New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1859-04-07

manly vi DeGOoralt-sho usIalned tne olesto'
polrtsn Police Act and s5jGdged the resistsDce TO
| if of Wood and MS my rmidons Illegal aud wrong.
| Thsreupou Wood dessted and the constitutionsliy
Of tie metropolitan Police Act has since been
Legally undspu'ed
OF course. the Policemen who had adhered 10
| Wood in his high haoded resistance 10 law we're
bow out OF place. They hsd publicly and con-
temp suousIy resisted AID de6ed the Police Com
| uissiorers, refused TO scknO 3se them aud DO
| duty under them, sad had in every way coutemned
| their authority and secuted their orders The
| Commissioners had no resource but ~ appoint new
men to fill their places; and, when the controversy
WA ended, il was impossible, even il it hsd been
adTi,able or Just, to make places for the lay
defers; for the las did not permi; the expulsion,
without cause, Of those necessarily appointed TO
| take their places. The Commissioners, therefore,
had d choice but to let matters take their
Bus Low the Wood Policemen, who had been for
months defying ard resisting the law and its minis
ters, turned a short corner, and claimed 10 be Po
| icemen under the act they had SO long trampled
under foot They demanded the recognition and
| treatment Of Policemen, demanded to be Sc!
to work and p.id by the Police Commissioners,
| when that b I'D become, through their own wilu
act impossible. The Commissioners of course,
refused, were sued, and the went regularly up
| to the Court Of Appeals, which has Just, after q
year Of hesitation and doubt, decided, by bare
majority of the Judges fse 10 three, in favor Of at
least ore Of the nuhiers that be must be reinstat
ed ard pad as though be had been faithful and
.af Tna< IA
uDi.ts in the dissenting opinion.
We give place to-day to Judge SsrOng's opinion,
which is corcurred in BY msjority Of the Court.
We believe the general Judgment Of unparalleled,
intelligent readers viii be that it is pettoggng,
clubbing opinion, in which legal sleightof-hand is
substituted, 20 far IS possible, for fair considers
ton Of the vital matter in dispute. The case IN its
essence lie precisely as if one of the Sepoys who
reyoted two years ago in India, killing or chasing
away their officers, and tbencefOrward fighting the
British Government to the best Of their ability,
should now sue that Government for restoration TO
bis old post in the Amy, and for back py and
allowances, alleging that he bad never been legally
discharged. Aud Judge Strong, who knows per
fecty well that the law defying acts of our Sepoys
rendered it impossible that the Commissioners
should await the slow process Of summoning, trying
ard breaking them one by one, talks and acts as If
it were the business Of judges to ignore common
sense end find pre'exts for paying breakers Tor
services that they had persstently refused to rem
DER There is no dispute that notice was served at
the ststion-house where il was the duty of These
Sepoys TO be, ard where they doubtless were at the
tirDe-uot living soul barbOrs a suspicion that
they were not really notified and fully apprised OF
the service required of them by the Commissioners
and that they deliberately refused to obey. Yet
Judge Strong cavis about the nsme under wbieh
the relator was summoned. lodges behind every
other hiding place which legal ingenuity can devise,
and when at last driven to fsce the real issue, just
see bow be deals with it:
"The relator did not rebel sg sinst or dispute the
power of the people, whose officer he was, but he
doubted the authority Of persons alleging themselves
10 be the peoples agents. This conduct resemoleo
that of the BOY who, having found valuable dls-
mond re fused to give il up to the person demanding
it. Oh the ground thst he did not know that such ap
piicsnt was the true owner /. was held that such
refusal wac the circumstances reasonable, and
Gid Ut amount to a conversion although /! turned
on, that the person making the demand was the ac-
tual owner There is pretense that the relator
acted w,lfnlly wrong He was advised by the Board
from which be had originally received Ills appoint
nert, ana by the captain oi h'e district under whose
immediate orders he had been placed that the statute
purporDg 10 establish the neS Board was unconsli-
tutional and void lie doubt sscertsined that the
same opinion had been expressed by learned ls~yers
Tie que ston involved was doubtful one, as was s1o'
seuuenty shown by the diyersi'y of opinion among
eminent Judges. The relator was not probably well
v,rsed I'D Constitutional questions and could doubt,
less apply to himee the remark attributed ~ the Earl
of WarHick in Shakespesre's King Henry VI, Part
/, set ,, scete A..
But Ia these nice sharp 0ui5lets oftie law,
Coed faith wiser uIsn osE'
Nv the controversy between the old Board and the
new one the pDlicemen were subjected TO serious
dilemma. If they acknowle6s ed the authority OF the
old BOARD ard should Turn out that the Act OF lsJI
was Constitutional, they were IN Imminent peru OF
o,ipg their position, and if they Acknowledged the
authority Of the rev Board and the act constituting Il
should be adudged stituti0usl they wouii en-
cCurter the ssu peril Crder such circumstances, 1t
would seem to be harsh rule TO hold them respon-
sibe foT simple enor IL Jddgme9t.'
lis not this wholesome doctrine to be deal. out
FROM the bench Of the ghest tribunal In the Safe
The contuma .iOus Policemen did not rebel against
the power Of tie People, but only that Of certain
persons claiming TO be their agents That was
exactly Il nedct Arnold's case, as Judge Strong
seems to forget lie claimed to be still patriot
after be tad cod himself to the British crown: he
osly denounced the demagOgues Gho were ni,les1-
Dg the people into struggle for independence,
when Great Britain stood ready to redress the
grievances because Of which the struggle had been
begun In this case, the nulll iDg Policemen knew
that they acre resisting and defying, not
merely the Police Board, bu. Plain, untOubted
a. Y al I.uu