanding the clause in the
constitution which declares that city town, coua-
ty and village officers shall be elected or appoint
cd by the local officers Having proved this to
his satisfaction, he goes on to make the following
significant remarks
said that the law attempts to transfer ,he police pr
Of Neu Eorl
the new Board Of Polce-(Sec 49, II did taat 'oo.IA
sosd ne ,ohoI, The section (5,h) in which th1s
supposed transfer made, Is distinct and sparutr ov,e
and may be rejected and yet the ret Of w act 5e eTecsas
Evidently Judge Mitchell here decides by i'm
plication, that the Metropolitan Police act does
not involve a transfer of the police property to
the new Board, and that If it did, that clause q
section Of the oct would be invalid, though pos
sibly the invalidity might not involve the de-
struction of the whole act
Let us pass to Judge Peabody. He ia man
Of many words, and not copious ideas; in the
long decision which is printed under his name,
there are but two proportions put and answered.
The first is that the Legislature has a right to
appoint such county officers as the progress or
society may require; the second that these Off
GERS may be appointed for several counties In
stead Ct OF as well az one. Having settled these
points TO his mind Judge Peabody infers from
them that the late act is valid law, and SAYS No
more. Not word says he about the demolition
Of the old Board or the con6scatiou Of its pro-
perty.
Thus, in one word, the only poat decided BY
these two Judges is that the Legislature may, if il
pleases, appoint police force for this and other
counties
That is point which he's never been in debate,
TO our knowledge.
No one, at least publicly, has held that the Lee
gislature could not, If ii deemed it necessary ap-
point police OF any other force, to perform Pc
lice or any other duties, in this-or any other
counties; provided, In so doing. that it injured
no private rights, and provided likewise that It
made adequate provision for the maintenance e
said force out Of the funds of the State.
The only point in dispute has been whether the
Legislature could abolish our municipal police;
take away our right Of appointing them; deprive
us of control over them; strip them Of their pro-
perry and of the property Of the city; and confer
all these-rights, duties, and property-on @
body whose only connection with us would be
that they would have the duty of exercising au-
thority over u.s. and that We should have the ples-
sure of paying them.
That is the true, the only point of the appeal
10 the courts; and IL is in view Of liz exclusive
importance that We say the Supreme Court has
decided In our favor. For while Judge Roose-
welt has most ably aud beautifully shown that the
rights of this city in municipal affairs cannot IN
der any circumstances, be taken away from II or
usurped by the Legislature. without its consent,
Judge Mitchell has almost in as many words ad-
mitted that the act Of the Legislature must not
I've regarded as divesting the old police authori-
tics Of their rights or property; and Judge Pea
body. by his very marked silence, teaches III 10
perceive that this Is biz view also.
Judges Mitchell and Peabody evidently figure
to themselves state OF things in which we
should have two sets Of police here, the one paid
by the State, the other by the city, and both
performing valuable service without interfering
with eoch other. We have no reason TO suppose
that this plan would BE- resisted with any obssi-
macy either by the city authorities or by the
people. We cannot well have too much police.
the complaint throughout all past time has beeA
that We have had too little And il, by some-
judicious arrangement or compromise, the TIVE
sets Of policemen can come to an agreement by
which certain duties can be allotted. and clear
sphere traced out for each, We hardly see why
any person Interested should object 10 such q
settlement Of the difficulty. In London ana
Paris, there are two sets Of police, the one de
pending upon the city, the other on the general
government; and We believe the plan Is found 70
answer very well OF course, in these oities,
common sense prevails the city pays the city
police, while the State pays the State police; ~
other arrangement has ever been proposed.
If the republican majority in the Assembly
think well Of this example. we do not kaov that