New-York tribune., 1885-02-11
Mr.. EDISON IN CONTEMPT.
FIFTEEN DAYS IN JAIL AND $3.50 FINE.
uypoE FRxHDMAN's DEcisIoN-AN ArPEAL TO BE
TAKxN-MuCn SURPRISE CAUSED.


Judce Freedman, of the Superior Court, de-
sded yesterday in the contempt proceedings OK
Mavor Edison that Mr. Edison must go to Jail for nitceh
and nay $3.50 fne The caused asensationn
eral and political circles The grew out OF e ell
forts of Hubert o. Thompson to hold possession OF o
Public Works Department until Mayor Grace come INV
oce Tn that work he was assisted by Charles r. Miller
and one or two other young lawyers msmooS' VI
selfstyled Citizens Committee" Although the s'"0
made 1t mandatory upon Mayor Edison TO make hon" ,
tions TO iii all existing vacancies Thompson, Mer'
and some of tae contractors under Thompson icd 10
nrcvent the Mayor from obey1ng the law Ihe oaS p'
fore Mayor Edson's term expired an 'nJunc"on w. w.
granted by Judge Miles Beach, on pocn'' - 49,,
made by one of Thompsons contractors, res'r''ns
uavor from making nominations Inc Mayor ""' m
,ssa nv David dudley Field Robert sewell ana other
rominent lawyers the injunction was vauees anu
ne dlsobeyed 1t by nominating Rollin NJ Squire Tor Co-
missioner of Public Works and William D0rshemer Ior
CORPORATION Counsel Mr. Squire was confirmed py 'ho
Aldermen
No further action taken at the time In regard 70 'ne
Injunction. The arghment for Its continuance ha' Do
made before Judge Trax and his law books got wei
from storm did not decide the case un'ii soo "eq
later He then vacated injunction, because no co'
paint had ever been made stating that 1t was Improper
to Grant an injunction without one That
was supposed TO end the matter, as the TWO
Young lawyers who had been instrumental III
nualflg
had both secured office under the Mayor But Mr..
Miller applied to Judge Freedman to have Mr. Edson
punisbed for contempt in dsobeyiny an injunction
granted by another court 1t was the decision on inns
application which caused much talk yesterday. The
general im mpresson that the socaed Cltzens oo-
mttse is in hopes of finding some pretence Tor disturb
ing Commissioner Squire. either to get him out OF
osica or 70 drive him into Bargain for
patronage Mr. Squire asserts that he has no fears Oh
the Citizens CoIn,nittec Mr. Edsons counsel are & ex
tremely confident OF reversing IN the nishef oo 70 WV
order against the ex-Mayor for contempt
SUBSTANCE OF THE DECISION
Judee Freedman's opinion occupies more than nity
pages of closely written legalcap. he says tha' ho
question arises as Jurisdiction OF the court over
the person Of the defendant. provided there
was Jurisdiction in other respects The opinion
also holds that Judge Truax's refusal 10
continue the injunction no bar to the ap-
pcaon to punish for contempt and Judge Truaxs con-
clusions are adopted far they CO. The question
whether Judge Beach had jurisdiction to grant the orig
inal injunction is considered at length Judge Beach Is
Injunction In the Superior Court Section 500 OF the
Code Of Civil Procedure which prescres ,nat an n
business of corporation is void unless & aae h0 nRIs @
aoss not apply to municipal corporation but only to
business corporations; ana even II ~ Iiu Tue 1uuse
Without previous notice, OF an injunction which
when granted would operate rs suspension
Fermentation OF as total suspension office of Of
Hcer thereof or as total restraint upon the general
f%n M s OF ,ne the Judge sys was not
characters 1t only restrained me eyerclse vi as S
ordinary business OF the corporation undisturbed The
claim that injunction was void because IL
ing tbe specc appointment of Ftz John Porter is
ruled II Judge Beach had jurisdiction to grant any IN
junction. he Jurisdiction to grant the one ne dd Inc
fact that no complaint accompanied the affidavit upon
which the injunction granted was not iatal 70 ~ al
though would have been proper Tor Judge beach 10
have required such complaint before making the order
Judge Freedman then continues, in substance . Inc
examination made sufficiently establishes that IN
every aspect taken of the Judge Beach
had sufficient jurisdiction 70 grant an order OF Injunction
force and that the defendant had no right
arising from the fact that the learned judge referred to
made an order an sep before u him that the
OF this inaccessible does not IN any way IN
ns % tss eapan by the that
granting of the injunction was an enormous aouse VI
In ihis country the security of fe liberty
and property depends upon ,s 5se lave rspsGd sd eveFy
saT oshs subject aSS to- sssIs'H s ss Municipal
nyae OF n9 te Civ Of New in the matters relating
TO appointment Of snch officers as ne mas inc power
10 appon much the exercise OF privilege OF
franchise las Judge Truax seems to have he as he ex
ercse Of ane auy nhd duty df kind
which, being of legislative character, mas at an
times on the hsen appSaoat sest to prs judicial scrutiny
not for the purpose of deciding it ahirnatixely
eonstnte IL mo- exception to the rule They may be
joined in a proper from the performance OF their
IL the ease is proper one ali the law requires is
that the injunction shall be granted by the supreme
Court at General Term thereof and notice to the
occr or board to be restrained Since the decision in
Davis The Mayor, The People vs. Compton ana Inc
assumed, the Legislature passed the socaed
taxpayers acts and by them
and the officers therein specified to class OF paintns
represent special private grievance put on y one
or falling within class This at once dsposes
Of al the % Sesns rn'seS n seay oy tue 70 '
Jmdse Freedman examines the circumstances undor
when Ss psxt sse inquiry Therefore must be whsher the
fendant established excuse OF which the law can
sompissd or but insists that in taking il he was
acfnated by any intention OF violating any legal order OF
Judge having authority to make the order OF
Injunction This is mere legal quibblng,. >, c.u
missioner Of Public Works and the office OF Counsel to
the Corporation which it was hs duty TO M The Of
until their should be lfsally appointed
lie n 81 hs sIS ana Il that ne could not wait until
the rendition OF decision upon the motion heara on
1sss Was in great measure created by the defendant
himself BY delaying decisive action until the very
he had other motives than regard for the
interests OF the municipality he represented;
That the or er Of injunction was null and void. That
this answer 10 the proceeding for contempt has
consider this fac. as an extenuatng circumstance The
defendant reerates fact that the injunction was
subsequently vacated by Judge Truax From what l
the beginning as 10 the effect OF thisdecision upon
tile present notion Il sufficiently appears that the claim
cannot be accepted as valid excuse Tor deliberate
violation OF the injunction while II alive. And,
finally says that in bringing the action the
plaintiffs actuated by improper motives, and he de-
MES IN the hearing before Judge Truax he omitted
20 deny yiz the truth of all the charges OF corruption
aud LEGALITY made against bin In tbs afdavits upon
which the Injunction granted. He thus seeks at
this late day. raise issue 10 the real merits OF the
action. That this cannot be done think nave clearly
demonstrated. .
None OF the excuses advanced by the defendant hav
ing any force validity In law and all his objections
both OF form and substance having been found untenaDe
and nothing appearing which could furnish respectable
apology the omission OF the Court 10 take sucn no