The New York herald., 1873-11-23

agents oi the Legislature. THIS, therefore,
cut at the root of the act OF 1870,
directing board TO No the duty OF the Super
visors. lie read Judge Aliens opinion in the case
last night. He said that the point IN that case
was whether the State could, by annexng few
worthless acres to Troy, create new political d.
vision, and thus give tho Legislature right TO
oyerrule under an evasion the provisions OF the
constitution securing the great right or local self
government. This, ne said Judge Alien had clearly
negatived in his opinion. and by IL had ruled that
the system OF boards and commissions was uncon-
stitutional. Judge Foleys dissenting opinion gave
point to this. He admits that fit were new
question he would agree with Judge Allen, but in
view or the decision OF The People vs. Draper
(relating to the New York Police Commission)
and the long acquiescence IN II, he dissents He
called attention 10 other parts or Judge Aliens
opinion. rectinG the facts in support OF the view
that the small additions to Troy were an attempt
at an evasion OF constitutional provisions by Great
ing new nominal territorial division. while 1t was
really intended only for the city OF Troy. To sup
port such law would be to open broad road Tor
usurpation by the Legislature. He argued that
the strength OF this opinion was that, whether
these three auditors had new oihce or not
the local Board OF Supervisors, with its local
duties and local powers, was wiped out to
transfer their powers to another body
and such transfer OF powers rom con-
stltutonal local Board to another Board or
body composed OF more or less, here decided
TO be void. 1t was wrestling from the county OF
New York TIE right OF self-government and trans
ferring IL TO persons nominated by the central
governments Again, for moment lie would raise
the question OF the jurisdiction of this Court. HIS
Honor would remember that the statute gave the
Court OF Special Sessions jurisdiction over misde-
meanors and repealed all statutes to the contrary.
He insisted that the length OF time during which
this provision had been neglected argu-
ment. Error vas not TO be venerated because II
had acquired the hoar OF age. He recalled to His
Honor the case OF Huber. In 1858 provision was
made for three sitting judges in the Court Of
General Sessions. In 1865 that act was modified
by naming the TWO judges. but in 1870 the
act or 1853 was revived. Yet this revival was in
few days strangled by provision substantially
restoring the act OF 1s6s. Under that without
question the Court sat some two years, when the
point was taken by Mr.. Wehe that the revival OF
the act of 1868 in a county tax levy, and was
therefore unconstitutional, and Notwithstanding
the two years. acquiescence, Notwithstanding the
CONFUSION cast by the decision into the execution
OF the criminal law, the Court OF Appeals had main
taineu the point and overruled the law. He called
the attention or the Court to the broad powers
given by ths act to the Court Of SPECIAL sessions,
which. within IT'S exclusive jurisdiction over mis-
demeanors, gave IL powers TO come III conhct with
this Court. He insisted that the claim OF Mr.. Tre
MAN. that the two acts OF 1873 were in par ma ena
and to be interpreted together had no force since
the hrst act applied to an act not yet born Could
one Legislature control anotherY Could one Legs-
lature control It's own future actiony Could lt'say
that an act II should hereafter pass should have
no validity II 30. he mad not understood our
theory OF government He submitted that the act
OF April 50, 1873 being the later repealed the act
OF Apri, 29. 1873 They could not divide legislation
INTO rs &C. mp parts Il became , law when rn
then. prior act coulu not control the meaning
OF postertor law, nor could posteror law give
meaning to prior statute not contained IN
II. He submitted that the act OF April 20
could only take effect by way OF Injunction
the Legislature enioning itself or ex post facto
by defining law IN virtual existence. In either
view it VOID. Here something not yet
fully presented TO which lie called Mr.. Tremans
that the limit for indictments should be three
years. But that provision was repealed in 1sSo,
Now, the act OF lsT3 amended the revised |
statute which was dead, and wiped out the |
iacto. Now, the law OF 1873 made this limitation
five years. That was the only law now IN ex- |
steacs It Imposed different period and and
the statute OF limitations ran while he lived |
In the United states BY The act OF 1913
New York. This was not only change OF time,
but cnange OF conditions working an injury TO !
the defendant ana invading his rights so as to be
ex post Iacto. That the Legislature understood |
what they were dong was shown by the language
OF the ACT OF 10Th OF April, where they reserved
acts repealed" BY the OF April 30. He called
on counsel TO admit or deny that this act al April
So 1873 repealed" the section appointing thiS
Board OF Audlt-in other worQs wiped IL out COM
pleteiy. He called attention TO the Missouri test
oatn case in which the imposition OF an oath on
minister under the new constitution OF Missouri
was held 10 be unconstitutional. az imposing de-
privation OF political and civil rights by ex post
facto provision. so he claimed that this law
stripped Tweed rights. II mattered little TO tue
question OF the validity OF this law whether Tweed
had bad TO appeal 10 tue right thus taken from him.
1t was enough II BY any possibility IL might have
affected him. He read from Judge Fields opinion
in the that the rule OF ex post facto did not
or tangible property. but to laws which ex-
tended or altered punishment. inflicted punish
ment on the feelings. depriving OF the right to
pursue professional employment, altering the rules
OF evidence &C so he claimed that the extension
tension OF the punishment; the limiting him to
State instead OF the whole United states, 10 avail
ton OF the punishment, and was ex post iacto.
lie Claimed, therefore, that the law OF 1850 having
been wiped out, his status was changed ana there
was no legal ground Tor THIS proceeding.
REMARKS OF JUDGE DAVIS.
Judge Davis said, with regard TO their last point,
the only new POINT presented, 1t clear TO him
that If the law 1878 was ex post facto the result
would be, not that the law of 1850 was abrogated,
but that the attempt TO abrogare it had iaied but
in constituting such laws the courts only adJudged
them Invalid so lar as the prior offences, but
operative FOR the future. He should. therefore, be
compelled TO hold that the act oil 1860 was valid in
that case. But the statute OF Limitations was no
element IN crime, nor did II affect the rights Of
the people or the prisoner except by limiting the
time during which the indictment might be had.
Again, II all statutes OF limitations were
swept away, the common law was restored
aud there was no limit Of time TO an ndlct-
ment. As 70 the effect OF the act OF Apra 20,
1870 on the act OF April 80, lS73 she courts were
bound 10 interpret the statutes by the intent
OF the Legislature, gathered from authentic
This act Of ApnI So lS7S had passed the houses Of
the Legislature, and was in the Governors nands
when, rs 1t appeared by recital in the act a
doubt arose IN the Governors mind whether his
signature might not release certain persons from
civil and criminal liability. and TO meet this the
act OF The 2yxh April was passed. The Court must
read the acts together, and interpret the act OF
the 29th vadly declaring the OF the other
act. To hold otherwise would be 10 say the Legis-
ldture could not declare It's intent. But on the act
OF April 30 itself he had no doubt that no
such effect arose az claimed. For the simple
abrogation OF an oiice never had been
held nor ever could be held to shield
the former oflicer IRON liability for Of
fence while In once The question OF the jurisdic-
ton of Tie act he bad already passed on Ii WAS