New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1896-10-28
albany POLICE LAW VOID.
THE COURT OF APPEALS DECLARES III
UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

IT WAS PASSED FOR THE PURPOSE OF TAKING
THE CONTROL. OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT
OFT OF TIE HANDS OF MAYOR TEACHER
GROUNDS OF THE DECISION.
Albany. Oct. 27-The Albany Police Reorgani-
zation law. which provided for new Ponce
Board to he appointed by the Republican ana
Democratic members of the Common Council,
was declared unconstitutional to-day by n ue-
csion of the Court of Appeals The court afilrms
with costs the decision Of the lower court deciar-
Ing the law unconstitutional The prevailing
opinions are written by Judges Gray and OBrieh'
and the result is concurred in by Chief Judge
Andrews and Judge Vann. Judges Haight. BART
lett and Martin write dissenting opinions IN 1aVor
of the constitutionaty OF the law
The decision Of the court declares unconstltu-
tional the two main provisions Of the law, when
are that the minority in the Common Council
NAV have the same right to appoint the Police
Commissioners as the law accords to the ma
iority members, and limiting the appointment or
members of the Police Board to citizens VINO are
members Of the parties represented by the ma
iority and minority members of the Council
The Greenbush (Renssclaer County, Police law
is also unconstitutional, as It's consttutioha'''s
rested on the same grounds as the Albany law
The Albany law was passed at the instance or
William Barnes jr., in order to take the appoint
ing mower out Of the hands of Mayor 1hacher'
Democrat.
Counse. for the defence I'm arguing berore the
court held that II the Albany law was uhc"'s''
tutional all present bipartisan boarus were AZ
ing under unconstitutional laws WIN reie'
ence TO the cffec, which this decision VIII nave y"
the standing Of laws now on tie statute BOOKS
which provide for nonpartisan or pipa'
boards or commissions Judge OBricn says
The learned counsel for the defendant mas , a.,
tempted with much industry and apil,y 10 s,nts
the various provisions OF ms PHI py ar,ns,,ation
~ the constitution manifested by the cr'auon
and operation through long scries OF yf', our At
ientlon Is called TO numerous laws ciiacu,u ~.
that purpose providing sometime enn,on by the
people None OF these statutes. however, oGn ILL.,
such provisions as the %e non ,Hs court has care.
fully RETAINED from expressing any oln:,l az -
the validity OF provision wn'n from Voting for or
aPe"ple Us. Kenncy, Is Il i. 800: People VS. Grs-
y 93). II Will be found. think. upon earrtui ~
thew have been organized with such scrupuloqs
fairness that In every case they can ,sas1 80 Iai
sentiment and local authority Moreover, they
have proved to be- rs thus Constitute s cnonomy
order and good government to dsarm all OPP
position on the part OF the people In the local.
ties where they are in operation and to meet WIN
general public approval. ..
We do not de ,ide intimate anything against
the validity OF the laws under which such bOarus
exist WhSn then particular provisions are qics-
toned brought regularly before US. II VIII u"
then pertinent inquire whether there IL not SUI
ncient warran; within the pale OF the Constitu-
ton for their organization and existence. II does
not follow that laws which merely require the local
appointing power constitute boards as 10 be
nonpnrtisan or bipartisan I'm conflict with
benefit OF the Judgment and discretion OF the
local authority in making the selection from the
citizens II may not b" a fatal objection that they
are restricted from selecting all the appontces
from the sam" party. SO long ~ the appoint ment
t.. in fact well AZ I'm form. made 10y thc Mayor
or Common Council. AZ tho case may be- and the
appointing authority ~ left free TO act ia It's In
tcgrity, the m"r" fact that they may bc prohibited
from making the choice from one particular class
or political party may not inVdlicatc the statute.
There l.. think. a distinction between such
statute md That now under consideration. whore
the local authority n 80 divided that It's action
cannot b" -aid to represent the popular will. but
rather the choic. OF the central authority.
The fatal objection To the bill IN that. while pro
Tossing TO comply with the Constitution by d.s-
ignnting the Common Council rs the appoint g
authority. II yiontes II by restrictions upon its
action ana by tho enactment OF methods of pro-
ccdur" for n special purpose which In their prac-
ical operation. confer the power 10 select upon two
political groups In the body. each acting ndepend-
emily Of tho othc-.