The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1875-01-01
TWEED'S CERTIORARI.

TWEED'S CERTIORARL
CALENDAR.
After long and tedious delay-from halfpast
ten, the usual hour Tor opening the Court to one
p M.-Judges DAVIS, Brady and Daniels yesterday
took their seat on TIE Bench OF the General Term
The principal business was the renewal OF the
argument 10 the Tweed ceruorari case.
Mr. Field. addressing tine Court, sad:-ln REFER
ence to the certiorai taken IN the case OF Mr..
Tweed as / mentioned to the Court before, Mr..
Phelps and myself are here. l have TO repeat
what did then-that an arrangement has been
made to facilitate the and 10 get 1t before the
Court OF Appeals on the 9th OF January. We are
willing to argue the case at moments notice.
but we not anxious to trouble the Court with
an extensive argument now but merely desire to
get the first impression OF the Court upon the
case. L. as we suppose, some change VIII De
necessary the organization OF the Court to hear
argument. or ii not, way we are ready TO 60 on
now on the minute or at any time the Court
Directs but we beg 1t NAV be at as early day as
possible so as in tact to get 1t before the Court OF
Appeals at once.
MIR. Phelps said IL was evident that this matter
has been misunderstood somewhat. The only
arrangement he knew OF was ais own voluntary
statement, made when the matter was pending
beOre Judge Barrett, that ne would facilitate the
disposal OF the case as tar as he could IN any way
Judge Brady, to District Attorney-When can
you oe readyY
Mr.. Pne PSI can't say till get the papers.
MI. Fied-The District Attorney lcrgets the
whole ARRANGEMENT. which Was that the matter
Court Oi course 1t would be Impossible TO PRINT
the whole OF the papers In tine case but the essen
tlal parts are printed and can be had IN i've mln-
utes. The record Is all we want
Judge Davl-When'were the papers filed in the
Mr. Probationary of this week.
Judge Davis-Coansel Will understand that the
,ft IN Arn oy,s<n t,nn NJ . hn
COURT is to allow no case to be passed ON pro
forma.
forma Judgments cannot go into the Court OF APP
peals; but all we desire here Is not a pro lorna
Judgment, but to get at the first Impression. In
this case two Judges OF the Court have already
participated in the trial OF these indictments, and
OF course they have IMPRESSIONS and where was
the use OF argument to disabuse them ? But we
do not seek to remove the impression, and there.
lore, far this arg ument goes, we are wiling
that they shall hear both parties, give decision,
and thus enable US to take the case to the Court
OF Appeals. Our client ls all TINS time imprisoned:
If justly imprisoned, the sooner that fact Is known
to him the better for him and his trends; II
wrongfully who will deny him an opportunity to
prove thisS don't think the District Attorney
mas come up TO what We expected OF him In the
matter. We expected, and he inLimated 70 US
that he so understood 1t, that the case should be
Of on the ISa IRON whco dase was
now--If not on Monday. One Of our points Is the
validity OF the Indictment.
Judge Daniels was understood TO say that that
was no point at all.
Mr.. Fieid-we cannot dictate to the Court what
have the matter expedited. Tnere is this about
the case, however: II there IS to be o luli argu-
ment the sooner the better and the sooner the
Court organizes for that purpose the better
Mr. Phelps said he would be ready whenever he
was furnished with q printed copy OF the record
Judge Daniels-We cannot enter on the argu.
ment OF the case till the papers are served.
had already. Notice was given that the case would
be the calendar for next MonIay, and the
rett could not SIT in Oyer ana Termlner TO make
return in the CASE Why not argue the case next
Monday or Tuesday, This is haoeas corpus case,
and the law Of the land requires 1t to be heard
speedily and disposed OF promptly and not to DE
treated as an ordinary suit at law. VIII the Dis
trlct Attorney consent to have 1t before the Court
OF Appeals on the 0tnY
Mr.. Phelps-Let us first have the papers.
MIR. Feld-We will move the case the moment It
is reached In the calendar and pass 1t Tor argu-
ment that day.
Afer some further bret discussion the case was
manded in the course of the discussion were COM
piled with, the furnishing OF the printed papers,
reaching 1t Oh the calendar, &c.
THEATRES PAYING LICENSE.
The history OF the suit brought by Lester
wallack To test the question OF the liability Of
places of amusement TO pay license fees and
penalties, the same to 60 TO the Society for the
Reformation OF Juvenile Delinquents, has been too
fully given in tie HERALD to require extended
recital. The case reached this court on appeal
from an order OF the Special Term continuing
pendente lite the injunction restraining the city
and the Society Tor the Reformation OF Juvenile
DelInquents from enforcing or imposing the penal.
ties prescribed In chapter $3.50 Of the Laws OF 1872
Judge DAVIS gave the decision OF the Court. After
reclting the nature OF the action he refers
to the act entitled "An act 10 regulate
the places OF amusement in the city OF New York;
under which the action Is brought. He Then pre-
ceeds TO state that the cheI OBJECT OF this act is to
provide Tor the regulation OF places OF amusement
In this city by placing them under the control Of
the public authorities through ~ stem OF licenses
to be granted by the Mayor on the payment OF q
fixed Zee. There Is nothing new, he says, in the
system OF regulating these places oy licenses. In
ali Its essential features 1t has been applied by
special statutes TO this city Tor upward of Iorty-
five years. Laws OF this character are sustainabe
gitlmate exercise OF the taxing powers of
tine State, and the Second as part
dificulr, he continues. to find any authorities in
which the power OF such regulation and restraint
by license has been denied by the State or federal
Legislature on constitutional grounds when eXer.
cised within their appropriate Jurisdiction. In
his opinion the constitutonaiity OF the act Of 1872
does not at all depend upon the validity OF the
dispensation or the ices to be received by the
Mayor. That IS question which legitimately
arises after the license fee shall have been paid by
the party taxing out the license, and III which
such person mas no greater interest than any other
citizen II IS question properly between the
CITY anu Tue SOcicty IoT Tue 1Sc!OrHaIlOn O JuVe-
nile Denquents. He concludes his opinion as lol-
lows:-It Is not our duty 10 defend the justice or
wisdom OF the law which he seeks TO condemn.
Ii is enough Tor us that the Legislature has
power to enact 1t, and In it's discretion has seen
fit to DO So In such case our duty to uphold and
enforce 1t is very simple and plain. Yet 1t might
be no difficult task TO snow that the system Of
licenses, ana It's consequent preciusion OF
worthy exhibitions from winch license Is with
hello, is greatly advantageous to such establish
ments as the Plaintiffs by preventing the degra-
dalton OF all sucn performances in the public
estimation which would be quite certain to grow
out OF the promlscuous and unrestralned eXnibI-
tlons which would spring up III the absence OF
legal restrictions. The order OF the Court Delow
must be reversed and tue Injunction dissolved,
ments, and $40 costs OF the motion III the Court
below.