Chicago Daily Tribune Newspaper, June 8, 1875, Page 1

VOLUME 28, DRESS GOOD3, "BROTHEES. will opon this morning twonty cases of ohoico and dosirablo styles of Soasonablo Dreoss Goods, purchasod jately at groat reductions from for- mer pricos, cnablos us to oflor UN- PRECEDENTED BARGAINS, to which we invite inspoction. 200 PIECES COLORED SUITINGS, At 260 por ynrd. 150 PIECES PLAID SUITINGS, At 25¢ por yard, worth 40. 100 PIECES PLAID DE BEGES, At 360, choap ot 50. §0 PIECES ALL-WOOL CAMEL'S HAIR CLOTHS, 50 conts, old prica 65, ELEGANT PURE SILK AND WOOL PONGEES, Dauifinhlo shados, 60¢ per yard, BLACK SILKS, 300 pos Black Gros Grain Dress 8ilks $1, $1.15, 51,25, $1.60, $1.75, $2.00. -Also,fulllinc of otherloading makes. BOMEY, poucy 20w cee Cashmire Stnlims, Castmire Aloxandra, &, Tromendous inducoments in Black Goods. 5 ‘Handsome _All-Wool Cashmeres, 75c, 86¢, 00c. Handsome All-Wool Cashmores, 48 inches wide, $1, $1.15, $1.26. 300 pos very fino Alpaca, 2Gc; good valuo at 36¢. 121 & 128 State-st., Twenty-second-st. and Michizan-av, GROCERIES, WINES, &o. FACIS WORTH YOUR ATTENTION! EVERYBODY Knowing the QUALITY of the xoods, boy thomr GROCERIES, WINES, LIQUORS, &0 FIG—ARS, LUCIUS C. PARDEE, ITALIAN WAREHIOUSEMAN, Succawwar ta STANTON & CO. 186 ST.ATTEI-ST, SIUED 1 FINANCIAL. The First National Gold Bark O 8AN FRANCIECO, CALIFORNIA. PAID UF CAPITAL,........82,000,000 GOLD, President.. GL.0.F. HOOP Vice Prealdeut.. SAMUEL T Cualler..... A It G WOOLWORTIE, CORRESPONDENTS, BARING BROTHERS & CO. GHARTEIED MEROANTILE RANK OF INDIA, LONDON, ASD GHINA. HOITINGURR & CO, DUBLIN......PROVINCIAL BANK OF IRELAND. HAMBUKQ, .. HESSE, NEWMAN & 0O, NEW YORK..DUNOAN, GIIELLMAN & 0O, +BLACKSTONL NATIONAL BANK, .¥IRST NATIONAL BANK. Collsctions attended to and prowpt returns msde at the Towest markal rates of Exchan: Loans on Real Estate. ‘We are prepared to make loans on good property in Chicago, nud well osteblished suburbs, in sums to suit (abave $2,000), tor & term of years, at current rates. BAIRD & BRADLEY, 80 LA SALLE-ST. CHICAGO MORTGAGE LOANS, At current ratas of fntsrust. JOSIAK ¥H. REED, 20 Nasu. Now York, reprossntad by TJOXN ¥. AVERY & CO. 188 La¥nlle-at., Chicage, First-uluas fucllitles ‘Tor fumneiAl nemetintious in Lonudon. TO LOATIN. Coah oa band ta loan ou lnstde Improved Hoal Eatate, in sume of 0600, $1,000, $1,200, $1,600, and $2.400, TURNEK & HOND, los Washington-at. MONEY TO LOAN On property in Chicago and vicinity, Large sums 9 por oent. MEAD & COB, 160 LaSalie-at. CARPETS. Mt band, Brnssols, Tapsatey, To: A ST TN e K e 's2 sastion prices. . Auet B TN A ortetheat The copartnanhip herstofure salsticg Letween Goo. W, Wright and Harry O, ik, under tho aame and sigle of Wright & Warwick, Is this day dissolved by mu- toal consent, G. W, Wrlght withdrawing. The busiaoss will be continuad by Harey 0. Warwlok, who will assume all liabllities of tha Iate Brm, and collect all outstanding dabta, £O. W, WIIGHT, Obicago, Juse?, 18018, HARRY O, WARWIOK, OARD,—Thasklaguny [riends aad the pablia i gen- 12t toc the libwral patrunace boalowod uiaa thouid iy . = o PO 0, Rl hind av, ol WA BILKS. SILKS! Ffield,—Leiter & Co. STATE & WASHINGTON-STS., Now offor a very largo and clegantly assortod stock of FANCY SILKS Including all tho now dosigns in Plaids, Stripos and Chools, 26 picces of Pin Stripes and Cligcks, In the now colorings of Prune, Navy, and Soal Brown, tho latest noveltics in Fancy Silks, and vory desirablo. 100 pioces Stripes in Grays, and Black and Whites, ot 76¢. 100 pes of Grisnillo Stripes at 81 and $1.10, tho samo queality that sold last year for $1.60. 100 picces Black and White Stripes at §1 per yard, worth $1.60. 25 piecos Printod Foulards, 24 in. wido, §1 por yard. 26 piocos Tlasid Silks in tho new colorings, at $2 por yard, the latest novolties. Our line of Black Gros Grain Silks at $1, $1.25, §1.60, §1.76, will be found much below the market, 50 piocos of our [TALIAN GASHMERE SILE, At 82 per yard, warranted to be the bost Black Gros Grain Bilk at $2 in this market. Also, full linos of Guinet, Giraud, Bonnet, Tapisier, and all: other pop- ulur makes of Black Silks, and at tho lowest pricos. Colored Taffotas and Failles in 160 difforont shades, ranging from §1.25 to $5.00 per yard. And o largo line of Chenoy Bros.’ Colored Gros Grains at greatly ro- duced prices. Making tho most clegant display over made, and to which tho atton- tion of tho rotail trado is ospoocially callod, STEINWA UPRIGHT PIANOS Are acknowledged to bo the most desirnble Pianos for the parlor or drawing-room. Over five hun- dred in use in Chicago and vicin~ ity. ench and overy ono of which 5 iven the most unqualified sat- Lo, LYON & HEALY, cral Agents for the Northwest, tite and Monroe-sts. TO RENT. OFFICES TO RENT TRIBUNE BULLDING. INQUINE OF WILLIAM C. DOW, ROOM 10. Houses for Sale or Rent. I bave soveral KXGFLLINT TIOUSFS for sale ar oot i eLioiule Torma. by Nikva M modera.fa raveion oo SRRt wro sty Iockied. ; ShiN G STORE FOR RENT In tho now Commission Market, No, 204 Jaokson-st. Apply 13 Chamber of Commeras, REMOVALS. BALTIHORE & O RAITROAD. TICKET AND FREIGHT OFFICE REMOVED TO 101 CLARK-ST., FR_WABHINGTON. HOUSEHOLD FURNITURE. Patlor, Chamber, Libs , (1t d_Dialog-s 1 sulth wnid soparate, AL BIIVATE BALC, second foor, suclloRprivss. " DINGE & GO, Auetl 5 Lo and 63 tast andy REAL ESTATE, DISSOLUTION. ‘Che pastasrabip boretofors sxtutiog unier the name of S R T el uidattyo: v whlswa la BESHGe 11, pyen, et sty COPARTNERSHIP. Olarsuge B, Dyor, Thomas O, Edwarde, and Praak R, Whosls I Bt e g th N e R R For Sale---A Bargain. ory and basement. mahle froat Luuse No. 9 ol vodty Bfiral it Uik Larm i indata & radld locatt Ty RS WAL T Tl G mar FIREWOREKS. Orders |ll‘ 83 the ofjce ol 0. K. Ho» & Co., 1 ith ‘Wator-st, for I1. ¥’ Uivb] & Co.'s caleb ¥ TiheSoite pesiiad stveation, .3 HOVEY, Rauar® CHICAGO, TUESDAY, JUNE 8, 1875, THE LAW UPHELD. Judge Willinms' Decision in the Case of the Con- temptuous Ones, The Power and Dignity of the Court Main- tained. Exhaustive Judicial Review of the Questions In. volved. The Chancery Power of the Conrt Insisted Upon, The Authority of the Council Was Purely Ministerial, Review of the Facts in the Case—Culpa- ' ble Action of tho Attorneys. They Are Fined $300 Each, and the Aldermen $100. An Appeal Talken to the Suprenfo Court. ‘What Is Thought of the Dooision, JUDGE WILLIAMS' DECISION. FINING TUE HEATONDENTS. The court-room usunlly occupiea by Judze Booth waa orowde:d almost to suffocetion by tho fnterestod or curious, asromblod to hoar {ho de- cision of Judgoe Williams ou tho question of punishing tho Aldermen who eommitted, and tho conusel who, by advico, aided in comm:tting, a contempt of court in violating the injunction issued against the Common Council by Judge Willlsma about six weoks ago. Of tho Aldermen againat whom the rulo was issued eloven wero presont, as follows : Ald. White, Dixon, Woodman, Quirk, Campbetl, Hildroth, Clork, Foley, Mabr, Stout, and Warren. All of tho counsel wero prosent with tao exception of Mr. E. A. Storrs, who was out of thecity, Tho court-room-was perfectly quiet during the delivory of the opin- lon, but at tho closs & deop marmur of astonish- maent, more thao of cithor applause or indigna- tion, was heard, which Iaated for somo timo de- spito the effoits of the balifls to restors order. Indeed, thoro was not the least attempt at ap- plauzo, oxcept in ono {nstanco, whon the Judgo reforrod in lerma of commendation to tha action of Mr, Jamieson, whon & soli- tary individusl bogan to mpplaud, but seemod afrald sud stopped. The Aldermon eat by thomsalvos in the chairs usually occupied by a jury, whero they not unoaturally divided with tho counsel and tho Judge the astontion of tho crowd. The counsel sat in a somi-circla about tho lurgo tablo whore thoy had had tho sigu- ment, Mr. Goudy had his usual sevoro ex- prosston of countenance, which seomed to dospen milo a sbado of suger as ho saw that tue Judgo decidod that e had juriadiction, and snimndverted tn atrong torms gn tho connsol's conduct, Mr. Adama, who eat fext to him, woro & sarcastio amilo on his faco tho maat of tho timo, Mr. Taloy seomed to tako tiio whalo procceding in excellont part, evon when Lo was asked to contributo s 3300 * for ibo good of the sor- vice.” Mr. Root's face eeomed Indicative only of attentlon, with a skiade of norvousness. Judgo Dickoy's countenanco changed repeatedly, alter- nataly flushing and paliug, snd, whou bo rose to ask for an appeal, his face was noatly tho huo of Ins sbirt-bosom. Hia voico, bowever, botrayod no tiace of feoling, and bis remaiks wero in bis usual ceremoviounly polite msaner. “Lho fol- lowing 1s tho opinion in full: A bill of chancery was fied fn this conrt by the complaluanta on the 2cth of April laat, charging, aniong otker things,that at the oloction for the udoptivg of thy Incorparation act of 1872, beld upon the 241 af the same mouth, the law under which te sdoption of nuch act bl boen submitied 1o the electors had been disreparded. in subatantial particilars that grom frauds and bellol-box stuffing Liad Leen resorted 1o by the Judges of such election s tlat thousauds of spuri- oua “voles pever deposited by any voter had been Dlaced by frand in the boxea; that such votoa wero about o be canvassod by the Gommon Council, The il prayed for &n _injunction restraining the Council .from csnvaseing such vote, or do' any acl rocognizing sald charter, The bill waa suppotted by many aMdavits, setling {orth moro particularly tho natitre aud extedd of tne frauduand allegality peaciiced at the same eloction, TOE BUIECT-MATTER to which tho bill relates s the invalldity of the sct of 1472 ax an exinting chiatter for il city, and the main charges of tho bill aro that uo legal notice was given of tho propoava election; tust thero was no majority of votes for the sdoption; and that groea