New-York tribune., 1885-02-12
JUDGE FREEDMANS PECULIAR OPINION.

A careful review of Judge Freedmans opinion
holding ex-Mayor Edison guilty of contempt does
not leave impression of the convincing force OF
some of his arguments. Nor does the opinion appear
TO have been written in calm and dspasslonate
temper. The counsel for Mr.. Edison relied to a
great extent upon sections Of the Code OF Civil
Procedure when they advised him that the injune-
ton was void. One Of these provides that an
Injunction "suspcndng tho general and ordinary
business Of q corporation OF restraining
from the performance Of bis duties any officer
thereof, shall be void. unless made upon notice.
Another section says that this provision applies to
any corporation created by or under the laws Of
the Statep or TO an officer thereof. Judge Freed
man escapes from the latter provision by holding
that the New-york municipal corporation was not
created by or under the laws of the State IL was
created lie says, by and under Crown charters
still largely in force aud effect" So. then. the
Jndge would distinguish In this respect between
the cities of the State which were IN existence
before and those that have been chartered since
New-York became State. and these provisions oil
law are to be held applicable to Rochester and
Elmira but not To Newiorkl Then the law is not
so closely allied to common sense as lawyers and
jndges are fond Of declaring It to be.
Not entirely satisfied with his demonstration That
these sections Of the Code do not apply to the New
York corporation, the Judge SAYS further that If
they did apply. they would only. in his opinion.
prohibit tho granting, without previous notice, of
an Injunction which would operate as n total
restraint upon the business Of the corporation Of
its officers; and that this injunction was not of
that character But II injunction wopld lie. to
suspend a single junction OF the city government,
could not hundred DO issued to suspend its
hundred functions' Would not the practical result
of such ruling be to permit an evasion of the plain
provisions of the lawf
Perhaps the part Of Judge Freedman's opinion
which displays his own personal attitude the most
Enthusiastically is that where he says that the
situation Oh the last two days of 1854 was in great
measure created by Mr. Edison himself "By delay
ing decisive action until tho very close OF hs term"
I'm the language of tho Judge, I" he had aroused
public suspicion that he had other motives than a
regard for the interests Of the municipality he repre-
sented." What facts conld have been before the
court which would warrant such undignifed
fling as ,thatf II the real facts were before Judge
Freedman in the ai,idavs Mt all, If he aware
of what was well known to the rest OF the com
mnnty, he must have known that Mayor Edison did
not delay decisive action until the very close OF his
term but that almost as soon as the Office OF Com
missioner of Public Works became vacant, the
Mayor nominated for the place a man who, what
ever may be the diversity of opinion about his war
position 1t was through fault of Mr. Edison that
his first nominations were not confirmed; and
whatever delays there were, were caused entirely
Inv the actions of certain Of the Aldermen and by
the issuing of tho extraordinary njunctions, which
Judge Freedman by his decision indirectly
sanctions.
1t IL awilful and public dsobedience to the
positive mandate" of the court, of which Mr.. Edison
is declared to be guilty. And yet the Judge admits
that no believes that Mr. Edison thought the in
junction which he violated to be void his counsel
advised him. II he believed it to be VOID. was he
not acting in good faith and in tho line of his duty
How, then, could the disobedence be wiful"Y
Technically In contempt hc might indeed bc; but
there may be wide distinction between that and
wilful contempt. And the courts are not accus-
toned to punish technical contempts in the manner
in W hich Judge Freedman would punish ex-Mayor