New-York tribune., 1878-06-21
ANLNDLcTMENT OUASHEp.

The foray of Mr.. Recorder Hacket against
Constructions" has come to nought The Grand
jury being ordered so to do by His HUnor, indicted
the Board Of Aldermen for permitting John Butler
10 Keep a stand for sne sale Of newspapers. While
TIc arorha- s pursuing his pleasant journey across
the Atlantic, Judge Barrett has fallen upon
the Indictment and made a hole in the
same large enough for the unobstructed
passage OF a coach and four His view
Of the matter is, that John Butler, If anybody,
should have been dealt with by the Grand jury.
Not that the Board of Aldermen cannot be indicted
for official acts plainly forbidden. ." The Common
Council SAYS Judge Barrett, "are indictable
for fraudulently exceeding their jurisdiction"
The friends Of an honest municipal government Will
be gratifed and encouraged by this judicial
recognition of the responsibility OF the Aldermen,
though they may not be responsible in the matter
Of John Buffers stall. The defendants could not
have escaped upon the plea that theirs was legs-
latlye act. They subject to legal correction
ciyilIy and criminally. So far the Recorder was
right.
Judge Blrretts distinction between the ordinary
and legal signifcaton Of the words "encroach-
mentD and obstruction seems to have
been accurately taken. A newspaper stand we are
happy TO learn, is not necessarily nuisance within
tbe meaning of the charter. IL may DO made one,
n
the free passage Of pedestrians. When the
Aldermen authorized John Butler to keep
a stand they did not permit him TO main
tain a nuisance. II by reason Of growing
business or for the sake of his convenience he
made his stand OF such proportions to incom-
mode tho public, It would have been legal for tho
Commissioner of Public Works TO demolish it, and
further to deal with the offending party if he should
think proper
But the opinion Of Judge Barrett seems to deal
with something more than the subject matter Of the
indictment. doubt is more than intimated of the
right of the Recorder to direct the Grand Jury to
iudict certain parties without hearing testimony
which may favor the accused Judge Barrett is
clearly Of the opinion that the charge Of
the Recorder was of an arbitrary nature,
and that the Grand Jury was in a
manner forced into its finding. Without any DIS
cusson of that point 1t is proper for Grand Juries
TO be reminded that they are not necessarily
compelled to find bills because judge tells them that
they must DO so. If that were law. there would DO
no need Of Grand Inquest at ALL The Court itself
might order the arraignment of whomsOeYer il
pleased. reaiirmation of the right of juries to
decide as they see fit, is. from time to time, desra
bic.
Tho fifteen Aldermen are reported to be greatly
reioiced over the discontinue of the Recorder. 1t
may do no harm for them, however, to heed what
Judge Barrett said of their liability at law to In
dlctment and punishment. 1t will be well
70 repeat his words: "There is no
doubt he said, that members of a Common
Council are indictabo for fraudulently exceeding
their jurisdiction" Aldermen are "subject to legal
correction ciyilly and crminally"-a point which,
in the midst Of their congratulations, Aldermen will
do well to remember. Judge Barrett might not be
80 forbearIng if an indictment for real offence
should come under his consideration.