The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1865-06-16

previously, without substantial material modification
and we're therefore the New York city Offices which
is.d before the present State constitution went into
effect The Metropolitan Fire Department described In
.he same law was limited terrtor 70 The city OF New
YORK The Defendants, who the said Metropolitan
Fire Commissioners form and constitute the said Me-
tropolitan Fire Department tcritorally limited 70
the city OF New York Being, therefore officers OF
the city Of New York, they shonId be either
elected by It's constituency, appointed by some
thory thereof Constitution Of ls48 article X section
2 The law Of 1865 therefore, in that II confers the ap
pontment OF the Metropolitan Fire Commss oners on the
Governor OF the State was unconstitutional In an it's
parts and the Offices Of Metropolitan Fire Commissioners
claimed by the defendants, Engs &c, and the law, and
the appointment under which they claim are void and
OF no effect The counsel then quoted Green afs and
valentines laws TO show that tho right Fire
Department Vas vested in the Mayor and Common
Couhci ana kents Commentaries, fourth ed-
local Republics and held that the Fire Depart-
tinguishng fires In the city of New York II public
corporation, which the Legislature had power to
second point that the officers II Metropolitan
Fire Department named in the law of 1895, the
adoption Of the present State constitution, and u
corporate body, created by act OF the Le slture in
laws In support Of his argument The Attorney General
then passed on to his third point, namely
THE Metropolitan Fire Desrtnr mt named in the act of
1865 s by the Of the net constituted aud formed
Of and by the Metropolitan Fire Commissioners therein
also named, and both the department and the commits
soners are expressly limited trrtoaly to the city OF
New York" There WINS no doubt in hs m nd that The
bill was only applicable TO New York The possbil ty Of
of the commissioners being a resident OF
Brooklyn could enlarge the limits the Metropolitan
Fire Department so as to include Brooklyn il not other
wise extended there The title of the b disclosed tho
intention of the lawmakers to originate Metro
politan district, but establish department not
ropotan Fire Commissioners TO take and have az pro-
vided by this act control and management of all officers,
men propety measures and alton for tle me- mi ON
and extinguishment Of fires within the said district 10 be
the COMMISSIONER organized herein provided and
be (he Conmssionersl known as the metropolitan re
naV rAv,fnrr thnv, ,,
tho Of the existing Fire Department of the city
and its officers 'such other powers and duties in said
district as are hereinafter conferred The sequel or
the act provid that the control and management OF
officers men, property. measures and act mentioned
in section 2, shall be confined and limited TO New York
city and that the such other powers and duties in said
district referred to as TO be afterwards conferred by
section four shall be carefully limited within the same
bounds While the Metropol tan re Commissioners have
both conf rrcd and duties imposed them within
the city OF New York (sce section ve and sequel OF the
act they havo no powers conferred but simply certain
duties to be observed with respect TO that part Of tho
Metropolitan Fire district oomprshcnded in Brooklyn
The counsel then took up his points, four, five Fix and
seven which also referred purely local character
of the bill He conterd that the act did not provide
for any power OF the commissioners Brooklyn; but,
the contrary, declared that Brooklyn carefully
excluded from the provisions or the act The Metro
poitan Fire Dcpartrnent was distinguished from tho
Brooklyn Fire Department by the very prov sions OF
ton twenty Ave of the art which recognized the chief
engineers Of the Eastern and Western districts Of brooklyn
as having control Of their respective departments II ID
true the act supposes contingency when apparatus,
officers Of New York may no, be sufficient Tor an
brooklyn engineers take their apparatus, officers
and To New York ut tho written request OF the Me-
Brooklyn engineers to come over TO New York or not
just AZ they pleased The people OF Brooklyn are nos
taxed for the support OF this ctropoiian Fire Depart
apple to New York only, while the general
repeating clause even does not embrace
Brooklyn. The Fire Department Of Brooklyn
remained therefore undisturbcd and the laws appca-
ble tn It unchanged The itself at sections g.
D. 10, declares in trims that the department ''bercby
created" the Metropolitan Department Of the city VI
New York, and the Metropolitan Fro Department ing
| confined to the city or Nv York, and the Com
missoners being officers Of that department permit
| their powers and duties and the property Of said
dsparmsn. 10 oe used ny .nsm Ias ny s"cron
enlarged disturbed their local character under their
Ve nan., ,ss Rem rs Ts. se
1885 empowered the Metropolitan Fire Commissioners "a
take the custody Of and 70 all tho property in BY
the city, and to dispose OF and sell tho This the
counsel contcndcd, violation OF corporate rights,
and therefore, unconstitutional and referred the
Court 70 art section Is Of the constitution In concu-
sop tho counsel remarked that IL hore any doubt
OF the uncons.itutionay Of the act tho admitted poli
cal tendency 1.-THE constitution TO decentralization should
incline the Court to hold the act void The paid fire.
Department n cupyPnt, but deccitful phrase The
real effect Of the act held to be CONSTITUTIONAL would
be to transfer the zed Fire Department the city
OF Now York as stands from It's present officers %
those OF the Metropolitan Fire Department short 10
was attempt Of the Legislature .psate set of
out Of Office and another set in winch court VI
| justice ought to sanction.
wM. NJ. EvARrs' REMARKS.
William M Evarts followed with bricf bu, able arpu-
mcnt on the unconst tutionav Of the law. He rc-
faced his remarks by saying that he had but
been retained counsel the and could not there
fore, do the th"mc that Justice VIII ch the subject d.
served He rdiculed the idea that the Metropolitan FIRE
Department law thing and did not, therefore,
conflict with tho constitution OF 1s(6 The Fire Dspart-
mcnt existed before the constitution u 1S46, and
listed today as 1t did when received Its charter In
l7ss The law Of 1865 was meant to apply solely. to
the city OF New York. and the citizens OF New York
alone liable TO be taxed for the support Of
this new department Brooklyn claimed to
be within tie Metropolitan district but upon careful
animation, far he could ind out that city
includ In the title or the bill In the body OF the
instrument Brooklyn carefully excl ded, and New
York alone left TO pay the burden OF the commits.
sion. Such being the case the law Is only metropolitan
| In name, and conflicts with article 10 section oe
the constitution. already referred to by his colleague the
Attorney General In conclusion lac characterized the
bill being very unfair aud contrary the spirit o1
the constitution, and would, II II declared legal,
tend N do great harm In the community where waa
| intended W be operative
Mr.. uUrcHrN0s sPEErH.
| Waldo Hutchngs, who appeared for the new commits,
soncrs had tho closing address, He carefully anslyxed
the Of the preceding speaker and Expressed
his asoDishmcnt that such eminent lawyer shond
come 10 the Court Of Appeals with such poor argu-
ment He characterized Mr. Evarts speech q masG
Of "glittering gen rates and imsy excuse " pro-
vent the Metropolitan bill from being carried execu-
tion. The counsel then went n that when Mr..
Z, arts sitting the bench OF the Court of Common
Pleas lac decided that nremcn ntting
OF public charity but when suits his case he
tho counsel directed against the present system
vogue r the Fire department OF allowing minors aud
persons Of improper character 70 attach themselves "a
| the department.
This cioacd the argument Tho Court announced that
decision would be rendered a. an early day.