New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1857-07-09

| Owing 10 the peculiar manner m which Hit Ia"
wns pssaod. the Mayor and Common Council 81 on
city not having been Consulted advised wan IN r.
Iat:on 10 it, their wishes seeniogy not having 'oeeh
Of ell taud for owing also e. tho uousua. oct0n d
the Legislature in blending number OF counties to-
ge,ber for purposes properly matters OF local concern
and the resut which Inc vably followed from a. that
of centralizng power and paTou4ge when our state
Constitution was believed 10 indicate the opposite
intention the pert of ts framers, the Mayor took
the judgment Of number Of our most eminent law
yers end was advised by them after full exsmnsticn
and reflection, that the law was in violation Of the
letter ard spirit of tie Constitution, and 30 void.
"At this time the police of the city derived their APP
poiutments from Board Of Comssioners consisting
Of the Mayor, Recorder and City Judge 1t sup
posed that the Commissioners under the Law, when
they discovered that majority Of the former Conmis
sioners the Mayor and City judge believed thst that
law was unconstitutional and did not repeal the
under which they acted, and that their belief wa,
founded upon the advice Of reliable counsel, would
have RETAINED from any attempt to carry out the
law fully--wOuld have allowed the old system to
main for the time being, and would have united with
the former Commissioners in obisiDing at as early
dny as possible. (which the sequel has shown would
have been only few weeks Off. the decision Of the
Court of Appeals, the highest tribunal in our State,
upon the question at issue. This they did not
think pursue; the contrary. they went and
have gone organizing fully under and carrying out,
20 far they could, the different provisions OF the
new law. All this time, the controversy between them
and the msjOrity ef the former Commissioners upon
the questan at issue passing through the various
Courts"
The Judge went on to charge that the fnsl decision
of the Court Of Appeals much in doubt to the
new as the old COMMISSIONER and that the old felt
they had meanwhile a duty to perform to the public.
If they allowed the old police TO be dblnded, it was
question "what effect that might or would have
"upon the consequences Of such judgment IN reviv-
ing or terminating the old Commissioners, ana re-
Installing them with the right TO appoint al entirely
"new, in the place of the former disbandei pohce,
T.. Al xI.~.tx, ~ s.f
the cid Commissioners adopted the courte they pur-
sued. They thought the local pJlice was corpora.
tive right of the city and that the Legislature could
not destroy it. They held their offices in trust, and
could not surrender them.
Probably the only difficulty was as to who should
Judge of the finishing force of a law, 10 the first
instance As to public officers there ought to be no
difficulty public officer ought to be expected to ex-
ecute law as to the constutonaity Of which there
is reasonable doubt and as to the unconsttutionaity
of which he is firmly satisfied HIMSELF to believe
its enforcement would conflict with and violate his
official oath.
No one would deny tina. in his judicial capacity it
was his province to decide upon the consttutonaty
of the statutes. II true that the Police law did
not come before him Court, but it did a. former
Commissioner, and he answered in the presence or his
COINCIDENCE and his oath of Office Why should they
yield to the Commissioners more than the new to
them All that emanates from the Legislature In the
form Of law was not law, necessarily otherwise the
Legislature would be the whole government; ana an
ether principle was, that honest mistake or an IN
Iocent misjudgment on the part OF pubic officer Is
crime.
Ii every error was to be made the basis of criminal
responsibility what would become Of the tearl-sSness
Of public servants! When a statute is in doubt, aud
there are no judicial decisions to direct there begius
the greatest responsibility of apublic servant. -,
Considerable more was said on this point, and his
IIo,Or concluded by saving that the new la having
now been sustained by the Court OF Appeals, moth
ing remains but TO obey it. To this judgment, as
public officer and citizen, readily submit my
:" self" - !.
The Judge next spoke of the abuses of the rights OF
prisoners counsel by the class commonly known as
''shysters" and "skbners." He recommended the
Grand Jury to break up the whole system with It's
coucomitant evils by looking especially INTO the SUP
ect of assignments of the property ofprsoncrS, which
frequently amount to a felOnOus receiving. go
lie urged the Grand Jury to protect the public
health by paying special heed to any violations OF the
laws for its preservation He called attention To the
statutes against usury, against lotteries the election
law and the excise law OF the latter he spoke only
of the provision which requires an examination OF
complaints against persons charged with aduiterihg
liquors. -.
After specifying the usual duties and powers OF
Grand Jury the charge concludes as follows:
in conclusion, suffice it To say, that with prompt
fearless impartial ard perfect action on your part, all
violations Of law must be brought to light and the
traDsgressOrs placed on the road to conviction and
punishment. Without your cooperation the car OF
Justice is at a standstil; with it, its wheels move
with proper speed and becoming regularity Ii virtue
and morality are dying in our midst-if obedience to
the laws is becoming an obsolete idea-we can do
much here in this Court to resuscate the one and re-
store the other. Let us, then, in our appropriate
spheres act in concert, and in the performance Of our
separate functions unite in one aim, the maintenance
of the laws and the preservation OF public order.
The Judge announced his intention to hold court but
one week in each Of the July and August terms. The
Grand Jury then retired. =,
Louis Gemil, a German jewery peddler, was then
placed On trial for grand larceny in stealing two pieces
of silk from the store OF Fanshaw Muili5an towns
81 NJ, D,na Awnv he At % l.
ued ut from $9j to 500. The trial OF thu. prisoner
was had last tenn when the Jury disagreed. We pub.
shed all the evidence then. and we do not deem IL
necessary to repeat the publication, !, , al;h
stroi ger now than it them The identity OF the
prisoner with the thief was the only point IN the case
and to this the defense produced SIX concurrnS VII
nesses, who all swore they the defendant in an
other part of the city at the very moment when the
larceny was alleged TO have been committed. James
w. More, colored and porter for Fan.haw q Co.. was
the principal witness for the prosecution, aud DIS test
mony was positive both as to the larceny ana the
identity of the prisoner with the thief With this eyl-
dence the jury took the case, and, being out rom =
to o'clock returned and declared that there was no
prospect Of their agreeing Upon ms positive deca-
ration by the foreman the Court discharged them from
the cause.
Celeste Dayton arraigned on charge OF grand
larceny in having, in connection with samuel Jones
alias Moore, stolen from SIDNEY aisItu y, ua,sh
Chautauque County, on the i3Ih OF May iast ""'ch
worth $500 and $23 in bills.
Jones has aready been convicted for his ageacy in
the larceny and paying its penalty in the state
Miss Dsvtop's connection with the crime is only that
Of an accessory; and the evidence against her. what
little thore is is wholly crcumstantal We also pub
ished the whole testimony in this case in the ta' Oh
Jones last Term, and it need not be republlshed Ii
is essentially the same in this But two witnesses
were called in the CASE and the cause was then gwen
to the Jury but up to late hour no verdict had been
announced.
n Tho foil