frauds and violatlons of law wera commiticd aud parmitted by the Judges of election, And the important question of w to bo determined fa : Had this Court any Jurisdio- tion over thie nubjoct d the right unlor the bill fo lese (bo fnjunction ; or, on the olier hand, aro all exrra judicial and void, so thst tho, tackod lly? In other words, bad tha Qourt tha rigt In this caso whother or not the act of 1§73 was the exiatiug charter of tho City of Chioago, and to Eselrtus e cauvasa of o Yoto by the Comimod Goun- 1t 42 not now a question whether the biil did_or did nol present sny equity ; whethor {4 had o had nod Jrope paritcs L whethcr the facts st forth fo it wers mperfectly aAd insuticlontly stated ; or whether t] Court might nok,in ita discretion, have refused 1o grant the order, 3, Ninth New York, 268, and cases First Duer., thare cited, Nelther arming nor denylng soything sa to such queatione, It Is enough 0 say that they are nob uow befose (s Court, 88 0ow and Liere presentsd, TUE QUESTION 18 SOLELY ONK OF FOWER IX THE OOURT, and not of vights between 'ltigants, 1f the Court shiould now dolerinina that upon & Gual hestlug no decres uught 10 bo entored In favor of complainants, ‘even such s couclusion wauld not be Juconsy L with the massrtion uf the existenc we or It the Court has the power aver (be subject matter #0 that it may declare that the act of 1872 {s the law go elnlnr( City of Chicago, then the jurlsdiction complete aaif (¢ hsd the pawer and tha right o say that 1t waa ot ihe exiating coarter of the city, \What s THR NFANING OF TNK WORD JURIADICTION {0 {ta application_ta legal procedings which are betd tobe voll T 1n Wataon va. Jones, 13 Wallace, 752, the Supreme Court of the United Siates uses (bus lane uaga o There {s, p!l!lfl, no word {n legal termlnology s0 Iraquently used as {ha word jurisdiction, so capable of use 10 a geueral aud vaguo ssnue, and which Is used so often by men learnad {n the law without doo regard 1o ita application.” In poasing upon {he question whether » decrso wi , the Buprems Court of fllluow, i the of Curtss vs, Brown, 29 Ilinols, 231, #3ys: “\Whers thera I8 & want of power, be docres §a vold collsterally, Lut whers toers waot of Jurlediction merely ©only meaut 3t would bs erroneous to ezerciae the power, snd Lhe decren would Le revorsed ou_sppesk, It insion & want of squity, and not & want of power.” 1In the caso of Baogs ve, Duckinfled, 18 New York, 893, the Court of Appeals of New York, referriog to certain cases in which Chancellor Kent a3d Chancellor Vantford had decliued to saercise jurisdiction over carporatious, said: * In such uquiries the term +jurisdiction’ had « peculisr and_somewhat techaical ation to courta of {lfllrll equitable jurivdiction, ted, not 1o the naked quealion of power, bui rather to the fact thal such power had or bad not been usually exerclsed” Thus the question Ilrevenlod to court of aquity by “the objection ihat tha complalning party kid » full sud complote remedy st the common La; 6d to the Jurlsdiction of a coust of equity, aud i cunstautly spoked of in tho casea in that way.' bul 50 far was ‘it from ussenting the question of mery power that, If the objection was ueltlier taken by de- rrer, ples, RoF answer, the Court proceeded and ' julgment according (G the merits, uotwithatand. g 18 would Bave rejected Lhe Jurisdiction had the ueation been raised al tho ight tine, Tiis polats to the trus lMue of distiuction in the use of tho term *urfadiction.’! The question s properly oue of juris. Uoa only when & Judgment asserting the power of the Court would be void and_samsilable polisterally fo avery other court,”—Coolay's Conat, Lim., Bec, 8711 1 Duer, 492; 0 Now’ York, 208; 6 Legal News, 303, Thompann and orris, From these two cases—ans In our Bupreme Court and the atlicr in the New York Conrt of Apreals—and frum muny ofher canes which misht ba efted, 17 I8 APPARENT that, when It {n ralil th acts of & Court aze atsolutely voidd il ean be attacked collatoraliy for want of luris- diction, the word in ured not in & vagus anil Indefinite #snse, hut in & more exact and clouely deflned antve s 1t meann power 41 contruinunguiied from equity & 1OWeE 1n ita extstonce, rather tian in 1ta usual method of oxurcisa; pow ta possible rathier than in it onlinury mianifestationn: power as it origmally In- bered {n auy pariicular conrt, evon though a like pownr aziated aud was appropriately wxerclied by au- other tribunal, 11 418 14 the meaning of Jurtediction when 1t 18 said that ail procesdings are void,—and I know of no des etmian which would give the word fn such & cnanection » differcnt meantug,—than the juriediction of this Court tn the prevent 6a1e {3 In 0o wine dejend: nt upon e fuct Lt thers muy'be & complete wud wlequils remedy ot Iaw, 1f auch romedy exlety it does nnt;taka away (e chancery powsrs of this Court, afthougs tn ca10 the ohjection was raisad by demurrer, piea, or ati- swer, the Court