New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1882-01-16
PUNISHED FOR CONTEMPT

Judge Gilbert has acted promptly and justly
in furnishing the Brooklyn Aldermen who were
guilty of gross contempt OF court, and the les
son probably vii! not be lost upon the com
munty. Fifteen of the seventeen Aldermen
who boldly dcfed an injunction issued by
Judge Gilbert have been fined $3.50 each and
have been sentenced to imprisonment in the
RAYMOND Street Jail for terms ranging
from ten to thirty days. Decision has
been reserved in the cases of the remain
ing two, of whom one is sick and the other
claims to have committed the contempt UNI
Willingly. 1t viii be remembered that these
seventeen men. passed a resolution giving to
the Brooklyn Elevated Railroad Company ex-
traordnary priyilcees-privIleges which were
never dreamed of by the trainers OF the char
ter or by the company during six or seven
years. Mayor Howell vetoed the resolution,
and for that action he received the approval
of every citizen and property-owner who does
not wish TO see his rights and those OF his
neighbors trampled upon by an unscu-
pulous railway company or equally nscru-
pulous municipal legislators. The seven
teen Aldermen, who had voted as
unit, gave it out that they would dis
regard and override the veto. To prevent
this an Injunction was obtained. On the last
day of the official existence of the Common
Council for last year the injunction was made
permanent. No sooner had this been done
than the seventeen Aldermen met behind
locked doors, deliberately dehed the njunc-
ton and the Court, and voted to override
Mayor Howels Veto After this action they
had the audacity to assert that the courts had
no right to interfere with their functions as
legislators.
We are glad to see that Judge Gilbert does
not take this absurd view of the powers OF his
court. The excuse was frivolous and child
ish one, and Judge Gilbert properly character
ICES it as an aiterhOught. devised for the pur-
pose of screening the guilty officials from pun
ishment That the courts have authority to
restrain the action Of municipal body OF this
character is too plain to need argument The
right of the courts to compel certain action on
the part of municipal officers by man
damus has often been exercised and
never questioned and the right to inter-
pose legal barrier to the accomplishment of
indefensbe schemes and wicked jobs is
equally clear That the scheme i'll question
was of this sort there can be no doubt 1t was
an outrage upon the people of Brooklyn, three
of whose main streets were seized upon
with barely semblance of right by
bankrupt railway company 1t was emf
nently just that this iniqutOus project
should be promptly crushed out by
the courts and that the Aldermen
who de6ed the Court in the interest of the
railway, under circumstances That could not
fail to give rise to the suspicion of corrupt
motives, should be brought to speedy punish
ment The rights of the people have been sus
tanned and the dignity of the Court has been
upheld. Judge Gilbsrt's action cannot but have
a wholesome effect not only upon the men who
legislate for Brooklyn, but also upon corrupt
Aldermen in this city and elsewhere. The efforts
now being made TO save the guilty men from
imprisonment ought to fail and neither Judge
Pratt nor any other Judge ought to interfere to
relieve them of any part of the just penalty for
their wrong-dolng. Owing to the order granted
by Judge Pratt they are now out of Jail, after
IL few hours spent in confinement. They should
be sent back speedily and made to serve out
the full terms for which they were sentenced.