The New York herald., 1879-11-23


the latest phases of that remarkable episode
in the club life of London-the expulsion
of Mr.. Labouchere and of the grounds OF
his application to a judicial tribunal for
an injunction. The legal proceedings
commenced by Mr.. Labouchere raise
questions of some concern to the seventy
or more clubs of the British metropolis, and
of curious interest to the clubs of New
York, although perhaps the interest OF
mere spectators.
No case, we believe, has ever arisen in
which an expelled member of New York
club has had recourse to the courts, al
though the Labouchere case is the third Of
the kind in London. But unquestion-
ably the members of an American club
have legal rights of whose violation
a court could take cognizance. Every
member of such an association is one of the
joint owners of the property of the club,
and the law will protect him in his rights of
property ifhe is illegally dispossessed. Our
New York clubs are organized as corpora
tions under the general law of the State. 1t
so happened that when the Manhattan
Club was established it failed to organize
under the statute, and went on for
several years as mere voluntary as
sociation. The members at length discov-
cred to their CONSERVATION that the legal
status of the club was that of mere CO.
partnership, and that they were in
dividually responsible for all it's debts.
Had that state of things continued the ex-
pulsion of member might have been sue
cessfully resisted in the courts and would
have raised troublesome questions. His
rights Of property would have stood on
the same legal footing as those Of the
member of a mercantile firm whose part
ners should have undertaken to expel him
by vote. All our clubs now stand on an
instrument of incorporation by which in
dividual rights of property are held in
abeyance under definite constitution and
| specific bylaws members rights are
legally secure SO long as he does not in
fringe the rules, but as he accepts his
| privileges on the condition of compliance
| be has no ground of complaint when his
own misconduct works a forfeiture Still,
| the method of his expulsion, as we'll
as the ground Of it, must be in con-
| formity with the rules If, for illustration,
he should be expelled by bare majority,
when the rules require two-thirds, or if cer-
tain formalities are required as prerequi-
site and those formalities are not observed,
he would have case on which he could ap-
ply to court to reinstate him in his rights.
So far Us Mr.. Labouchere's application to
the Master of the Rolls rests upon technical
Irregularities there seems to be colorado
ground for the proceeding. The rule
| under which he was expelled requires
vote of two-thirds "of the members pres
ent;" but Mr.. Labouchere asserts that he
was expelled by hare two-thirds of the
members voting, which was less than two
thirds of those s.present." But since this
objection was not made at the time it may
be questioned whether it can be made
legally available afterward. Mr.. Labou-
chere also maintains that only thirteen
days notice was given of the meeting,
whereas the rules require fourteen. 1t is
doubtless proper to raise such points of
mere form, because man can be deprived
of rights of property only in strict accord
ance with law.
But the legal aspect of this question is
not its most important aspect. Its ethical
and social aspects are those which have the
deepest interest for m nembers OF clubs. Apart
from rights of property-which are only Incl
dentally involved, and which weigh moth
ing, even in the estimation of the expelled
member, in comparison with the social
stigma-apart from this minor and trivial
point of property, there is the great ques-
ton of justice in dealing with regulations
If man proposed as a member is
blackballed he has no title to complain,
since it is the right of gentlemen to choose
their associates. But when he has been
admitted expulsion is severe penalty,
since it implies social stain of which the
recollection will not soon be effaced. The
governing body is therefore bound to be
reasonable and considerate; but they are
amenable only to the social opinion of the
club ITSELF and not to the law, for the exer-
else of this authority, SO long as they act
within the rules to which the member gavo
his assent in accepting membership.
The rules of the Beefsteak Club differ
from those of our leading New York clubs
in being somewhat broader in their scope,
or ut least more precise in their expression.
They authorize the expulsion for the soon
duet of any member in or out OF the club"
The Union and other leading clubs of this
city do not specify in their rules "in
or out" but by referring to conduct
only in general terms permit the
inference that the offence must take
place within the precincts of the club;
but this inference seems to imply a
narrow view of what the club owes to its
own reputation. Scandalous and disgrace
g., ,or1uct anvwh ere which mall os n ,,o,,