might sud wionld refuea o exarcise ita power. ~ Not bring o ratsed, the -Court could pro- ceed 10 randur ita decree, and auch decres would oot Ls votd and could tot be collaterally attacked, 11 11 s application o the class of cases we ‘ara now considering,—that §s, eares where tho procsedings wers oId,—Juriadiction bad been usod Iu its vagus and fo- definile seune, a4 propounding power witout cquity, #0d inclading all those cascu in which there waa a rem. edy at law, {14 [aarlog sirange that there are not more fed chren I wiicli decrees and judgmeata Lve el d, The Supreme Court af Tllinola in the cane of Curtiss v, litown quotes with approval tbe language of the Court of Appeals of New York, sa followe: * There are, T apnrelend, few cares in which tiat position (that the decrea 4 vold for the want of pawer) could bs ailirmed I reapect to & court posrersing gencral Jurta- diction {n law and equity, on_grounds' relating to ti:e sulifect matter of tho coniroversy. Tho Circuit Canrt of Cosk Cotinty anawers the de- scription of couria abovo given,—that Is, it 188 court of general aud muperior jucisdiction,—and aa it has undoubted jurindiction over the parties ltigant, tho preseut queation {8 only as 0 its jurisdiction over tho subject watter of the utt, TIE FLECTION REFERRED TO In e bll) was not much in the popular rense of that word, ‘Tiin word ustislly refers to a chotce of officers, 1n tho late eiection no nilicers were vokd for s ouly a law wav voted upon to determitie Whether Italould 1e- come the charter of tha City of Chicagn, 1t {4 not the poifey of the law to reler coutestn for the election uf officéra to court of equity, wod awple provirions are \umll{. made to deteriniue anch conteata cisewicere, Neitber canthie courta restrain acts of the legivias ture or interfere with U8 action of legislative bouen, Tho Legislaturo fs » co-ordinate Lranch of the Govera- mieut, and eannot be aubordinated to the conrts, Bube Ject to the Constitution, it i, sxcept when Iimited by tlint, s'ipreme. - But tho Common Council (s not Leg- inlatara. It bas beew created by §1, and i controlicd and gaverned by it, 8o far aa ths Lemrlature may Linve seen it to grant to the Connctl lecislative powers, a8 to the-c 1t catinot be contriled by the couris, ‘Nelther can it bo contrulled by tham as to ANY DISCRETIONARY FOWERS Which may bavo been conferred upon if, nnless it manifestly sbuees uch diecretion. And i theso re- apeols tho 4 uo diferont Jax: for the Common G- cilof Cafcago than tiera is for every natural jerwon, nnd for overy other political or quasi-yolitieat carporn. tion fu the State, howover insizuilicant, &) It 83} 47 I'n, Blate, 2/5 3 70 P'a, Blate, 409 3 1 Duer, 4t DUT IN NEGAND TO MINISTERIAL DUTIES, the courts inva preclsoly tis sims righi to coutral the Common Counct] that thoy would Liave t0 coutrol - vutecitizens, And the duty of canvasiing these votes wero purely minfsterial, Buch wax tho docinon in_the cana of thic oaplo va, ieasd, 23 1., 325, aml 1ha Peo- pis ve, Hiliard, %9 1, 4%, In the lat. ter caso the Court mai Thiy class of power fa not generally understood to Lo Judictal, but purcly ministerisl.” Aud the natura of ihie act fa Dot changed from the fuct that the duty 18 devolvad upon 3 budy which, in samo cates, ponscases Iegislativo powers, 1Lia ineat d that the c.nvase of the voto wanan act commanded by duw, sud {aerefors that tho Common Councll wera bonnil fa obey the lxw, By thi I eannot bomeant that tmpliclt obadience (s requiecd by every oflicor to every command of tue slatite, Home aiatutes aro uucolistiiutlonal, Somo aro found upon an uspection of the journals of tho Senate and louss of Nupresentatives ot to avo beon passed, (14 1, 2973 17 1L, 134) Bome bave noyer taken effect, (31 II Bluny have bepn'repealed expreealy or by fipiivation. Is every individual 1o 3udyo fur Limeelf (n every fnstance whotliee the etatuta I8 binding on Lim, or_are snch queationa to bo determined Ly tho courte 7 Tue statemout thut & per- s0n commanded by statuta 4o 1o 8o act {3 bouad to do 1t 1n w1 canca 18 nob universally triic, but must be re- catved subject to certain limitations, 1 tho siatuto comnmanded the commision of thoft, TobbOEY, O even trespass, 1t would nob be elatmed that abedience to it couid bo compelled, If it comwauded the performe anco of & fraudulent act, or an sz which, in 18 heces— sary connectlon with ollicr acts, #iuld Lp criminsl or frahduleat, thocllizen Would o3 Lades no abilgatioa to obey it 11 tho statute commanded s public oMeer arbitrari. Iy without legal process to tranfer tto property of ana nian to anothor who posscased uo_legal or oquita- bie claim upon it, tho oilicer would not. be Lauud to obey, Our roports contaln many cases in which ofli- corn of the law hava been hold (0 bo discharged from tho obligation to obey existing siatutes. TLioresaro two dectalons fu this Stats which aro diroctly in point 54 10 4hfs queation, sud which aro