The New York herald., 1865-05-19
THE FIRE DEPARTMENT CONTROVERSY.
Argument ON tho constitxtt0nsiityo OF ths
Law.

4
4
! Argument ON the Constitxt iousIity OF ths
SUPREME ooyRe-axsRRAL TERM
pe'ofe Judges insraham. Barnard and Wells
Mar is-Tne ..spe ss Charles c. PincGney and Others
The argument on the c5hsjtuionaty Of the Metropol
ian Fro Departnent law took place to-day In tho pre-
senoe OF largo and highly appsoatvc audience John
Cochanc the Attorney General appeared Tor the people
and exJudge Allen for the defendants
FONTS FOR psors
Tho counsel for the people took the ground that the bin
was not Metropolitan bill in effect being limited terri
torialy TO the city Of New York the
therefore, officers Of te city Of New York should o,tbor
have been elected by its constituency or appointed nv
oeer authority than tho Governor and ,hc Senate
Ho quoted the coasuou Of 1896 article en sectioa two
In support Of his argument and held that tho Metropo
tan bill unconstitutional in all ts parts the law
under which the defendants claim bo Metropolitan
Fire Commissioners void and of OBJECT for the fol
lowing reasons:-
Frt-The Offices of the Metropolitan Fire Department
named Ia the law OF 1885 are the Same Offices which
present State constitution
Second-The Metropolitan Fire Department named In
the act of 1865 Is by the terms OF the act constituted
and formed OF and BY the Metropolitan Fire Department
Commissioners therein also named and both the depart
ment and she are expressly limited terri
Mird-Section two authorizes tho Metropolitan
Fro Commissoners to take and have, ~ provided by
this act, control and management Of all oicers men,
property measures and action for the Of
hres within the said district; to be he commissoners
ers) the Metropolitan Fire Department Section four
confers upon them, In addition to the powers Of tho
'such other powers duties said district as arc
hereinafter conferred The sequel OF the shows that
property, measures % and action mentioned A''n, IN
section two are confined and limited to New
carefully limited within the same bounds, while some Of
the duties imposed upon them by the section
with respect to other parts Of the district Thus while
the Metropolitan Fire Commissioners have bOsh powers
conferred and duties imposed upon them within the city
Of New York see section five sequel Of the ac they
be observed whrespect 70 that part Of tho Metropolitan
Fire District comprehended in Brooklyn.
FbaxM-Having shown that the act does net provide
for any power OF the Commissioners over Brooklyn and
FOR no other power than the power and heM by
second nor the fourth section Of The act includes Brookyn
or bcsows more power But section nve Of the act
vdes IN terms THAT re Metropolitan Fire Department
the duties for the government maintenance direc
ton Of the Fire Department Of the city Of Now York,
the time q organization BY the present Fire Depart
ment Of the city" This section therefore embraces all
.ne RoweIs sn1 auuoe ooneffea on Me Oommssione,s,
act, limits them 70 New York.
Fyh-Not only Is the Metropolitan Fire Department
thus limited TO New York, but Brooklyn is carefully
cluded from IT,
SsA-Ths act ITSELF At sections 6, 7, 10 and n do
elsres in terms that the department hereby created rs
the Metropolitan Department Of the city Of New York
See section q and chapter $50, laws Of 1852
Seveath-The Metropolitan Fire Department being con-
fined TO the city Of New York, and the Commissioners
being officers OF that department to permit their powers
duties and the property Of ead department
by them as by section Ave they are permitted outsid, Of
the department. neither enarges disurbs terocal
character under their appointment as metropolitan Fire
Commissioner The real effect Of the If held to be
constitutional will be bat to transfer the organized Firc
Department Of tho city Of New York stands, from
Motr In
partment
ExJudge Allen, in arguing the case for the Com
missioners, submitted the following points
Firyt-The act above mentioned establishes new
Of the cities Of New York and brooklyn, called the Me
tropoltan Fire District Of the state Of New York. and
thus may 5s done noe the divisions a
their ncapacy impaired TO subserve the purposes and
arrangements to which they are made instrumental by
the constitution
Second-The defendants officers having powers and
jurisdiction in the whole Of this civil division, and
their Offices are new oces created since the adoption
the constitution The Legislature may therefore, pro-
vide for their appointment eesen az they may seem
at, under act ten, section two Of the constitution; and
this they had been invested with all the powers
OF former officers who had been formerly appointed by
TAivd-The defendants are invested with other and
different power: from those formerly vested In any other
officers or boards
whose Offices the defendant charged with having in
truded public oficen in any sense but they
Department Of the City Of New York created by act 81
the Legislature Of the state OF New York. passed March
20 1885, and the nremen Of said city not,
they the time Of the adoption OF the constitution pub
lie officers, city county onicers but simply mem
bcrs Of the said corporation they held public civil
trust had functions authority OF official ckarac
ter but merely persons who volunteered to engage
in extinguishing res they are no moro public officers
than the rank and ie OF the militia they are not emu
merated in the Revised Statutes they required to
take oath Of Office
FyEh--rhc Fire Department Of which the persons
mentioned In the complaint officers has been abol
shcd section twenty Of the OF March 90 1885 That
part OF said Is clearly constitutional As the Offices
Into which the defendants said TO have nruded
longer exist this action cannot lie the Offices
which the defendants claim 10 hold have not been
stitutionaly created.
The Court announced that II would render decision at
an earlv dav