New-York tribune., 1875-10-09
THE DEYISON IND BELDEN ARREST.

THE DEyISON IND BELDEN ARREST.
The attempt to apply the Civil Remedies
legislation of the last session TO the Canal
Ring, as represented by Dcnison. Bclden a.
Co., seems TO have failed i'll one particular,
yet we trust it may not prove very import
ant one. The Act of 1875, Chap 2S, provides
for both an order of arrest and Il warrant OF
attachment whenever it appears chat the de-
" fendant has, without right, obtained, Ic-
ceivcd converted or disposed Of any money.
funds, credits or property held or owned by
"this Stae;r and the object of course was not
only TO provide for cases such IA that of
Swecny, but to give the people an
effective remedy against pcculators who put
their ll-gotten property out of reach and then
defy Judgment. Under this Act Judge West
brock of the Supreme Court granted last
August an attachment against the property OF
Dcnison, Gerc. and the two Beldens 10 the cX-
tent of S417,O00 on the suit of the people.
and az IL further remedy in the same suit an
order of arrest was issued against the four de-
PENDANTS and they were held to bail in S2O0.OO0
each. Subsequently they went before Judge
Landon of the same court and moved, /. TO
compel the plaintiff to elect between the
order of arrest and the warrant of attach
ment. and that one of them should be
vacated .. to set aside the attachment on the
ground that the aildayits did not show u case
to Justify ii 9. to discharge from the lien oi
the attachment 80 much of the pTOpcrty seized
as NAV bc in excess OF the amount necessary
to secure any Judgment recoverable upon the
paintiiis' casc The decision of Judge Ian
don has Just been given in schenectady. He
grants the first motion; refuses the second.
with leave to renew: and refuses the third
SUGGESTING however that motion may be made
10 modify the attachment i'll such way as to
reduce the amount required to he seized. and
40 leave it to the sheriff to release in his dis
erection what hr finds to be supcliuous. In
granting the first motion, Judge Landon ap
parcntly holds that the double remedy OF
arrest and attachment is only authorized as a
preliminary measure, out of abundant caution
at a stage of the proceedings when 1t can
mot be certainly known that one OF them
"will suffice to give the plaintiffs full security
" for their claim Now that both warrants
have been served and ample security obtained.
he Judges that one is unnecessary. and as the
plaintiffs elect to retain the attachment, the
order of arrest must be vacated.
1t is apparent that the consequences of such
a decision may bc very serious III some cases,
if they arc not in the present one. Judge
Landon takes no notice of the objection
urged on the part of the people that the at
tachmcnt may not be sufficient. There is moth
ing to show that the real estate attached is
unincumbered, nor does it appear upon what
principle 1t has been valued or whether the
property would bring at forced sale the amount
at which it was appraised. The discretion of
the Court is exercised entirely III favor of
the defendants, and hint is even given that
on a new motion the security of the people
may perhaps he still further impaired. 1t is
undoubtedly the presumption that Judge Lam
don does neither more nor less than his duty !;
but it il clear that the prosecution of the
Canal Ring will be encompassed with multi
tude of obstacles, and the victory of the peO-
pie will only be secured after hard and
weary fight. And there is one moral Of the
story which we wish to point out without re-
flecting in any way upon the prOpnety of the
decision. The case reenforces the lesson already
taught us that reform demands not only honest
and capable legislators to mend the defects in
our laws. but judges in full sympathy with
the reform movement to interpret and apply