The New York herald., 1879-09-30
Completely Routed in the Contest for
Inspectors Of Election.
THE MANDAMUS DENIED
Duties Of the Police Board as Defined
by ''the Extraordinary Term"
MAJORITY AND MINORITY
Tanmany Declared Supplanted
by Her "Anti-."

by Her "Anti-."
Tho partisans Of Tammany and Irving Hall were
strongly represented before the extraordinary ses-
sion Of tho Supreme Court. General Term, yester-
day. ON the occasion of the argument Of the
motion. made behalf of Tammany Hall
for writ of mandamus to compel the
Board of Police Commissioners to appoint as
inspectors Of election those recommended
by the Tammany democracy. In favor Of the appli-
cation as counsel appeared Messrs. David Dudley
Field, Dudley Field. Edwin w. Stoughton, A. J..
vanderpoel and Mr.. Bacon. The counsel represent
ing the Police Commissioners were ex-Judge
Emott. Assistant Corporation Counsel Stetson and
Mr.. F. N. Bangs.
Mr.. Dudley Field read the affidavit Of the Tam
many Committee on which the order to
show cause was granted, and which has
already been published. In opposition Mr.. Stet-
son read affidavits made by Police Commits
sioner MacLean and John @. Jacobs in which the
action Of the State Committee in recognizing the
1rvngtes the regular representatives OF the party
was set forth. Argument was then proceeded with,
Messrs. Stoughton and Field arguing on behalf Of
Tsmmany and ex-Judge Emott and Mr.. Stetson for
the COMMISSIONER
TAMMANY's POINTS.
This. counsel for Tammany said, Is an applica-
ton for mandamus to the Board of Police of the
city Of New York to appoint inspectors of cleo
tion tho persons named as qualified by the regular
democratic organization known as the Tammany
Hall democracy. other persons belonging to that
organization, or for such other order as may be
Just In support Of the application an afi-
davit of the relators is presented. stat
ing that at the passage OF the Election
1oxu 80
wore and ever since have been two regularly organ
lied political parties in tho State known respectively
as the democratic and republican parties; that the
democratic party comprised majority of the cleo
tors In this city, that the Board Of Police has uni
formly appointed inspectors two members Of each
OF these parties; that the democratic party has
had and now has county organization known
rs the Tammany Hall democracy, which has
bean uniformly recognized by the State conventions;
that this organization. on the 9th OF last August.
presented to the Board, as heretofore 1t had uni
sormly done and as it was requested by the Board
to do. the names Of persons belonging to the demo-
cratic party qualified to act as inspectors; that
the Board has neglected and refused to appoint
them or any other member Of that organization
but certain Of the Commissioners have threatened to
appoint. and WILL tho rsators fear, appoint per.
sons belonging neither to that organization nor to
and the relators believe that the Board will not ap-
point any member Of the Tammany organization. The
relators are committee appointed by the Tammany
organization to obtain proper representation of it
on tho various boards of inspectors The statute
assumes that 1t is an advantage to political party
to be represented in tho boards Of inspectors It is
therefore the dnty of those who have the manage
ment of its affairs to obtain such representation If
they The statute assumes. moreover that the
Board of Police will be composed of representatives
Of both PARTIES though law required it, The intent
Of the statute is to give the county majority and the
county minority. State issues equal representa-
on in the Board Of Inspectors and In order further
to protect the minority it provides the
minority inspectors shall be nominated by
the minority Commissioners. but the ma
jority inspectors are to be named and
appointed by the whole Board Of Police. Clumsily
drawn is the statute it does not appear to be
susceptible Of any other Interpretation. Upon the
theory OF the ant-Tammany claimants the two
minorites are to be represented. that IL their
ganization numbered only 1900 men every one of
them would be entitled to appointment as inspec-
tor. The affidavit declares that the Tammany Hall
organization comprises majority Of all the electors
Of the county. 1t may not be improper. therefore,
TO give the particulars matters of public noto-
rety. At the last election 140 900 were poed
In this county. of which 10000 were cast by the
rammany organization 81 900 by the republican and
10000 by the antTammany organization. Now,
assuming the party "in political minority on state
issues to be republican, which casts 81 900 votes
and giving 1t two representations in tho boards of
inspectors. 1t would be great injustice to give the
two other inspectors to the anti iTammany organi-
xation as II 1t we've the political majority though IL
cast only $4,000 votes, and to leave the Tammany
organization without any represen although it
cast 20 900 votes The Commissioners or Police can
not enter into the minds OF men to fnd out what
may be their political faith and opinions"
THE PRAcTIcE IN
The only evidence admissible on this question IS
The party organization to which they belong. Tho
uniform practice under tho statute should have
Ereat influence upon its construction. This prac-
tice has been always to take the majority inspectors
from tho 1anmany organization. In conformity to
this practice, lists this year asked by the
Board of Police and furnished by that or
ganizstion. II was the duty OF tho Board of
ago. II they had made them there would have been
no question that tho Tammany inspectors would
deprive that organization OF the right which 1t
qucstionably had Mt the beginning Of this month?
FROM somo other portion of tho donocratic party I'm
respect of one out sof seven candidates. ButS who
can tell in advance OF tho election whether ma
5ority Of the democrats of the State tor Mr.
Robinson or for kellyy The only test that can be
Justly resored is that OF election and In this
instance the last election liz our only guide. Tho
Board of Police enter into questions OF the
regularity OF nominations. IL 1t were to do 1t
would have to decide questions OF fraud or force. A
State issue IL not question of regularity, but o
question of policy. state issue must be that
Affects the whole State and arises between two great
rival parties question OF regularity affects only
the portion OF one party. State convention oven
has not authority to decide the regularity of NOM
ination. That to DO decided by the electors |
themselves The decision of the late Judge Wood |
run made In October, 1872, upon question betwccn
Iammany and antTainmany. which was entitled to
the federal supervisors should have weight iu tho
decision OF the present question. On that occasion
Mr.. W. 9. Barrett and Mr.. Mitchell for anti
rammany and tho Judge. after hearing tho argu-
ments, decided that Iainmany entitled to the
supervisors. IL tho Board OF Police is MS we have
endcavored TO show. bound to appoint two Tam
many inspectors of the four mandamus TO compel
u TO do 80 Is proper remedy.
THE oOMMIssIoNRls SIDE
On the part OF the commissioners IL wss argued
that by the true construction the statute the in
spcctors who represent the political minority must
necessarily be frst named, or. least identified in
some way Tor hnal selection or appointment be-
cause the privilege OF naming them belong excu.