, 1875-07-07

\ propsr forum, And determined in = proper
way.
followed on tho same sde. T1o said, while he
admired tbs dlrectness and cteazneAa With
which Mr, Fuller got at tho real popts IN
tho cAso 10 still inclined to tho opinion
t!at be Lad wasted great deal OF
tb. doctrine OF repeal BY Implication. Thc1o
wan no branch OF law better understood By l4w-
ycrs than that Tho only dIf1erouco between
counsel on tho point ~An a. to tho application Of
the rules. Al to TIM rules In regard to the con.
ssructlon Of statutes. tho great object Of all In
curry was to ASCERTAIN tia will or intent Of the
LEGISLATURE thRt passed tho act. Ifthe act itae1f
Was clear, there ~en nothing 10 constrre Courts
had nothing to do With tue wtedon or policy of
neanureh; ANYTHING wrong IN that respect must
DO fenedod hv tho Legislature. 1t waa Gus
tnnArY whon tho construction Of q ht8tute Was
~ questson to iirst reaort to tho means within
tile statute Itself. Tho sct ia question xaa new.
and had nevor been adludicated upon. It raa
cootended that
TIE INTENT Or THE ACT
Waa to add 20 .ch or IN amendment upon tho
chaItefn Of cstleA organized under former chas-
ters. Tn tho other eido. they consendcd 1t WAS
thp intention to make eubatItltu for the old
chartors. The Enlo Of oonssruction 10 sucl, caHes
Hns that tho old 1a1 Htood Ecpeated, even il there
WIS no expross declaration to that effect Soc.
g. he held, wa Hiu1 oly declaring BY leglslallvo
waa no room for doubt that the intention Of tic
Legislature wss to make = new charter when this
act Has adopted. Tna Intention was to tnake
complete organization, aud to prevent any In
iuIi0ns effects tcnul'ln4 from that organization.
st,e iaw provided that when tho result Of the
election was aHcertA,ned that the city otficcrs
then Ia power shall tharcsrom exeze 70 the pow
ers conferred upon like oiTcerH III thu act until
their suecersorn were elected And qualified.
THE rAoy1s1o1H or THE OLD AND NEW LAVE
EONFIICTTH,
Fec. !. page 500. Of tho oil law provided that
tho Board OF Police should exercise ent;ro con-
troll over she polIco force Of tho CITY hut tuo
act OF 1872 ftevscd statutes, 22l) gavs tho
Council power 70 regulate the police OF this cltv.
prescribe tho dutiea OF tho Superintendent OF
Police, tbo policemen, watchmen. eio. Ile syR-
tenn Of tho two laws was cptircl< different. r.
theEu WIS ans Board which could be dspensed
with under the old charter 1t MAS Tho Common
Council, for all that s had to do uss 10 levy
taxca and raise MONEY Tor tbs D3ardA 10 spend.
In many cases tho pfosiaIons Of the charter
were mandatory to provide auch mouey as
theory OF the no. act waa shat lectsst,on ellonld
not be distributed nmohg Independent B,arfa
There wns conflict At eyefv turn between tho
Cd and new scsa. md tue Board was virtually
abolished BY the adoption Of tho net OF 1872.
Ma. 0DUDY
than delivered the concluding argument for tho
defendants. Ile said ths ordinauce IN qur4tion
authorized the nayoe tn snooint City MnsElal
Will tH8 E0ue6Nl u IG9 lily GoHDClI. 1ut ILL
junction prohibited the 3fayor from making that
ar?oiutmont, aud the question frat 70 be con-
Aldered waa "hot.,er Or no! tho Ct5 Council ba1
tho poaer to paas tint ordinance. It ~as
conceded by TIA bill that tho CITY ,Counc.!
l,72. In Soc. 2 Of Art. VI. it was
expressly prorilcd tlat. by an ordinance
passed. by q swo-thisd vo:o Of tho Aldermen. tho
Mayor was authorized to anpoint City Marshal.
They found. then. that the charter wLich was
R1rnr1np thu tjtv And xFh hirf1 nm fta Ia
for tho Ctv Council, expressly authorized It to
pass an Ordinance to that o;fect. And get the
compainnnts asked lhe Caurt to restrain them
from making this appointment. on tho ground
guaEe Of the statute was
r1.&1N AND DIRECT.
and could not bo explained away. Compfnin-
ants said they wero performing certain duties
prior to tho act OF 1871: tuat tie appointment Of
City Marshal inf1inEed upon ths laws under
which the7 acted and that tbs duties to ba per-
formed By this city ht.1shAl sore in conflict
with tho duties they ia1 10 perform. II il wero
tine that the Law OF 1872 was inconsistent with
tue a~s under which The Police Commissioners
wore Acting. then by tho express terms Of the
former act, IN Sec. 6. Art. l., the old law wan no
longer applicable to tho Cltv Of Chicago. Tint
was the whole arRumcnt in tho case. II the
CITY 3ta'sha could 30 appointed uuder this or
dinance, and tho Police Beard loft in forco, then
thnse Was no ihoons.stonct. NJ injury would re-
suit, and there wns TO ground Of complaint II
It did iutayfars with thcm. Il xaB becauyo The
law Of ls7a VI. lnconsis:s1t with tho !awa
scope Of The City Matehat'a duty. and IL tho
old !sx' Is HeEe s repagn.'it 10 tha ,pra.:at,
wero not applicable to tho city, becauao Of ttat
inconsistency. The act having bcen a1onted It
contained all tho powers tho city entored 1t pres-
ont. There was no doubt It waB the intention Ok
ths LEGISLATURE to mako the act substitute for
old legislation. Tho question involved waa
whether tho Mavor and City Marshal should
tako Charge OF tho police force, or whether ii
should remain urtier tho control OF tho Board,
Hhnt i11eparable damage could result
4 the change was madc Would not
the public interests 10 lust rs
xell preserved under the Mayor aud City
Marahal uu1or the existing regime2 II lilo
Court restrained and Tho ordinance WAa valid,
the city would oo without any rghtful police
authoiity. Il tho injunction were pcrnotuatod
1t you'd contInae 1nen i1 office contskfy to tho
provisions Of the nav charter.
Tho Court adjourned to 10 o'clock this rnoru-
Ing, whom Mr.. Fuller will deliver tie closing
argument for conpiauantH. 1t IN expected thst
Judge Faswett will give lis dbclslon III tho aftor-