New-York tribune., 1867-06-14
disposed to postpone the day, but he can oh'y
nostpone it. The day must come.
THE RIGHTS or LOCAL GOrERNNENr

if sustained by the Court OF hppealS' VIII
draw n clear line for the guidance of future
Legislatures, indicating more plainly than mas
VET been done the boundary Of Legislative
mower over municipal government, so long as
the present Constitution, or one containing
similar provisions, remains in force.
The excitement caused by the provisions OF
Che act Familiarity known as the New-lOrk
County Tax Levy will be remembered by most
of our readers, though many of them have
probably never quite comprchended what was
it's occasion. The Legislature, at the end OF
the recent session, passed the usual act Tor
tax levy in this county. in great haste, upon
the report OF conference committee, ana
without reading the bill. After its passage, 1t
appeared that It section had been inserted by
the committee, transferring to the Board OF
Police all the powers previously vested III the
Common Council ard other officers of tins clty,
over theaters, coaches, carts, stages cars, boats
and, in short all kinds of business for which
licenses have usually been required, including
not only the power of enforcing the ordinances
on these subjects as they existed, but also the
power of modifying repcanS those ordinances
The Common Council, indignant ut beng thuS
shorn of its privileges, Immediately rpcaled
all ordinances of the kind, before the act took
effect. so as to deprive the Board of Police OF
any mower to require licenses. Some OF the
members went so far as to encourage violent
resistance TO the law; and there was, indeed,
some reason to fear that such wicked cOunSels
would find willing hearers IN the classes 10
whom they were addressed. But Mayor f0h-
man adopted the wiser course of appealing to
the Courts and the Board of Police having no
di>poSition to throw technical obstacles IN the
wav. the case was brought at once before
three Judges of the Supreme Court, upon
statement of facts mutually agreed upon, so
that q judgment could be promptly obtained
and the controversy settled at an carly day by
the Court of Appeals
Tile objections made TO the constituiionallty
of the statute were chiefly that it conferred
powers of government over the city upon oili-
GERS not chosen by the city; that it conferred
legislative powers upon officers purely cXccu-
tive; that it violated the public faith. by which
the license fees were pledged 10 the payment
of certain local debts; and that the statute,
being local one, contained two distinct
subjects. contrary 10 Il provision of the Consti-
tuition. which forbds local or private bill
TO contain more than one subject. To these
objections it WAS answered that powers within
a city or county might be conferred upon State
officers having other powers extending over n
larger district that the power oil legislation up
on such local subjects might bc dcputed TO any
officers aS being more in the nature oi mere
llllcs than of laws; that taxes could not be so
pledged to public creditors ~ 10 deprive the
State of power 10 change the mode of their
collection. and that the statute was not a
"local" one. within the meaning OF the ConSil-
tuition. The matter was ably argued on both
sides, before Justices Leonard, Ingaham, and
James G. smith, the last-namcd Judge being
from u country district. After dclibcration
the Cont unanimously declared the twelfth
section of the act, oonfcrrin- the powers
already mentioned upon the Board of Police.
to bc unconstitutional. and therefore void.
All the Judges concur in placing this dccis-
ion upon the ground that the section refcrrcd
10 undertakes to transfer. from officers elected
ly the people of the city 10 officers appointed
by the whole State, powers which are to be
exercised only within the city, and which have
since the foundation of the state been treated
rs municipal powcr,. The opinion of Judge
Smith passes only on this point. He shows
that in the celebrated case of the People agt.
Draper. in which the validity oi the act cstab-
fishing the Metropolitan Police District was
adiudgpd, the Court of Appeals expressly de
clnred that if the Police Commissioners had
been visited only with authority over a
single city or county, the act could not have
been sustained, and that the decision sustain
ing the act creating II new Fire Department
was distinctly put upon the gound that the
Department, Us it had previously existed, was
not controlled by officers of the city or county,
but was a mere private corporation having
some public duties. But the granting of Ii
censes was always power vested in the mu-
nicpal government, and was regulated by
public ordinances, and cXccu'ed by public
officers. If such power could be taken from
the municipality and conferred upon State
officers for them to regulate and execute
within the municipal district only, it would be
possible for the Legislature to appoint officers
having nominal duties to perform over
two or three counties, and then To vest
la them the entire local government of
any one Of those counties thus completely
nullifying the constitutional restriction. Judge
lngIaham conclITing with Judge Smith upon
this point, further maintains that legislative
powers cannot be conferred upon executive
officers, but must be exercised either BY the
>Statc Legislature. or by the Supervisors of
county, on Council of u city, town, or village,
and that the pledge of the license fees to the
payment OF the local debt prevented the legis-
lature from authorizing their total repeal. In
this view we understand Judge Leonard 10
unite but the decision OF the Court is placed
upon the ground stated bY Judge Smith
The effect Of this decision will le 70 prevent