Court Opinion

ID: 9883054
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 01:36:05.607939+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:19.336831
License: Public Domain

Me. Justice Field,
concurring.
I concur in the judgment of this court, that the Circuit Court of the United States had no jurisdiction to interfere with the proceedings of the mayor and common council of Lincoln for the removal of the police judge of that city. The appointment and removal of officers of a municipality of a State are not subjects within the cognizance of the courts of the United States. The proceedings detailed in the record in the present case were of such an irregular and unseemly character, and so well calculated'to deprive the officer naméctof a fair, hearing, as to pause strong comment. But, however irregular and violent, the remedy could only be found under thé laws of the State and in her tribunals. The police judge did not hold his office under the United States, and in his removal the common council of Lincoln violated no law of the United States. On no subject is the independence of the authorities of the State, and of her municipal bodies, from federal interference in any form, more complete than in the appointment and removal of their officers.
I concur also in what is said in the opinion of the court as to the want of jurisdiction of a court of equity over criminal proceedings, but do not perceive its application to the present case. The proceedings before the common council were not criminal in the sense to which the . principle applies. That body was not a court of justice, administering criminal law, and it is only to criminal proceedings in such 'a tribunal that the authorities cited have reference. In many cases proceedings, criminal in their character, taken by individuals or organized bodies of men, tending, if carried out, to despoil one of his property or other rights, may be enjoined by a court of equity.