New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1857-07-22
Law INTELLIGENCE
THE PAY OF TIE METROPOLITAN POLICE.

DcLeu. OF TIC titIO pcHo- VASe Ahe ucVssiVh n ~
follows:
Tire motion made in this case is for injunction
against TIE defendants. restraining them from signing
ard paying check for Sl0o 600 20 the State Treasury,
for tie use Of the Police Commissioners il paying the
Metropolitan Police of the City Of New-iork.
The plaintiff As taxpayer, for himself ard Others.
asks cr this relief upon the ground that such pay
me Ut cannot be nade until after the amount TO be
raised by for 1851 for Police purposes shall have
been collected aud paid into the City Treasury.
THAT 10 par. of the tax for the present year has
yet beer collected from the taxpayers is conceded;
bu, it appears by the answer Of the Controller that
be has Taised by loan on temporary bonds sum of
II ouey Of which there remains 10 the Treasury
si6o Geo. applicable specially to this purpose; and
that -uch funds unless used for the pay of the Police
must remain in the Treasury and be unproduetiye,
while the city paying interest therefor.
Tie 9th section of the police act provides for the
PAYNE pt Of the moneys to be raised for that purpose,
10 be paid when collected into the city treasury aud
inme da'ey there after into tue treasury Of the State,
and to be paid herefom 20 the treasurer of the Board
of Police.
The meaning Of the term collected is to be gath
ertd from the 10Th section @here il is provided that
the Board Of Supervisors shall raise and collect bytax
such of money the Board of Police shah ap-
portion
There can be but one meaning applied to the term
"colected,' and that is when the tax ha; been paid
by those TN whose property the tax las been levied.
When 50 coectd II Is to be paid over to the stae
easury for these purposes. Until such collection IL
made 70 mandarin, would liz against the Corporation
t. compel the payment, and until paid no money
could be- drawn from the state treasury for the pay Ut
policemen The 23d section Of the &C; provides for the
PAYMENT Of the men iii monthly payments, and the hrst
meeting OF the Board Of Police the period at which
their power and authority over the police OF the city
was 10 commence.
stric construction of the statute must lead In the
rel ut that although the payment was IL Us TO be made
monthly still no authority was conferred by this acs
10 raise the money by loan tO meeting csc payments
before the tax was collected.
The Que stion then arises whether this Court in the
exercise of the discretion vested in it, should restrain
the offcels of the city having charge of the public
treasury from making such payments ont OF moneys
raised by the in Anticipation of such taN The in-
jury the plaintiff ard other tax payers Is not OF that
serious character which calls or the exercise OF TINS
power. II is not denied but that the payment will
be legal when the tax therefor shall have been col
lecttd. This will probably be in October next, and
the injury and loss to be sustare ed Is the interest
this sum TO be advanced up TO that period. But even
tina; loss cannot be sustained, as appears by Con-
troler Flaggs answer, because the liability for such
interest has already been incurred and the money
will be ioe in the Treasury ii not usedior this pur-
pose. The Charter authorizes the borrowing OF
morey for public purposes IN anticipation OF
the tax, aud liberal construction OF that
pr. vision with those already referred to, would war
iaut an advance of money under such circumstances
to meet the necessary payments of the department,
prior to the collection ofte tax under the 10Th section
There are other views OF this question which have
beer pcsse d upon the CouI aud some oil which are
deserving Of Consideration.
The Police act has been sustained by the courts, and
is now conceded to be the law of the land aud all
laws inconsistent with ii are repealed The former
uoe of the city has been disbaBed and * no longer
in auth ori,y, aud neglect or refusal 10 pay the
Metropolitan Police might very much weaken Its
force aud create greater evils to the taxpayers than
that row complained Of Such neglect or fyiusal 10
pay would also entitle them TO interest on their pay
after il became due, and would thereby Increase III
stead Of diminish the expense.
Itappears from the complaint that his Honor the May
or ana the Controller who the guardians OF the
public funds and without whose signatures the pay
meut could not be made, are willing to make the
payment from the treasury, and am bound to con-
Guide that these officers would not consent to such
cuurse unless they were satisfied that such an adj
vance could be made without injury to the public inter
ests From what has already been stated, is apPa-
that under any circumstances the Injury which the
plaintiff seeks to prevent would be small IN amount,
and not " that serious character which should call for
he iLterpositicn Of this Court by injunction. When
ADDITION 10 these considerations II IL remembered
that the payne sought 10 be enjoned IL ntend-
ed for the payment Of the police of the city, under
aw Which The Courts have held to be valid aud con-
.ttutona-that without that police the city would BE-
urproecec-that the men employed thereon are, many
OF them if not ALL dependent on their pay for the sup
port cf themselves and their families cannot but
conclude that the evils which would follow from grant
ing the Junction would be much greater than those
which sought to be prevented by invoking the
aid of this Court; and, although there are technl-
cal grounds upon which the plaintiffs motion
might be granted, yet i not satisfied that
TO the taxpayers themselves, the evils which would
ollo W from allowing the injunction would not be far
greater than could be sustained by the contemplated
payneut ey il il involved the loss of all the Interest
thereon. The Court has always to exercise discre'
ton in granting refusing the remedy OF injunction,
and in ny judgment that discretion should be so exer-
cised that IA witt which, under proper circumstances.
is u remedial measure OF great value, should not
be infused, and instead Of being allowed for
the protection Of the citizen, be turned into an
engine If oppression and wrong 1t is not for every
min iyfa frnln
of law that the remedy, by Injunction, should
be resorted to, and where the use of this writ
will cause greater public injury than can in any event
follow from the acts sought to be restrained have no
hesiiation in saying that ought not 20 be allowed.
This remedy by Injunction has already been extended
much further than III my judgment il desirable under
the pro, sons of the code and do not think the pub
lie interests Will be promoted by extending 1t to every
technical violation OF law without regard TO the conse
quebcts which would flow from its allowance. The
Metropolitan Police law has been sustained by the
coUts, the necessity of paying those employed and
theil families bat also for its efficiency and although
from defect in the provisions OF the statute the means
Of nm date payment have not been provided, stl
there sufficient why the process OF inunc-
on should be resorted TO for the prevention OF pay
ueu that the public office In whom the authority
is vested can see nay be made in advance Of the coli
lection Of the tax wthOutnury TO the public interests
The suit TO which have arrived upon the examlna-
ton Of the merits Of this motion renders 1t unnecessary
for NE to express any opinion upon the question Of
jurisdiction raised BY the defendants counsel; will,
however,, add that in my judgment the Corporation OF
the city should have been made party when the OBJ
ec is TO control their agents il the disposition OF money
solely under the control of that body The motion for
e. ;inuat c. Of the Injunction must be denied and the
Temporary Injunction be dissolved.
BSstd the above opinion, Judge ipgrahain Issued
decree dschaIging the injunction.
THE IMPRISONMENT OF OVERWHELMING
POSTPONED on THE HABEAS CORPUS.
A few moments before ii o'clock yesterday, Mr.
yanderpool. counsel to the Sheriff. appeared before