New-York tribune., 1874-09-22
THE POLICE JUSTICE WAR.

THE DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IN N"
CoNsrrUrIoNALITY SUITS To BE DELIVERED
To-DAY-IMFoRTANCE OF THE CONTEST.
Tba lonc-awaited decision of the Court OF
Appeals upon the question OF tho consutu''on"' ~
the act passed by tho Legislature Oh 100 en,
Mayor power to nominate aud the Aiuei"o" ,,odo
the Police Justices OF this city was 10 h"'o .,o
,astorsav Justice Charles A. Flammer receNeu .io
- 80, ,,hanv in the afternoon anhounoios
thot the decision had not Deen f0a
tbe Court of Appeals but "ouiu -,
,oaav The case has been long one anu Siea' -
- hean made on both sides 10 secure victory. ~
WAS claimed that the act, which Is Chapter 900 Vi "o
80 % ,s7s was unconstitutional because IL deprived
,he people of right Of selecting their ocers OF Justice
he yote IA the Charter provided 1t was also caimeu
that the body Of the act was not III ac-
eordance and In harmony with the heao-
ing "Au Act to provide for the better admin
israon OF Justice in the City OF NewYerk" However,
the justices appointed land confirmed, and a'ter
they had been sworn in they were duly Installed into
their positions. The Justices who were displaced were
Joseph Bowling, Edward Hogan. Thomas A Ledwltn,
John Cox, John Scott Edward j. ShandIey, Buter H.
Bxby James 4. Coulter and John McQuade. inc nc"
Justices who are now holding court are Beu1amin u
Wapdell Butler H. Bixby, Charles n. Fiammer' George
E. Kasmire, James T. Kilbreth. Bankson T. Morgan,
Henry Murray, Marcus OtterbourG, Thomas D. sher-
wood f. s. Smith ana Nelson X. Wheeler
The OLD Justices protested against resiSning their po
stion 10 the Mayors appOnees, but at length, under
advice OF counsel the seats and suits were De-
gun to test the cOnstitutOnality OF the act Justice
Coulter brought suit at for the OF his posi-
on The case was taken before Judge Larremore, and
he was asked TO grant permanent injunction upon the
new Police Justices prevent them from holding court
Judge Lsrremore decided against Coulter and there the
case dropped
About this time case was taken before the Special
Sessions by Counsellor Howe aud the question OF con-
stltutiOnality and jurisdiction was then brought up
The Special Sessions Court composed of three Police
Justices, who sit alternately. Counsellor Howe con
tended that bis clieut who committed to the Penn
tentiary for tr6ing offense, had not been im-
prsoned by competent authority, and writ OF naheas
corpus was try the About the same date
it was decided TO bring suit that should be made
test and the decision OF the Court Oh Appeals souu
be taken upon the cOnstuOnaty OF the act. ana tne
question OF Jurisdiction settled or all the appoint
The suit brought by Edward LOGAN one OF Tue oiu
no1ee Justices against BanksOn T. Morgan, one OF the
new Justices The decision rendered in this SUIT was 70
govern All the others. Judge Porter Recorder Smlth
Judge Waterbury, and UOrman Il. kaio1 were cOunseI
for the police justices, and bridge Gerry Tor the
old justices VINO were represented py Elwaru IioEn,
the plaintiff suit BY general consent the case was
carried Court OF Common Pleas, General Term and
the suit was carefully tred before Juuks DtI I
arguments upon both SIDES were very exhaustive; ana
Judge Daly reserved his decision for mature deiDera
ton. Judge DAILY rendered decision SUSTAINING Tue act
and tho appointment OF the new Justices The case was
then appealed by the plaintiffs and argued before tne
Elbridge L. Gerry for the ola Police Justices 1ne test
aud points that has been raised were luuy Ialu
before the Court and to-day tue opinion Ia TO be rem
dered that shall decide both the of Hogan against
Morgan and also the entirely separate and different
raised by Counsellor Howe in his case that was
brought before the Special Sessions Court.
II the decision of the Court OF Appeals is that the law
is unconstitutional said Justice Wande last evening"
then then the Justices must step" down aud OUT
and the former occupants OF the Judicial scat VIII at
once be reinstated. The old Justices viii probably in
permitted to draw their pay Tor the entre
time that they been ont OF Office. The official acts
% the Justices and their criminal commitments,
caDnot be questioned. They have been acting under an
undOubed Of the Legislature, and have only per-
formed those duties the law has directed The power
given them has nos been that OF Justice
OF the Peace. for he has jurisdiction in both criminal
and civil actions The Police Justices have nothing TO
do with civil actions and AL their commitments
have been for criminal acts. 1t therefore
that whatever may be the decision OF the Court OF APP
peas IL hberate the prisoners they have com
mtted, there be any action against them Tor
civil damages that would lie as they are exercising
iusdicton under duly passed act OF the legislature
Whether should decision be unfavorable the
Justices could draw their for services not al
ready remunerated is question that perhaps would
have decided In courts. But the present JUS
tces feel that they will be sustained aud that decision
vii be rendered their favor forever ending the qaes
tiOu OF cOnStitutiOnalIty.