Public ledger. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1865-1893, 1875-05-27
Chancellor Walker DiSSOlvss the
Injunction in the Case Of Foley
vs. the Police and Fire
Commissioners.
The Efforts Of the City Hall Office
Seeking and Holding Ring
ThWarted by a Learned
Legal Opinion,

This morning Judge Walker, Of the
Second Chaucery Court, delivered the
following elaborate and learned legal
opinion, dissOlving the injunction here
tofore granted in the Ease Of Tim Foley
VS.. the Police and Fire Commissioners:
Tim Foley VS.. 1T. Leath ct al.
This record involves the question Of
the validity and also Of the construction
Of the new city charter, contained in the
act of the Legislature, passed March %,
1875. Complainant is captain Of FIRE
engine No. 4, appointed by the Mayor
and General Council, on the day Of
January, 1874, his term Of Office TO be
two years, under the charter and ordi-
nauees then in fierce. The defendants,
Leath, Vaccaro, Frank, Magevney ard
Moore, are the Board of Police and Fire
Commissioners, elected and installed by
the present General Council, under the
provisions Of the new city charter. This
Board has removed complainant from
the Office of captain of fire engine No. 4
and appointed the defendant, Mcmahon,
in his stead. Complainant, by his bill,
denies the validity Of his removal from
Office,
/. Upon the grounds that the new
charter is unconstitutional and void.
2. Because, if the act is constitutional,
the present General Council had no au.
thority to elect and install the Board of
Fire and Police Commissioners, com
plainant insisting that, under a true con-
struction of the charter, that Board was
not to be elected until January, 1876.
and by the General Council to be then
elected under the provisions of the new
charter.
3. Because complainant could not be
deprived of his Office except by an aboli-
ton Of the Office itself, or a removal by
a two-thirds vote of the General Council
as provided by the ordinances in force at
the time of complainant's appointment.
4. Because, under the new charter, the
present General Council could not
change or repeal the ordinances in force
at the time Of its passage.
1t is claimed that the new charter is in
conflict with article 2, section II,
of the Constitution, which pre-
vides that no bill shall become a
law which embraces more than one sub
ject, that subject to be expressed in the
title. All acts which repeal, revive
(revise?) or amend former laws shall re-
cite in their caption or otherwise the
title or substance of the law repealed,
revived (revisedO or amended"
1t is earnestly pressed upon the Court
that this act, containing the new city
charter, is in conflict with the first SEN
teEee of the above quoted section of the
Constitution.
The act is entitled IAN act to regu.
late and organize municipal corpora
tons Of certain population, and for the
increase and diminution Of their powers"
1t is only necessary to examine the
act to see that the entire subject is ex-
pressed in the title. The act regulates
corporations already organized by an
increase or diminution Of their powers,
authorizes the organization of new cor.
porations under the provisions of the
act, and does nothing else. 1t cannot
be objected, therefore, hat the title does
not embrace the entire subject matter OF
the act.
But it is urged that the act embraces
more than one subject" that to regu.
late existing corporations is one thing,
and to organize new ones quite another.
That is undoubtedly true, but is,
think, no objection to the constitution
atty Of the act. The Constitution does
not declare that an act shall express but
one idea, or enact only one thing on a
given subject, but that it shall in one
act legislate only ia reference to one
subject. Let that subject be as broad
as II may the legislation may be equally
broad, and all embraced in one act.
The classification Of municipal cor.