The New York herald., 1879-03-27
TAMMANY SOCIETY.

THE INJUNCTION PROHIBITING THE INITIATION,
OF THE. ONE HUNDRED AND foRrY-sEvEN'
CANDIDATES FOR OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES ON
APPEAL FROM THE INJUNCTION BEFORE THE
SUPREME COURT, GENERAL TERM
Politicians. principally of the Tammany and anti.
Tsmmany stripe. made up the major part Of large
throng spectators gathered in the Supreme Court,
General Term, room the reassembling Of the
court yesterday at hafpast p NJ, after recess.
Judges Potter. Ingalls, and Daniels being the
bench. Their desire to hear the argument OF
counsel the appeal from the order of Judge
Barrett granting injunction restraining the Tam
many Society from initiating members LAT persons
accepted candidates for membership ut u meeting
held on tho 3lst of December last. Mr.. Hubert o.
Thompson. the present County Clerk. took tho lead
in preventing such initiation brought the matter
into court. The motions and counter motions and
the multiplicity of arguments of which such
formedthe basis that have heretofore occupied the
tention of the in the progress of this
and exciting legal political hight have served to mako
is unnecessary to repeat them. but simply to give .
resume of the points OF law submitted both
sides. Each side was well representedb by counsel.
the Taminany Society by Messrs. A. J. Vanderpoei,
James g. Spencer. John ID. Townsend and L. Il. Van
Dervecr. and Mr.. Thompson by ex-Judge Porter and
ARGUMENT FOR rAMxANY
The history OF Tainmany Society from its organ
ment on behalf OF the Tamn,any Society proved
rather pleasant preface to the dry and technical
argument that followed 1t was urged. in the first
place. that the plaintiff has mistaken his remedy.
which should have been by quo warranto and not by
injunction. This was simply controversy insti-
tutcd by the ''outsT against the ''ins. and III every
such that has heretofore come before the courts
the 'ou,s. it claimed. have failed to obtain the
inj ton which they sought panacea tor their
ills. The very plain. Whether the rights
OF the partes-the ''outs"-havc been violated
not their remedy not by injunction. but re-
lief must be sought in another form. Tho Court
would not interposc by injunction unless somo
civn right or pecunary interest was inperilled.
which claimed not the with tho
plaintiff The second point was that the suit can
not be maintained on any allegation of fraud
third point that all members Of the society
should have been made parties plaintiff. The allega
that the notice of the meeting not legal in
no, being published in u business newspaper.
answered at great length. 1t claimed that tho
meeting duly and legally called; that in this
case legal quorum was assembled OF the corporators
held III pursuance of regular call authorized by
the bylaw. and that their acts must be deemed valid
and binding upon tho corporators. 1t was further
urged. this being the sixth point, that there Is
bylaw such set forth in the complaint. that
q notice OF a special meeting must be published
cluding points that a court of equity has
jurisdiction in this case. and that the plaintiff has
ms complete remedy at law.
THE INJUNCTION sHcULD DE CONTINUED.
II was urged in opposition that the plaintiffs right
TO notice of meetings and to vote and be heard ON
the question OF admitting members Ia common, ,
law right. incident to his membership and that II iss
recognized but not created BY the bylaws. and de-
pcnds ON the common law rule that mo power or
function entrusted to body consisting of number
OF persons can be legally exercised without notice,
To all tho members composing such body. II was,
claimed further that due notice OF meeting is
scntia TO its validity, its power to do any act
which shall bind the corporation; that the acts done
at the meeting of December 81. 1873, do not and
ought not to bind the corporation; that these lat
persons stand therefore, strangers to the corpora
tion and the injunction asked tor Is TO tho
corporation from initiating persons who have.
matter of law. never been voted upon; that the
meeting not technically and formally valid.
and that the plaintiffs remedy, and sole adequate
remedy was by an action IN his own behalf in equity
aud not by quo warranto.
= At the conclusion of the argument. which occu-
pied all the afternoon. the counsel handed up their
respective briefs for the special examination OK
the Court