New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1866-11-02

SUPREME CoURT-cn AY1Eas-Hoy i-Bciore MI Jus
supoRTAST DECISION TO CITIZkSs--THB GAS COHrRAcr
~ ! g,LLKD-THE POWERS or THB COMMON COUNCIL
10 MAKR CONTRACTS LIMITED WITHIN TUE TAX.
, IRyY--PHB BOOKS oF THE CORPORATION 0PfICkRS
vi = ,OPRg TO Alb CITJZEES. lri..l
christopher Ialm agi The MTor 40 Ihs Peel OK re-
: Richard NJ Henry sgt Charles c. Cornell Street Com
In the above case Mr. Justice Barnard has rendered
decsoas-oac q them imperant-he one dec1ng me AZ
eli czcas TO examine into the books kept by their agents
In the first VIII be remembered nat MT fi1sh o1e o.
Che Caanomen Of this city brought suit to restrain ies So
mon Council passing the head OF The Mayor e reso
ho "a contract at the present high prices for twenty to
come for tbc supply gas othe city and to prevent the city
from entering into che contract
even II the contract Improper one 70 b. entered into,
sin the Common Council legislative body aid could not
npetons and fist the proper tlue 10 interfere a
when the about to he executed that motion
was at rate improper remedy II the Cit had the
power to make the contract the Cont could not interfere and
~ !, nss 40, n III y MA ' ,5 Es, Gq so Sp
ChIistopher Pullman ogt The Mayor SC Of the CITY Of New
Yorkfhe Act Of 1860 Jaws Of 1850 .fl authorizes the
Supervisors Of the County Of New Yok raj by taxation
certain certain specified objects aud among Others the
The said scverl sums shell b. applied only 90 the oet aad
purposes or.whc the same are hereby appropriate, and hei
fhei said Corporation ony mcnh on officer thereof nor
any Department or head OF department or other
md purposes specified TO amount beyond ne Gums
90 appropriated" And sgain : The Marc, Alaernen
and Conmonaly Of the CITY OF Aew.Aofk shai
not be liable upon any contract made expenditure aetho'zed
Liability Incurred by board department or oihceg O sai
Composition FOR any object OF purpose which nor expressly
authorized by this net nor for any contract made or expenditure
officer said Corporation any object purpose named in
this bypnd the amount appropriated to such specific object
provisions Of the unconstitutional There then but
TWO questions W. Docs proper eonssso 2, tns '9s
II does the consequences Of mixing such contract sufficient
ear Rs,ee se seem. inS S 's e ma Almost ,o SeSS
10 odnt OF argument IL the appropriation Is
procuring lighting Of streets fr year only ihea as the
proposed contract in question extends beyond one year anu
contemrte binding the Corporation 70 take gas for more than
ycSf and imposing liability 70 pay Tor me use OF
such gas those yea II prohibited under this clause
declaring that the Corporation shal NOT De lhpe t any
contract expenditure authorized liability incurred
for object or purpose not expressly authorized
by this ac II heappopaois TO be limited
to procuring for ban intended authorize the
TtIoi any limit as t the terra Within which il shall be sup
piled this proposed contract conempaes rendering
priaed il prohibited under the clause declaring that
the Corporation shall not be liable for any con.
.ncur.to ~, ; ,e -, ic6 sTcis1 ol, ., ~ oose
fnay be thst the 0tteutoa o the Legislature nsot called
tchc consideration Of the question whether II mshi ot be ne
ste Of wears and thai il their aeton had been called
the eonseratonof such question provision wond nave bee
the attention not called 70 the subject . be
comes simply ea.s oms winch inc Soai, IS ", ssos
lied 70 supply On the other hand may be na' tee attention
Of the Legislature called to the subject and that the De
teImned there was no necessity o $ Nv a ~ e
year whatever conse nenees ese ,u YES E1 " g
make contract for ntegm OF eaIs must be asched 70 tneies
fouIt to sanction them in doing With reference 10 the
main If his aps l contract sufficient 10 call ion prevent
i've remedy is argned that il the contracts wcn exeeaed
quent iIjnnc0n should issue This contract hmade
confeIs rights Of property ana 5 70 sst ol ~ S sng @
way of its being subsequently SET aside In The People
art Asy0r &c. 81 Barb 02 IL was held that under such cir
carsarces the preventive remedy by way OF injunction was
lawful but she best and snest remedy inst could
be adopted Here the parties defendants ore trusees their
ming breach of their trust and they come in aud
say although the Court shall decide that the act which NC ore
would be breach Of trust yet the Court should
Rert Us e go On and do T. Under such % hS even
be Sufficient 10 sa the Court to prevent Ms commission
have considered the question whether Il Is more exe
dent gas furnished nom year 20 year than upon CON
e term Of years whether the terms oil me proposed
which taken Of s these matters arr not material
I'M Ie;s TesS1I must be continued
In the other action brought by Mr. Henrsto
Se, sS rcoTds Of the street counissioners Office
defendant though denying that he had refused panh
tho right examine his records commended that the reator
could ONLY dcrand exhibition OF the papers in mpes where
he privately Interested and argued that any other rue
would produce infinite Inconvenience and delay Ia the public
Justice Barnard IN the following opinion after very
elaborate and thorough discussion OF the barng upon T.
has disposed Of the first point and oycr5aes cute sama
the servants OF the public the public hre right to
ampes opportunities Of investigating the eoiducs of their
The people ex rel Richard Henry ACT Charles G. Cornell
Street Commissioner question presented g Tbs matter Is
havea general inspection and lake copies Of H public decu
Dds sreb Sls and rcctSn es win preserve the SAFETY OF
the records and prevent any serions interruption TIE snes
OF the castori Upon the argument s,Ton yy Of opinion
that scb orora had sncb right and snbseq, reflection
sad Investigation contradiction opinion was claimed
right to INSECT oy when be haI some private
interest for the enforcement and proteeinS Of WHICH ea
that even then the inspection NUT De =, hm re,
70 those documens and IL was eaAned bat THIS role
established by the English decisions has' exaned me
English authorities referred 10 on the argument ond aso sch
hsye been able 70 discover on ne book tnq hnS hst
thsn distinctly uphold the right Of general inspection In
Rogers agt Jones d. r. 90 y did not appear On NE
could s an inspection tie Court Rolls yet the nianla
sied m was ORDERED e isae In king sf sheney Il
with the dcmandans title bnt the demsndant chmed The night
In Herbert agt Ashbnrn wills, p w rue was
made requiring sho psn'i1 70 Snow New WI" y.nac e
tSe hooks Of the sessions Of the Corporation q Reudse
objected that thpay Is not entitled 70 see inc Doohs ues
ters relating to the thing in question which whether the
park lands be within the Gown Corporation OF hendae
rieht TO ace and the rule made absolute without hes
ing The other Upon the facts appearing before the Court
be upon ground that eoTpOrto nom the mere act
Of being cOrpOrsor had Alright 70 general inspection o. nc
member consequently the Court must be regarded as having
in making these decisions decided in favor o. nt saea
OF Municipal Corporations Glover on Municipal Corors-
tons p 2eg lays down the following ehs - s BENG
inspect and Other documents OF the cor
he Ocr ko hs s eusdy refuse to show c
viii grant amandamns enforce his night 1h1e are some
ss wa Ss ~ n' SSpeeo but on Close sfSnns
ton they do not turn so Thus In King Bg Bsbb
sec made in su, he psy + estricte 70 an inspection
OF documents have bearing The subject matter Of
Of restriction obtains eoporator witt Of man
dsmus founded solely on lbs inspect being eerpo
was held that rule cr inspection could not be