The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1867-06-12
SUPREME COURT GENERAL TERM.

~-
The Transfer by the Legislature or the LII
censing Power from the Municipal Boards
10 the Police ommissi0ners-Opinions u
she Supreme Court-Judgmens I'm the TEST
Case in Favor OF tho City.
Before Judges Leonard, Ingraham and Smith.
TAe People Of The Stale Of NeW Fork and John r. HeT
man. Mayor Of TIE City Of Neo York a. Thomas C. Acton
and Others, Commissioners Of Metropolitan Police, and n
Board Of Metropolitan Poice.-The following opinions in
tAs case which argued before this Court about
weeks since, rendered yesterday. case agreed
upon without action has been submitted for the
pose OF obtaining decision the validity Of Ger.
tain section incorporated into the Tax law At the last
Legislature which the plaintiffs claimed TO be unconsti-
tutiona and void and ask that the defendants
strained from executing any or the powers duties and
privileges conferred thereby. The act Is entitled An
s6 to enable the Board Of Supervisors Of the county
New York to raise money by tax for certain county
purposes,~ e extend the powers OF the Metro
unsettled .s sssD:
county The twelfth section Of the act which is The
enc OF which the plainfs complain, provides fol-
lows The Board Of Metropolitan Police is hereby in
vested with and shall exercise all the powers and per
form all the duties now conferred by laws and ordi.
nances upon the Mayor, the Common Council, the
Mayor and Common Council, and all other boards and
Officers Except the Metropolitan Board Of HEALTH OF the
city Of New York; in respect to theatres places Of
grant passengers junk shop keepers and junk boatmen
pewnbrokers, vendors hawken and pedlers, dealers ID
second hand articles keepers Of intelligence Offices,
auctioneers hackney coaches and carriages and the
owners and drivers thereof cartmen cabs and
cabmen porters handcartmen, omnibuses and omnibus
though the said Board OF Metropolitan Police was named
- such laws and ordinances in the place and stead Of
the Mayor, Common Council, Mayor and Common
New 7oiR sush investurs q poksrs ana a. du-
tiss shall exclude that Of said Mayor, Common
and Ard ssson also and Ss,
ordinances passed 10 relation to the matters therein re-
fsed in full force and effect and the Board Metro
s!sp Psl'ss :ss sasesEzsa 2 alter amend modify or
David Dudley Field for plaintiffs; 1. B. Woodruff for
defendants. ,..s~ -.s-.,-r-,-sss.:sx
cot are taken from the municipal authorities and are
Entrusted 70 the defendants have been exercised By
those authorities there any authority for
the execution OF them by any public body The power
- cenGe In many Of these cases gwen the Mayor
BY tho twenty fourth section Of the Montgomery char
teF and az 10 the Others similar have con-
Armed conferred by statute down the passage OF
this act II is most material for the purposes Of this
these powers have been conferred Estate generally the
net that they were so Entrusted 10 tho municipal au-
;ss.is'ss merely for the purpose Of showing
government these powers have always been
treated local matters, peculiarly belonging to the
thsm alone. But although these powers have always
thus been conferred municipal authorities, still they
common Council any repssabs title 70 sha ~ sne
mont and That question has been long set
tsed and il must be considered settled law that
Of the Legislature, BE- regulated by that body and
that they confer no vested rghts These principles
have been frequently declared by the that do
deem necessary TO cite authorities therefor In
fact do understand the counsel for the plaintiff "a
claiming any such right on behalf Of the Mayor Com
mon Councils but il is claimed by the counsel for the
plaintiffs that these Offices and duties local. appca-
be 70 the city authorities and should be performed by
loca boards ocers So far the power OF legisia
son 10 in question cannot agree the proposition that
s.e necessary Legislation 10 regard TO all such officers
duties Is no. appropriately within the power Of the
legislature. Thee laws have always originated with
the Legs ature They had the right and have always
exercised the right, Of prescribing and controlling the
powers and duties Of ali officers in the State VIII
local or general unless where the constitution
Of the restrained that power; but Legs-
ature goes beyond that power and directs the appon
ment OF local officers 10 DO made by State authority
