The New York Disturbances

image 1image 2image 3image 4cropped image 1

The New York Disturbances

The disturbances around the City Hall have ceased, and little fear is felt of their being repeated. The Mayor is apparently master of the situation; the City Hall is still garrisoned by his retainers; Mr. Devlin acts as Street Commissioner, and the body guard are flushed with the pride of victory. But we doubt whether his Honor would not be glad to have the work of the last few weeks, or even days, undone. His prospects are far from enviable. First of all we have a broad hint from Sentinel, of the Courier and Enquirer, who is a personal friend of several of the Judges of the Court of last resort, to the following effect:

In passing from the subject of the riots, or rather commotion at New York, let me say, that at Albany, those best adapted by pursuit and circumstance for the formation of a correct opinion, believe that the Court of Appeals will declare the Metropolitan Police Law constitutional. Then shall we see the end of the valor of those who had the evil to will anarchy, but lacked the courage to consummate it.

It is evident also that the Mayor’s friends have an apprehension that the decision will be adverse to them. The Herald this morning occupies itself in censuring the Mayor’s counsel for not putting his Honor’s case in a sufficiently strong light—thus indicating that if the decision be against the Mayor, his partisans will attribute failure to the fault of the counsel instead of the weakness of the case. His Honor is now held in custody, and will remain so until the 23rd inst, when he will have to answer before Judge Hoffman for contempt in not surrendering to the first warrant. If found guilty—and it is difficult to imagine how he can justify himself—he will be liable to thirty days imprisonment, together with a fine of two hundred and fifty dollars, and for the contempt he is also indictable for a misdemeanor, which is punishable with one year’s imprisonment, and another fine of two hundred and fifty dollars. Two days after, (during which he remains in the Sheriff’s custody) on the 25th, his Honor has to appear before his friend Judge Russell in the matter of the habeas corpus. He is also the defendant in ten suits of damages for injuries sustained by metropolitan policemen—and a total sum of $50,000 is claimed from him. Mr. Conover has an action against him, and so has Coroner Perry. One of the Metropolitan Police, Crofut, is hourly expected to die, and a verdict other than murder or manslaughter against the Mayor can hardly be expected. Finally, if the Metropolitan Police Law be affirmed, every act of the Mayor in opposition to it since it was affirmed by the Supreme Court, is indictable. And last, but not least, there will be lawyers’ bills to pay for defending each and all of the above actions, and the innumerable minor proceedings growing therefrom.

This is what Mayor Wood has gained by his opposition to the law. His opponent’s gains are restricted to a few broken heads and limbs. Let us see what the public have gained.

They have gained several “bran new” legal decisions, which, if they are to stand as precedents, will revolutionise our former legal ideas:—

First—(by Mayor Wood) that when a warrant is formally served on a defendant, and the latter aware that the document is in proper form, and issued according to the usual practice by a competent judge, yet he may refuse to obey it; unless assured that the party serving it is a policeman, and that the law under which such policeman was appointed is constitutional. In other words, it is for the man who is to be arrested, and not for the judge, to decide how and by whom the arrest shall be made.

Second—(by Judge Russell) that when Mr. W. is arrested on a warrant issued by Justice S. Mr. W., preferring that his case should come before his personal friend, Justice R., may have a writ of habeas corpus sued out, returnable to Justice R., who thereupon coolly says to the prosecutor H., “I will discharge Mr. W. unless you elect to continue the case before me.”

Third—that an appointment at the hands of the Governor of this State only gives the appointee authority to possess himself of the place to which he is appointed if he can; and if he can’t travel into it “upon his muscle,” he may be dragged out of it and kicked out of it, and stay dragged and kicked out until the Courts have decided that the people who did the dragging and kicking committed an unjustifiable assault!

Fourth—that a city is independent of the State in which it forms a part; that the Mayor of the city is the superior in the city of the Governor of the State; and that the antiquated colonial charters of the city cannot be repealed by Legislative enactment.

These four points, and others of minor importance, may be considered established as the future landmarks of our statute law, and the bulwarks of our constitutional liberty.