New-York tribune., 1919-01-31
Quigg on Hylan

v ENUEL +. QUIGG, 'oho success
I faily conductcd the faht Of the
ncrsdeolers against Hearst and the
Neic York Publishers association for
tie right to stop selling disioyoL nencs-
papers, 9caS desired yosterday by The
TriJu1le to comment on Mayor Hylan's
grotuitous criticism Of the unaccon1nno-
doting court. He made the folloving
statement:
It would be as presumptuous on my part
to defend Mr.. Justice Cropsey's treatment
of the Williamson case as it was impudent
on the part Of Mayor Bvsr to assa'I it.
But in his letter to the Corporation Coun-
sci Mr.. Hylan declares things to be law that
are highly questionable and asserts as facts
things that are not true
Mr.. Hylan says that Section 719 Of the
Civil Code 'expressly requires that judge
decide such motion within twenty days
after it is submitted to him fer decision.'
do not believe he woula find Supreme
Court judge in the State Of New York who
would agree with him. Section 719. in
far it relates to an application for an in
junction. says this:
"Where an application is made to OBJ
tain, vacate, modify or set aside IN
injunction order, the court or
Judge must finally decide the same within
twenty days after it is submitted for de-
cision."
No such question was before Judge Crop
sey. The injunction order had already been
obtained from Justice Faber, and the ques-
tion before Justice Cropsey WAS not whether
it should be vacated. or modified, or set
aside. but whether it should be continued
pendente lite. Judge Cropsey could have
vacated it. to be sure, but there was no ap-
plication before him to do so. There was
no "application' before him, anyway There
was question sent to him by Judge Faber
as to whether the injunction that Judge
Faber had granted parte should be con
tnued until the trial of the case. The ap-
plication to obtain, therefore, had been
acted on and granted. 1 an application to
1acate, modify or set aside was TO be made
It was the business Of the Corporation
Counsel 10 MAKE it. and h did not do so.
10 such question as is specified in Section
7l9 OF he code was before Judge Cropsey
Ii takes a good lawyer. when lawyer he
comes Mayor safely to BE dogmatc about
the law Mayor Gaynor knew how TO do it,
but
Mr.. Hyan says that p similar question
was passed upon b. Judge Benedict That
is not So The question before Judge Crop
seE was there being nothing in William
sons permit that required him 20 sell par
cular papers and nothing in the permit
-,
eli, to dictate 70 him what he must SELL
could the Park Commissioner take away
license within Inc period Of its term. Will
Iamson having paid for il and paid for the
full term. because Williamson refused to
sch "NeN York Amerieans' and "Evening
Jouruals' on the ground ;hat they we're
ssditioes publications. The question he
fol1 Judge Benedict Was totally different.
That was whether the Park Commissioners
discretion to issue licenses permitted him
to offer them at public letting under form
OF bid that reserved to him the power TO
specify what papers should be carried by
the licensee; and with warning qualifica-
tions, Judge Benedict said that the Park
Commissioner might do that. and vacated
the injunction that had been granted on my
ex parte application.
The Code Of Civil Procedure contains
8,85s sections. am not familiar with all
Of them. bat l am afraid there is none which
says that Mayor Hylan shall not consider
himself to De more William R. Hearst's
Mayor than anybodys else or that DIS
tinctly forb ds him TO N isintcrpret judicial
DECISIONS but thank the Lord there are
things in the code and elsewhere in our
laws that forbid our judges to be anybody's
judges, and, what is more, they are not
LEMJEL t. QUIGG.
New York, Jan. 80. 1919