conclusive upon it. 1 both of them, if the posltion was corract thutan ollicer muat aliays obey a datutory command, the mandamus munt have lazusd Lo compel Lls obedleuco (Tanpiug e Mundamus, p. 10): UntIn sach caso the upremo Conrt refuieed fa raue tho writ. Ope of theas Ix the case of The Yeoplo vs. Solomon (43 Iili- 1018, 413). AN ACT FOR A PUDLIO PARK having heen submitiod fo the voters of flie Towns of Houtl Chieago, 11yds Park, and Lake, at an cloction in 1837, the statute provided tlat **Tha voles suall Lo canvaseed and the returns thereof madoin (he manner provided by law foe tho electiou of couuty and State ofticers, sni the Clerk of the County Court of Cook County'shall fmmediately tlieroafter caune a certificate of the result of such election to be filed in the oMce of 1he Hocretary of Sitate, and in tho office of the Cle-k of the Hupreme Court of the Third Grand Division, Bolomou, tlen County Cierk, afuved to Blo the cer- tificate which the [aw axprassly’commanded bim to ol {mmediately after the canvassof the votes, aud thy Bupreune Court was anled 10 10 compel Lk ta do $0 by mandsmus, The Court held—not that, there being a1 expreas command of the atatute, 1% must be obeyed but that the queation presented was . whether the act bad become a Jaw, thereby ontiling relator to a peremptory wnit of mabdamus to compel tha Cotnty Clerk to cerlify, and thus give it operation and effect ;" and_that, an the act submitted had pever gons info effect, 1t 'bnd_not conferred tho righta claimed and soughit to be cnforced by the procecding, and rafused the mndatmus, In the cass of (ho Poople vi, Gonschenow, 54 Ilinols, 123 the law which contraliad the election deciared that the Towa Clerk aod Town aud City Su- pecvitor of Vandaita should meet after the polls were closed, and * shall immediatoly canvass tho votes and declara who ato elocted (owa oificers " but the Town Glork refuscd to meet. with the Tows and City Super- ¥isors, 88 requirad by the Bk, for the purpoeo of can- vassing the vola poliod, Upon an_sppiication mado to comjel him to act, the Bupsemo Court refusid the writ " bocause the Fecord slows ther was 1o action by tha City Counril fixing a place for Lolding the elec- tion in such & manuer sa woull glvs the public no- tice, and no uotive of the cloction scems evar to have been given,* In both thess cares the langusge of the statuts im posing the duty upon tho olicer was similar to the lane Ruago used in roferance to the canvaas of tha votes by the City Council, equally clear, and squally peromps tory, nnd yet the Hupreimo Court in each cass decided that'the peremptory cammand of tho etatute (mpossd no duty upon the ofticer, for the resain taat in eazh 2o the ativa act, under wuich he would havo acited, if atal), lad become & law, IN VIEW OF THESR AXD OTRER BIMILAR DECISIONS, 3t could not aven Lo argued mith auy plausiollity that 18 18 the law 11 this State that the Common Council, If for any reason the charter wad fnvalid, either for waut of the proper notice of tho clection or for want of 8 ‘majority of votes in favor of tho adoption of the act of 1432, wus bound ta canvass the vote, If it wers ot for languago employed by the Court In tha case of Develing el al,, 61s¢ Llinats, 02, T languago 8 shis: * Whan thd lsw Imposes a posttive duty upon & public fuuctions ind ‘s court col mands m pot fo verform u“h. wmust obey the law and disobey the writ of the Courk,” 1t le, as evory lawyer knows, sy to sustaio sny Propoaition, huwever unressouable, by detached sens ten-e4 fu tnw opitons af Juages, if e lauguage 18 0t coumdered tn wa spplication to the suvject-tmaiter u der discusmion, f by tie words * positive duty ™ ¢ Hupreme Courk meant mintaterial duty rutber inan act as 10 which the otficer had s discretion, then th portion of the opuiion ls merely an obiter u Toe Court bad befors in the apinion axpressly the Clerk was released (rom & positive duty, snd must exereise a discretion,” And anything said 1o the caso about the obligation of an oticer who professed Do discretion, has no weight as a decision. A8 TUE OASK OF WATSOX VE. DEVELING ied (o bo decisive of (be present cate, it mors careful examination, I1 was a bill brought agstost a buard of clection to restratu then frons holdiug au election, 1u ecordance with & statuie in_referenca fo 3 sulwcrption of stock 10 a ratlroad company, Lut tha writ of imjunctiou not only re- ained tho ofticers from Lioldw, but the eloctors of county, thio people, (rom voting at such election {page :n? ‘Threo quedtions werw dectided Firsl, that the Jmposed upon the Town Clerk to givo notice of the slection was discretionsry, and for that Tearon could not bo restrained, The Court mays, pae 2043 “If tholaw glves bima ducretion n the discbarge of a publio duty, the fm. phication {a that ho must act without otheér controt ihan bid own Judgmegit, Upon the aliegations 1 the bil, thete could bs mo power ur jurtdiction iu e Couirl 