New-York tribune., 1867-06-12
CIVIL COURTS.

|
Justices LEONARD, KGRAHAM, ard SMITH: or
THE IICENsE NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. IN FAVOR OF
THE cTY1oPINIoNs5 sc or , TIE ros.nE S2UErm myor. &c.
of Sew-rcrk sgt Tbomss Acton ard Others, ST5o p "
At tho opening of the Court Judge neonalu & rrt on
nounced the following tho decision OF the ] oU OF of
the city To the Board OF Police: , o ,,,,o, y,
Judgment for 9e Pant deS"fmE fa session se Laws Of
1861 as transferred 10 the Board of Metopoan & uoo1
as @ cmon S Cunc Of the City Of NowYork either
~ them and other Boards and officers or te sah c.'
W u 1, en power TO alter, amend. modify or re-
anu anu M relating to such powers and duties.
and restraiung hem from the exercise OF eucn oWoIs
aud duties, with costs The following are INC oP'hS Vi
' case agreed upon without action has been submitted
for the pupose of obtaining decision as TO the validity
Of certan section Incorporated INTO the Tax law at the
last legislature which the plnlntns gunner % 10 u ~
constitutional and void and ask tat the neiehaS ~
rsrained from executing any Of the powers due anu
privileges conferred thereby The act is eied IN aUS
10 enabo the Board OF Supervisors OF the County OF new
York to raise money by tx for certain county purIose,
to extend the powers OF tho MetroDotan Poce ana TO
rost said county Ihc 10Th section OF the act whcrs
the one OF which the plaintiffs complain, provides as Io
vested with and shall exercise oil tho powers ana perform
all the duties now conferred 10y laws ana oru.naCs ma C u
Ie MayOr. tho Common Couuci. the Mayor anu Conion
| Council and all other BOnidt ana oinccis ekeeP..
the Metropolitan Board OF sat Oa md "J peecs Of
public amusement, keepers OF oardinghouses Tor em
Grant yemders hay ters and pedders deal
crs In secondhand articles Keepers or lntellgehoo ON,
|
aud drivers thereof carts and cortmep cabs ana
cahmen porters handcarttncn, omnbuscs and omnibus
hau1 the said board OF Metropolitan Police named
I'm snch laws ard ordinances in the place and stead OF the
| Mavor Common Council, or Mayor and Common Couh'
eli and other boards and officers OF said CITY onew
| York Such myesture OF powers and duties shall eA
| and Common Council, and other boards and officers,
The section also contained those ordinances passed
force and oec and the Board OF metropolitan Ponce
was authorized to alter, amend, modify or repeai inc
David Dudley Field for plaintiff; l.. D. Woodruff for
! defendants. ,.,A .tt..,
nre taken from the muncp pal authorities ana are itrsled
to the defondants have been exercised Dy those auh0
tics alone sncc there any authority for the execution
of them by any public body. The power 10 Incense ~
many Of these cases was grgn 10 .nT @ ~ - - hc
J similar powers have been confirmed or cohIeiicu ny
statute down TO the passage OF this act IL most male
rial for the purposes ths 60 inquire particularly
when by what mcars these powers nave been
state generally the fact that they were so htrusted 10
tLe municipal authorities merely for the purpose oi snow
ing that from the commencement OF ths cil{ ROSernv'
these powers have always been treated as local matters,
nCcullarly belonging to tho municipal authOfic 10 DC
! controlled and exercised by them alone. But although
municipal authorities. stn they are not to be cor,
sidcrcd franchises vesiing III the Common tpuncii
'anypsucpesahle title TO their eWOyincht aho use.
