New-York tribune., 1867-08-07

creating the Board and the legality Of the present con-
stitutiOn Mr. Narnum brings the suit as member
popery @ the Other suit Drought BY M Sherwood as
axpayer An order 10 show cause why the Boards OF
Audit should not bo enoined from proceeding WIN
temporary injunction IN the meantime, was granted last
week. and the motion came on Tor argument Yesterday
on thepar OF the plaintiffs II was eonended that they
had the light to bring this acton % prevent waste ol inc
hers p tss 06hoB conn ri were declared by e1press
statute trustees OF that property it waste lrieparaDs
and useless threatened OF that properly in az least
the expenses OF this Board and IN the ehdess nusauon
its decisions would give to- That the decisions OF
cIainant or %" corporatIon S 'O shonii they 60 be-
fore IT, IL ould not be binding on them a. an arDlta
if and beside This tile CORPORATION had not fe power
had any officer to submit TO arbitration. That the
more especally the city to deprivation is property
without due process OF law-that H. trial by Jurya
mower which could be exercised for puec uses with
compensation and not at all for private uses On me
other hand the law forfeited the rights anu ess on
those who neglected 10 appear before IT, Considered as
contenmIeed NV the neople IN framing the Constitution,
therefore beyond the power committed TO the Legsla
ture. Tit be local and inferior court s1ch - . -
ature Is authorized TO create then Is contrary 20 Art
X Sec O. Of the Constitution requiring local officers 70 90
elective but the Legislature could not crcaie lev
Sgd SSErt q geS y RGgsh h s I Scs Ss o G the n
troer AS such it should be elective The members oi
Office fixed and oath OF office required but their
duties IN the nature Of personal trust eommttea
power of tho overnor 10 substitute others IN the place of
officers who for any reason failed act did not apply,
and the Board could not act without all s members
The substitution Of Mr. stewart IN the place OF MT wood
ruff was wholly unauthorized -..,,-.. ,,,...
The defendants counsel claimed tat TINS act
public not local officers and not Board OF Arbitration
1S g n Ad nnoeT thence 9eo ne G M w9o sG But sup
posing this were not Mr. Wo0druifs presence was hos
necessary to the functions Of such Board Tho statute
itself had anticipated such ease ana PROVIDED tna tWo
Of the Auditors might meet and act with re-
that the Legislature had fun 70 create Board for
tine purposes defined IN these acts The acts in question
city Of New York and pay certain claims against the
city Herewith They named several OF THESE claims ~ ana
amount not yet settled or defined consisting OF st and
equitable claims against the cry no, yeV S ,eerrsS
it TO the Board This Board was to ascertain and eer
tiy the amount t9 the Board Of supervsSrs bn1 %n9
the money to the Controller TO pay them.
The Board had neither dsS ~ as nor bev d no ce"e u
enforce the eIam that was done eE me S
directed TO be paid giving them quasegsatiye powera
TO say how much The power TO raise money by taxation
settled did not within the clause OF the Constitution
protecting private property ATTORNEY, General Martin.
county which had been rejected by the Courts and by hs
people Of the county directly was nevertheless: inserted
by the Legislature in the County Tax Levy ana the caus
held by the Courts TO be valid Ii was further argued
that if this were local municpel once, the powem en-
power OF the Legislature to withdraw and bestow asu
National Constitution the only powers OF Congress
were those conferred in the state the powers q
Wbes {Ae lsseIs etRer TSre y the TSted States o.
state Constitution But this not in substitution OF,
but new office in aid OF the Controller. whether the
decision of the Board conclusive or not was not fatal
To thei exercise OF the powers OF the Board He In
clned think that II the present pocy OF tine lnSs&
tre az 10 claimants continued those rejected would nave
n long and serious labor 10 obtain their Chains Dut ~
any their duty ended with passing on eH
ness He had understood that this suit was Drought WIN
no personal imputations the Board He was glad OF
that; but would IL not be as weI 10 let
them decide these claims, Since II tney weEss ~es
unauthorized they could be Of expense 70 the cltyt
The plaintiffs here had no right IN Court u was hvi
every who could on every occasion Drng st
10 restrain wrong in the administration OF the
corporation and here the plaintiffs had not shown any
special reasons for coming into Court The act VINCE
had created the members OF the Common Council trusee
for the citizens did apply here. That was passed
the management or inc az 70
tbe control of the corporation by the Supreme legislature
At least they premature. No wrong dd Deen uohc'
and should they do wrong or should the law De nncon
stitutlonal not to be presumed tdt te supervisory
and the Controller would allow II to pass without proper
steps the wrong This proceeding shOud have
been in the nature OF quo ,corTao 10 be brought oy
himself understood that the other party had some
her OF the Board but he claimed that he had after caef
con usderaton Oncuded that he was right III taxing
p0sition on Board, and had legal discretion II
bringing such proceedings which certainly was agAhss
Nh Bonney called attention TO the fact that whatevex
presented might be they were prevented Dy
the statute from entertaining claims outaWed Dy ING
statute of Limitations, or that had been passed on
adversely the courts and their action so Tar hd shOWn
that they were not inclined TO extend the uscreuoh
reposed In them. .-.. ,, = ,,,.,
10 the arguments of Mr.. Martndale
The Court reserved It's decision promising 1t az an carly
date. ,.,o a., .....
Acknowledgement Martindae, and Mr. Bonney for de-
PENDANTS