Year: 1874

In the early part OF last May preliminary inlunc.
tion was obtained in the Supreme Court restrain
ing the Society for the Reformation OF Juvenile
Delinquents, the Mayor and Corporation OF the
city from the collection OF licenses required by the
act OF the Legislature passed in 1872 to be paid by
theatres and other places of amusement in the
city, and IRON enforcing the penalties prescribed
In such act until the matter had been
adjudicated in the Court. subsequently
order to show cause why this Injunction
argued by no less eminent counsel than A. Oakey
Hall for the motion and William NJ. Evarts and Il.
randolph Robinson in opposition. Although the
ment was that This should be test and
govern all the other places OF amusement in the
This argument, which was published lully in the
HERALD at the time, took place before Judge
Donohue gave his decision in the case yesterday,
embodying the same in the following opinion
which, as Will be seen, is short sharp and decisive.


OPINION OF JUDGE DONOHUE.


In this case the lacts and points involved In my
Judgment such to enttle the plaintiff to re-
strain defendants, as asked, until final judgment
on the merits The principles involved are OF too
serious nature to Justify a hasty denial OF the
given IN granting Injunction which Will cover any
license lee, II 1t Is adjudged, the defendants can
collect it and no injustice viii be done. The pain-
tin claims that a law taxing him directly to sup
port private corporation Is not within the
power OF the Legislature to pass, and IT seems TO





stion is sound. The Legislature has limit to It's
power, and while III many cases it is beyond The
power OF the courts to restrain the abuse OF its
power, in others 1t ls not Here, think Il is
WITHIN the power OF the Court and its duty TO
strain the exercise Of power which, II Ii exists,
leaves the people little protection IRON legislation
IN favor OF private corporations. II Is claimed on
the part OF the defendants that while it is truly
close corporation, the defendants, the House Of
Refuge, have a public duty and responsibility,
which It performs. The answer to this seems to
me to be that the act gives them the money with
out imposing any use for a pubic purpose OF II by
them, and furtner while cursOry reading OF tnc
facts organizing the institution seems 30 compel
Them to take certain persons committed by the
State, il still leaves them che right TO
say whether they VIII take prisoners or Others
by private commitment-that IS, they are to be
judges OF when they have room and what are
proper convcts, and they are 10 keep them accord
Ing to their own rule. IL is said, and undoubtedly
true beyond question, that the gentlemen who are
managers OF the institution are engaged In q good
work and are doing their duty faithfully. Ths Is
rue; but 1t has not yet come TO pass that the state
has 10 relnqulsh to corporate societies the punish
ment OF Its cOnvcts, ana leave to them the man
agement of Its criminal law. II Is dangerous
precedent to hold tnat the Legislature has the right
to compel certain classes TO support private
society that may, II 1t sees 1T, 90 the work OF the
state That this institution does It's work well Is
NO excuse tor devlating from true political
economy. Injunction granted.