The New York herald., 1876-10-06

From this episode return 10 the narrative Of my
agency in what has been called the roiorm movement
The decisions above advered to parayzed all civil
proceedings in the city for justice not attain
sbio through suits in tho CITY law department.
Whether suits should be prosecuted in the OF she
STATE OF the local municipality mere point Of
form which three lines or legislation would at
any moment obviatc But the Legislatures Of 1872,
1873 and 1874 passed by without aording any such
lie formal difficulty created by the Court
OF Appeals deciding that the State could not sue for
justice stl renamed an insupcrabe barrier TO ITS at
talnment when Mr., Tnden active advocate OF re-
FORM chosen Governor.
The faulty construction OF our present highest Court
and It's constitutional unniness 10 perform benonciaiy
the functions OF 4 OF Interior appeal in the last
resort, fully developed in tho article published
by Mr.. A. G. Browne Jr, in Harrer's Weekly Tor
November l3. 1875 had become perfectly apparent TO
As became holding the post OF assistant coun-
sci against pecuation and peculators watched the
oligarchy and did what could to prevent any In
Of its power.
When Mr Tiiden proposed for nomination. %
Governor his most active and prominent rivals wsro
the democratic appeal judges above alluded 10.
They both gazsted candidates for the favor OF
their organization instead OF Mr Tden; but that ono
or them who had written the first and controlling
opinion in favor Of rweed's partner Ingersol 5s n r
Rep p 10y thought It expcdent to publish resignation
OF his prctcnsons in favor Of the other This ma
fully explained in Mr Brownies article before
cited 1t was deemed an artidce; il was denounced as
such and perhaps with effect, for no appeal udge
was named in the Democratic Convention as Mr..
Tilden's rival opponent He was nominated and
elected. This brings us TO January l, 1875
When one full month of the legislative session held
that year had elapsed without any action being had
it seemed tit to demonstrate and published volume
explaining the condition OF things entitled Ejaculation
Triumphant" memorandum at its close dated
February 1875, after that dato copied into
tho NEw YORK HERALD and other papers The remedial
which that publication demanded alter
ward conceded by the Legislature almost II not quite
unanimously Opposition to II was hardly safe. The
original draft was, indeed, somewhat stoned down.
from what motive know not (see act OF March IL,
Laws OF 1876. chapter 49,
On the legal basis thus furnished basis Of civil
actionsIn the city commenced One of them
has eventuaed Ia judgment against Tweed for moro
than So OoO oo0 and others proceeding whilst
than $500 900 has been actually received Suits civil
and criminal, against the rural denquents pro
crossing the lower courts, and to all appearance
favoraby. But it is not TO be overlooked that in all
these cases. appeals lie tho Court OF Appeals; and
long that high tribunal retains its power and
fit judgment In favor of the public
can ever be sustained.
WAS DONE AT THE POLLS.
The question is before whether its power Is to
undisturbed and also the analogous inquiry
whether It's policy OF protecting pecuators by Illegal
reversas other unjust decisions In their favor
bc by popular approval at the polls Let
MS sce:-
After the passage Of the act OF 1875 Tweed then
cupying n nominal imprisonment in the Penitentiary
brought his under habeas corpus into tho Court
- ml..
discharged him, one Judge tGrovcr) being absent l
do purpose here to review that decision. 1t fully
criticised in Mr.. Brownies article. will simply state,
at my peril in the estimation Of jurists present and
future tnas If any lawyer with ordinary professional
attanments after pcrusing the opinion with
Brownies comment on IL and the authorities referred
to in both, shall pronounce that decision sound
will be a compliment to say Of him that he is unfair
Wllful wrong doing may be repcnted Of atoncd for and
forgiven; but for absolute stupidity there is neither
hope remedy On his way TO the conclusion
affirmed in that case the learned sonor judge cited
in language the attering, forensic argument Of
mine ON point that Il necessary for him TO
affirm. (eo,h N. Y. Rep PIP. $50, 6s1 That argument
was delivered by a former which the Court
decided in my favor different grounds and without
noticing this point But my argument being in print
1t frequently afterwards addressed TO this very
Cour, OF Appeals by other counsel and by It,
every such OCCASION most emphatcay rcpudiated and
condemned Ono OF these occasions very shortly
prior to the hearing OF Tweed's Habeas Corpus case
Bcsidcs that reputation published In the regular
official reports tSee Suydam smith, so N " Rep,
D $685. Charity itself could not contrast these con-
nicting decisions and AVOID condemning the judgea
When this point OF its progress in shielding pecula
tors had been reached by tho Court of Appeals the
civil cases against Tweed newly commenced for the
State undor the enabling act Of 1915, werc pending;
and motion tho most singular that be conceived
was made by him in the Supreme Court before Judge
then recently elected the nomination OF Tammany
Hail. That motion for order that the State bo
from further proceedings until the Attorney
General should furnish Tweed with bill OF particulars
which it was palpably impossible to frame. This mo-
ton was long held under advsement and the exist
ence Of an intont TO grant obvious 1t was then
deemed proper that tho condition Of things should De
made public; and this done my name In
q letter TO Judge Davis published by the NEW York
HERALD and other papers on July 10, 1875. An i'm
peachmont limited at for the benefit OF this
dlIaory local judge and decision in favor OF Tweed
followed instantly the day. II had at least
the merit of great boldness. BY November 1875, the
question up for review In the Court OF Appeals
but in the meantime Brownies full and explanatory
criticism OF that Court lrocecdinss this class OF
cases had been published; and, now, for tho nrst mo
the Court as this mere nterlocutory point OF
practice was concerned, failed decide In Tweed's
favor. The City Judge not sustained and the suit
was permitted 10 20 on against Tweed. The result
was the Judgment TOR $4,000. 900 and up~ards above
mentioned .StiIl, It BY follows that that
judgment will pass uuscathcd through the Court Of
Appeals. Nothing In favor OF Its principles was de-
termined In the bil-or- particulars notion And
hazard nothing in saying that no judgment ever
be recovered against any OF these dcnquons that may
not technical point or pretencs be reversed
with pausibity and q greater semblarcc OF
lawiuness and than any sensible and impartial
lawyer find IN the judgment on Twccd's habcas
corpus
GEORGE DAxroRrh
am brought 10 the precise point and motive Of