New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1909-11-24
GIVES GRAB A BLOW
SEIBURT TO MAYOR.
Says Justices Salary Increase
Is Not Legal.

-olloNlus close u9on the announced IN
tciition 81 The Brooklyn justices TO refuse
10 accept the SSSS 80 extra compensation
Offered each ~ thom Tor the month OF De
c,nl~r by the resolution Of the retiring
BOARD Of Estimate. and similar refusal
announced on Monday by Justice Henry
Ri-chan. Justice Samuel Seahur}, OF me
Isl department lined mp on the sloe 81
tho refusing justices yesterday. In a long
lett,r o. Mayor Mcclellan b. declared that
none ~ IA" justices OF the lst ana "a de-
Tarruaeuts could accept she cNtrs compen-
sstion. hecause il WAS given 10 them uncon-
stfutionally.
T. case the hurdle 81 unconstitutionality
should DO cleared hy the Board 81 Estims'e.
Tho Allied Real Estate Interests. through
tleir counsel Louis Franklin Levy. Wit
infcpose am injunction for which they VIII
rfol.-h 'v apply to-day.
Justice Soahury's argument. however
which practically reproduces that made ny
Tho Tribune cditcrially on SUNDAY, VIII
probably bring tho Board ~ Estimate 90 the
point - resembling its action 81 last week
He cites the state constitution. Section T.
Article ". which provides simply that IN"
compousst ion 90 b. paid 10 the judges -
tho Court ~ Appeals or the justices ~ the
{ diminished during their official terms
Tho arguments IN favor OF the resolution,
hsSed upon section "a Of the general statu-
tori construction Law, says Justice Sea-
bury. ignore entirely tho inquiry As 10 the
power ~ the Board Of Estimate 10 pass
upon the resolution. The letter says:
whether these arguments are sound or
unsound. n Is evident that tn people 81
she State OF New York IN adopting the
recent amendment 20 the constitution con-
ternplaied making no change IN me sala-
ries ~ the justices OF The LIST and I'd judi
cial districts.
Technical or refined construction should
not he resorted 10 in order 20 accomplish
something different from that which was
within the contemplation 81 those voting
Tor the recent constitutional amendment
To the claim that the resolution Of the
board is IN any sense justified because
Of the constitutional amendment favorahly
voted on al the recent election, Justice
Soahury replies:
The constitutional amendment gees into
effect January ], 1910 The December m
crease cannot be affected by the amend
mont because that amendment does n1t
take effect until January l. 1910. IL
merely continues The compensation me
sUstices are receiving Immediately prlor
This Decernber increase being therefore
invalid the increase beginning January
=. 1910. predcated entirely upon the sal
AIRY which the justices receive for the
month OF December. Is invalid also, mas
much a Tho prospective 5000 additional
which the city would then have 10 pay the
justices would have no constitutional oasis.
Justice Seabury declared that re did not
know from what source the resolution
omanated. but that il had placed the jus
tees Of the Supreme Court. who were in
no way responsible for it. and who did not
know that II was IN contemplation" in a
false light.
AT an executive committee meeting last
night the Citizens Union decided that IL
would oppose the proposed increase IN The
5usuces' salaries and would cooperate
with the Allied Real Estate Interests or
with any other organization