either directly by Of the Legislature indirectly
by officers appointed by the Legs ature by Execu-
1--WE authority. the tenth article, Section Of the
Ssate conflicts with the exercise OF such
power The difficulty which occurs me, however on
this branch Of The case IS tnat no Class Of persons re-
belong to public Offices license to person TO follow
any particular trade business is not appon,men
once, does II confer any OF the powers privileges
Of public officer. II is mere license to follow Dis
calling whatever may be. The duties 10 be performed
are pubic duties, and the public have interest
In their performance omission. The object Of the
license Is for the purpose OF controlling the busi-
moss and preventing its being conducted in a
injurious 70 the public welfare. Beyond that the
pubic interest is not affected, and II the censee
negects TO act under his license the publ
plain The only ground OF objection that can be taken to
these provisions under this article Of the constitution
that officers 10 perform specific local city d ties
appointed by the State authorities instead Of being
appointed by the cy authorities or elected by the
people Such has been the conclusion to which have
aSrved In regard other laws Of similar character
passed by the Legislature within o few years past.
Beginning with the case Of the People vs. Draper is
n r., $50, down TO the last case Of the People
Pnckney. 81 u ST. II seems 70 have been conceded
that city officers In existence the time Of the adoption
q The constitution persons TO discharge their duties
could appointed BY the State Legislature but
coonsy or municipal authorities In the Grst case,
People Draper, DEMO, G. j. says:-"If the provi-
Of the statute had been limited tertoriay the city
q New York. Il would have been In conflict with the
section Of the constitution referred TO- II the public
duties with which the act charges the Commissioners
cannot be performed by them consistently with the
ssisution, their appointments cannot upheld" In
the latter case Of People vs. Pinckney Brown j., IN
Dissenting opinion relating to smother point remarks
the execution Of the duty Of providing for the
Of hrcs TO officers not elected BY the people appointed
BY the local authorities, which think conflicts with the
constitution; !" and Davis j., In the prevailing opinion
says :--.Conceding that metropolitan fire district 10
created by acs composed OF the cities OF New York
ana Brookyp il cannot be doubled but that the officers
created under II limited In their authority and func-
lions 70 the city Of New York alone. In my Judgment
Their appointment by the Governor and Senate Is not
and be justified the grounds that enabled this
Court TO uphold the organization and appointments Of
iSs ss1DS % Yo S Ss p.no ys rs
fsrring several cited by him 1.-THE principles
settled In these cases are that the Legislature cannot
commit the power OF enactng laws TO any other body
than Itself, not even TO all the electors u the State.
And again while general statutes DO enacted
by Legislature, 10 plain the power TO make local
regulations having the force Of law In limited localities
may ne committed 70 other bodies representing the
people in their local divisions or 70 the people Of those
districts themselves Our whole system Of local gov
eminent in cities, villages and towns depends that
distinction. Il lie recognized in the constitution itself,
which prescrbes TO the Legislature the duty TO provide
for the organization OF cities Incorporated villages &C.
and irresistible implication that she au-
thorty 10 lay local taxes may be consutionally CON-
united 70 local boards councils within the cities
viagcs II the principles settled In these decisions are
correct then The CONCLUSION must follow that the Legis
aure cannot confer the power to discharge duties and
make reEuattons and pass laws relating thereto upon
State ocer no matter how appointed whether by the
eovcSnor ana senate or by the Legislature; ands A-
though the Legislature might have the power 70 take the
discharge of such duties from the Mayor or Common
Council they were required place the performance Of
them with local officers o. boards and could not vese
officers appointed under authority Of the state with the
performance OF such duties. Another objection 70 the
validity Of this law 70 made by the plaintiffs counsel that
local law, and embraces than one subject In
O The peOpp X. veS fepheUa 2