10 review o restrain the discretion,” Again, on g 2033 ¥ Toe Dourt biad uo Figat 10 coatrol the dis- cretion exercised fu th cal sccond point decided was thiat the right of the Th Peolie 10 asaert and sxvress thelr will by voting was & TIghi socured by lsw, and protected by constitutioual Jrovisious, and courts had ueither the power nor right 10 prevent such asspmblages Ly Injunction, Be third point decide was that the fact that one roposition bad been beforo voted on by the peopls [2 Tefaroico 10,8 railroud subscription, 40d Teleetedy- conatituted no bar (o & subssquent olection upon sat other proposition, Tueso are the only questions docided in this case, aud tho courd in d thess, guards the decialon by this elgnificant language: # No fraud Is charged 1n tha bitl, and it e not aifeged that the Act of Incor- poration fa invalid and not ahlfgatory upon the officers mentioned 1u IL* Again— Thers 18 no charge of the exercise of o nnreanonabts discretion, or of non- comrhinee with thy law,* The biil In that cwo smerely alloged a former eisction upon suothor peaposttion “under the sama law, a8 & rearon wh e “prosent election should ba restratned, What the deciriun would have been bad ths bill” eontatnod the allesiions which the Suprome Court rayn were omitted we do nat know, but wa may muppane that thesr presence in tho Lil wanld have mas tarially ehanged the opioion, else thair absence woull 10t Lxve bren commentod om, A% 1o tha guly clares {n tio bill that thero bad been'a previnas slaction, the Taw liadd exp:ravaly peavided (has, after tua rejection of uns prupasition o auacrila for stuck, another niznt basubmitted and voted upon (Yersfon latrs of 149, page 119), and the wonder I that auich 3 bill stould ever Lo baen presented Lo a court, THIS CASE AT RAIL Alfters from the ano tn t.1 Tikmeia {n eoversl partien- lars, The Wallon cass vestramned the ofticers from holding aud Lo peaple from vorng at an ele-trn: ihis doex othiing of the kind, That evse restrcined the performance nf & duty which waa discretionary 3 thin* does mot, “Chat ill neftber chargnd fraud nor Allegsd the Inrcorporatlon act to be invalil; thi chrged both. T cannnt regird Lagt eaee e decistc of this, "'At the cavo of_Danta vs, Tho People, €2 Iilinote, 307, I8 stated by the Court to be fdentical in 18 facts with the cas 1 Gl Liliuoiy, aud to be guverned by the samuo princiyles, i can declde notLidg more thaa that care decided, The case of The Paoplo v3, ity of Galealurg, 49 11 linoin, relateil to & proposed eleztion of officers, and tho Court refnsed to take juriouniztion, basing W des cirion (n part npon the fyct that there was an ndequate roundy b a court of law. Inssmueh an tho fact that thiere might Lo &n adequate remedy at [w would not make the procee lirgs of acourt of equity void, it ls not necesrary to devote much apace to the consideras tion of tie nuestion whether cr not Inthe present cate st law there {n auch adequste remedy, It cers tatnly cannot be obtined by uny of the waual atatutory proceedings, 1t Laving Lesn admitted upon srgu- nent that Sec. 67 of the actof 1972 did not apply to the conduct of tne rharter election, T saall pam that rection itk the remark that unlc 1 applua tn that efection for all purpoaes, it appiiea to it for no plirrose, There te uo pravision of the General Else. thou Inw whisi covers this cac. Beca, 98, 112, 113, 1 116 of that law refer only to the elaction of oificers, Sse. 17 reiaten soleiy to & aubject which may be sub- miited to the votos of tha peupla of the entlro coun- 1u procetdings uader that aection the rounty ia made defondant aud proceeais tn be rerved upen See, 9T apjlies (nly o subjects which niry be aub- Iitte 110 the volo of the people of the county. #EC. 134 ARER TUR OLNERAL ELECTION-LAW 10 apriy, 80 far a8 zppilesble,” to il clections. As that law provides uo method of proceduro by which an election fo; the adoptiou of 8 musicipnl chorter can o contested, snd such eieztionn are nowhere specially referred toin wich Jaw, the statute canuot be held to be applicable to suck electionn, EVEN IF THERE WERE A POSSIDLE REMEDY AT 1av;, that would nof, in any care, ileprive parties eqgrioved fron having 3 remedy Ao i equity fu refezece to wectal praceedings wita regerd to mublelpal eloctious nueless the legisl e intent to ke away ivs equitable remedy was plaioly mani Diln on Munidpal _ Corporations, 5, iliz op Injunctions, Bec, 831, And tate in such s spesfal proceedivg, cnd tho leg- islative iutent fo take away the equitable remedy 13 not manifeaty The canvass of the voiea belug oniy ministertal, snd the Common Council, xa to that a:t, being un completely under tho control of the coilrts as a natural person, sad the statutory com- mand {0 eanvans no: belng oge which required” obedic ence ! tae Curporation act of 1872 Liad never been iee frally adopied by Wb ciiyy It becoines finjoctant 10 fa- quite WHAT WAS NECESSARY in order that there aliould