That question has been long since setled ana II must
now be considered az settled law That there are mere po
ca powers subject 20 the control OF the legislature 70
be regulated by that body aud that thoy confer 40 vested
| rlrhts These principles have been 80 frequently de-
cnrcd bp the courts that 90 nor aeem IL Necessary 20
ce authorities therefor la fact, do not understand
no counsel tho plaintiff claiming any such night on
behalf Of he Mayor or common ooah.iI nut ~ -
claimed by the counsel for the planls that these Oices
and duties are loealnppiea9e TO the ely Gs a@tnUIe -
nnd should be performed by local poaIds or oGrs 20
FAR a tic power of legislation - ~ question, cannot
aCrse 20 the proposition that the necessary legislation IN
regard 10 all such officers oullos IS hot hFlppsin'ty
vtmn tho mower OF tho Legislature. Ilc.e lsNs nave
lit aud have always tho right Of prescribing
aid controlling the powers and duties Of all officers In the
consuc OF tho state rcs;r.iiued that power; but
when the Legislature goes beyond that power and direct
authority, either directly by an act OF The legislature
or Indirectly by officers appointed by The Legislature on
by the Executive authority the 10th article ~ section
of The state Constitution conflicts With the exercise oI
such power Tho difficulty which occurs to me- how
n rrtd 10 n the Igth section Of this act can be snd
10 belong public Offices. license 10 pcron To loow Y
oncc nor dos 1t confer any OF The powers or Iiyesg
g whatever t may bc. Tho duties 20 be performcSre
not public dutcs aEd the public have no interest ia thelf
nerfuauce or omis,ion TIE object ~ the license IS for
Inc uurpc of controlling the business and preventing
IN, lng conducted manner injurious 20 The public
welfare beyond that the public Interest "a not affected
and n inc ccusce ncgoca 20 act under h lcenSe the
| TabiIc cannot complain Tho only ground OF opec-
Ills article OF tho Constitution is that officers to
perform spcelnc local ei'y dnies are nppont@ed @ 10y
city authorucs elected by the people. Such has been
the conclusion 10 whicn have arrived IN regard TO
| other laws oi q similar character pRsseu " ue
| legislature within few years past Beginniag Win
hg case Of the Pope sgt ptaPfT l5S ~ Is 81 d9gn
il seems have been conceded that city officers IN exist
at the time Of the adoption OF The Constitution or
persons 10 discharge ier dntis could not be hppomeu
by the State g-inturc, but must be elected by tie
ucs. ~ the hrst case, fcolne agt btafer brho h
says III le provision Of the statute had been limited
tclutoualy to thc CITY Of NcwNork Il would have been
in conflict with the section Of the Constitution referred
t. II the public duties with which the ,act charges the
Comu'oncrs cannot be performed by them consistently
win The constitution, thei.o"h appointment cahhot De
upheld" IN the latter case of People agt fnokney.
point remarks: II t. the power which this act gyes 10
intrust tho execution 81 the duty OF providing FOR the
appointed 10y the LOCAL authorities, which think con
Acts with the Constitution aud Davis j. IN The prevail
ing opinion, says "Conccdng that Metropolitan Fire
district IS created by the act composed OF the cities Of
Now YORK. ana BIootyn, u cannot hc doubted but that
the officers created under t limited Ia their authority
and functions 10 the CltySof Now-York alone La my
Judgment iher appontinent by TIE Governor ana senate
ments Of be Metropolan Police bill" I'm Clarke aet
City Of Rochester 25 n w. Co.'S Gs3 Dcno. C. j., says in
referring to several cited by him; The principles
settled In these that the Legislature cannot
commit the power Of enactng laws 20 any other body
than itse not oven TO all tho electors OF The state
the hcLcgaurc, ~ plain tho power 10 make local rcgu
laions having the force Of law In limited localities. may
be committed to other bodies representing the people IN
their local divisions 10 the people OF those districts
| themselves our whole system Of local government In
cities, villages and t0wnsepend on that distinction 1t
srecognlcd In the Constitution Itself which proscrbcs
TO the Legislature the duty 70 provide for the oreanza
tion cities, Incorporated Villages, &c, and II contains
an Irresistible implication that the authority TO lay local
taxes may be- cOnsttutiOnaly committed 10 local boards
councils within the cities and villages III the prin
clpes settled IN these decisions are correct then
the conclusion must follow that the Legislature cannot
confer the power to discharge duties anu make reSu
tlons, and pass laws relating thereto upon State Off
GERS, matter how appointed, whether by the Cover
nor aud Senate, by the Legislature; and, although
the Legislature might have the power to take Jhc dis
charge Of such duties from the Mayor Common Coun
ell they required TO place the performance Of them
with local officers boards and could not vest officers
appointed under authority OF the State with the perform
ancc of such duties Another objection 10 tho validity OF
this law rs made by the plaintiffs counsel that II Is local
law and embraces more than subject In The case OF
the,Pcoplo rel bradley agt Stevens Abb n. g. 3is
this question raised with others, and doubt was ex
pressed By whether "a tax bill was u local act within
the meaning OF the Constitution The decision OF that
question that time however, unnecessary In dis