lisve been & legal adaption of tuut aec? Two things were necemrry st leart, the avsence o) eillier of watch wudld lave preveuted’ the legal adoptiuu o} ths chutir,~fire:, & compiisuce with the faw an 10 nuti-e of the election, and, sezond, & my- Jurity of Yotes cast in favor of (Lo wluptomof the &ch of 18.2 ua the chartur of Chicago, 1f tho charter- election was 1ol beld substautiaily 1 complisuce with tho ruquitements of law, i couterred power M}Ou auY person or persona who might atteaip 10 act Under tho charier of Ix2, ud wll the acta of wiich per-ous Woud be luvalld,” Auy scia done under raid pretouned sharker prejadicol to partivs tutght Le resiraltied by the parties sgarioved through ncoutt uf ejuily. No tazs could be levied which could not Le rustiained by tue tax-yayer, Awl, upon o bill betug fled, & court of chancery could czsmiue aud deterinine fhe quetion waoiber thy preteuded charier d voen legaily adupted. Larding va, lick- ford, flock Is snd & 5L, Louis Raiiroad Company, mau. eyt opinion, June, 1932, 5 Tiltnels, 161, Hilliervis. ors of Scauyler County va, tho Poople, 21 | 3u3, Clarke va. Bupervisors of Hancock, 44, Micanall County va. Cook, 4§ Liiiusis, 9, Videy ve, ‘Eompson, 46 Ilitmots, 49, Teoplo va, Holowmon, bt Liinow, 31, Peoplo va, Gocheaour. 1IN TUL CASE & THE PROPLE V! the Qourtazya: + Wil s 48 ot cunionisry to auh- it &8 act of tao Legislaturs 0 a Voo of the people for adoption oc Tejection, whea it is douc, tue exe preariun of thio wili of tho voters Ls subytituted for the power ol o General Asserably, Aad, when euch a courso 1a sdopted, 1t 1a nanifest it i for tha purpose of ancertatulag e wishes of & majority of tha vaters a tho desgusted locahty, aud to conform to that wish, and tus act_cither ecomlng & luw or coslngp 8OLOMON to Bawe that effect, ding to thy resui of the vole upon ita submission, aud this Letng tho purpose, aod the nols purpose, tho Will of tuo voters toust be ascertauvd und swubatantially in the wode prescribed, Tus fuwer havs 1ng besn delogated, must be pursusd substanttally at least, The power 1o deterininie flows alune, froms the “General Arsembly,|ind s found in the act, and its tve quirciaonts must fuvern thie actlon of the aters awi wticers,” Inibe list-meutioned cars ths Court heid that 1ne qention of the yark hud not beam sumitted aa the act roquired, and the It had 1ot been adopted | by majority of the legal volers, Aud conscquentiy Lad nover takun effest, | TUE VALIDITY OF TIE ACT of 1672 03 the exiatiug charter of the eny s the subject matler of ihis bill, 1f thers waa 1o majority ul Vuite cast upon tno of April for the charter, then it 16 10w now tho cliareer of Cicawa. 1f thers wus uch & wajurty, yet, I tow legal notice of ths slection bad . 10l been' v subatantially a8 the act required, then it 1 nol mow the clarier, 1n ths latter care, Where the noid:ets ot given substantistly aa roquired,—~to use ths language of the Bupremo Court of Ilinois tu tho case of ‘Che Peopls va, Uocheuour,—the votes would have been * Yotea of & more voltutary collaction ol cluzeus, mven uudor circumsiances which ok fron them Al claim Lo legality,” 1n tho case at bar theru was Dot 28 In tho cato of Waiton vs, Develiug, ny lujuuction prased for o had againyt 1o ofticers Of tne eiaction oF agatast tho elec- tura, Thero was 1 aitempt 10 restraln a discretiouars oct, The fnjunction was prayed for AQGAINST TUE COMMON COUNCIL AND CITY CLERKR, wwho were not ofiicera of the election, fheirs wasa miuisterial duty, to bs performed afiur tho elcction was had. ‘he legsl'and constituions] right to meemblo andexpross taeir will was in no wauner interfered with, nor the discretion of the oflicers of tho election, Anothor seb of oflicers were sbout to do _sn act, which, f tho Incorporation act of 1872 had not beeu legally adopted, tiey wero not Vound by aw to perfori, Ctielr only daty (If it had Leon one) was * 10 cauvass such 16turns, and causo tlio Teault of such cauvass to be entered upon the texrds of suck ciy,” 1t Was Argued upwn the part of tha e rondents_that this actwas & necesaary partof tho eloction, 1f s0, what part? They wero' (o count tho votos sad eniok tho result of record, nothing moro. That s, they Were 10 preservo tlie evidence of the elco- tion, ius the pressrvation of cvidence of ab act pre. supfosos the completion of the act, The evidenco of nact which bad never been performed or was still inchuate, conid not be preservod, The act of the Come mon Caulnetl 1 cOUntiug sud recording the volos was not an act, tho reatraining of walch interfered with the frecdom of elections ln_any way whatuver, 11 the allegatione of the bill aro true,—3nd they musk bo w0 accepted 1n passing upan the power of toe Court {0 act uader the bill,—tbe injunction only restrajved an act purely ministerial, the performance of which would have given apparent force and vaildity (0 s taw which wa In fact fuvalid, and would Bave beeu anoth- eF atop towarde tho consummation of o stupendous fraud upon the citizons of Culcago, the perpetration of which waukd oot ouly bave viatod ns election, but Iaft the sction of the city uder the valid eliarter lablo st sty moment o be arrested and nuilificd at the fnstance of e proper parties, The Comumon Council, 24 officers of the urf sud the protectors of ita property and snterest, wonid bo RECREANT TO THEIR PUSLIC TRUST 40 they sesisted In any reapoct in sulstiuting for a valid r, under Which the Government of (be city could be safely conducted, au Juvalid charter, o det which any municival act, hawever Important, could bo al aby womens Arresied at the suit of sy interested party, A muvicipal charter b a franchise, and a franehi 14 property, and the City of Chicsgo ield ite charter 14 d1d s othes property, In trust for all the peopls of the eity, 11, theretore, ihis act of the Common Coun- ©)l teuded to clotbe irter really (nvalid with appa. Fent validity aud 10 subatitute it it the place of & vahid and vaiuaoie charter, under which the Slunicipal Gav croment bad brea safely conductod, it theruby substie tuted uncertauty for certslaty, pussible confusioy sor stual order,” 1t belpad (0 flac Manichpal Government i 4 aItUAKIOL WHARe It light. be Impoksis Ule o prevest TUE MOBT AENIOUS LOSY AND DANAGE ta all the intercats of ihe city, the diersuces Letween the ol cuArter aud thal 1872 are 1neuy of few, greatior small, ‘The charte: are disalmilar, sud 40 (4r a4 ine chart {rom ths previous charter of th cit iho act of canvassfug ustod 1n substituting uncertality for cestsinty (0 tbe extent of such dissimianity, 10 do lie 1o 3 largo Wmunicipality, Whers IUBENss aUwe aTe ueoded 1 Ue raired tuouibly to meel vurront exjunditurcs wauld be auch & wroug 1 the citizeus that it niuy wel Do claased nudor the bead of lzremediable injurics which & court of equity will futerfers by lajunciion 10 prevet T tiluk the casc, s least In the principles applicable 1041, wore nearly Tesembles 4 COUNTY ELECTION CABE otber, ‘Tl Buprema Cours auserted ‘twe yurisdiction of tho Circuit Co 1 chiaucery over counly-soat cases, and i 13wa 107 A0 ciiDge of county-seats to bo valld or i valtd, and vitlated or wiataiuod the electious for 1ko romoval and localion of such county-ssats, according a the facts 10 oioh particular cse warrabted, aud, pending such esaminations, sanctioned tha isausuce of yrelimiusry Isjuaclious o’ ssuraln sction upon the part of dofeudante o the difecent bilis, L CONBIDERZD THE LETTEL OF THE HIX ATTOANKYS 1t dusaolution ; and that lu'two wore daye the lujuao. The Canrt beld that 1n that clanw of casecs.= te of equily ** possessed evary facility for purgims 3 ile booke and ascertaining wl) n.ya l:c?- Em: 4 l’cn!; . carract deetainn depends,” 10 [itinote, 15 Gt el ¥, fiarmin g 47 Hunose, 435, 1 3 I note, Penple v, Wiint: 63 [line Knox. Counts va. Davis. In'the caw £t Boreu e, smoth, the Hupreme Court said: "It win urprd that Court hsd no jurisdiction of (e bill. no doubt true that & conrt of ennity xil] never rlere to deternilue which of txa persons bas been cln.ted 19 AR Othice, or ta try the Haics of parties to hold au ofice, 88 1 auch cases the Low ban attorded cdeunte and apprpriate remwedies, ST Uiin (8 bot n e conteated wiacting, 1L15 10 delezitne whero the cltizeon of 8 county bavs thn legal rhthts tn trana. £ct pribllc bustnesa, 413 trne it miy theadentally fne volze the quasion thetber the vote Lzd Leen farly tal nd if fraud hze besu comumitted to rurge the o Lauiaes 18 entirely partinent ta the cars at bar, with this modifieation : that while the eoutty-peat carcs were bronght to dtermine the queston” whers the €itizenn uf a eounty havo the legal right to transct public bisinesy, tlita cave 14 brovgut Lo determize tha aeR'ton inder what charter this muncipaitty shail conduct 1ta business,—s question of far grester motacat, but coutraiied by 6o diiferant principies, Aud 10 this case, 43 1 3 countyegeat cace, the question whether the sotn b been fairly taken (s oaly o cudentally nvolved, Nor drea it mais any diference tn the " prineipls which sbou control the cases, that the connt; Aeat cases were contralied in part by a constitutionsl Jrovinicn, aad thia case a4 BAF Uy an act of the Lezis- ature, 113 1ho cano of The Peaple va, Wiant, this langnage {s uAsd 2 ¥ [0 this cane thn Inw b3y provided no’ meatn of cuutesting the ulection ar currectin the vate thers #Iveu: and if frauds wers commnticd, and the res £0rna 4o not for that reason Al what wan the axe preased will of the voters of the county, tha deugn of the Iaw, and the intottion and desitn of & majority of (lis caunty, would be defested nnless the courtn can afford 3 rowely, Tuis 48 a casa unliho a mera conteri of two individudls sa to which sball ezercise the powers aud petforin the dutios of the otice, In 1hat case, the ndividusls are Unmadiately intetested, and the public rrmotely, Bat 31 thin case it in a matter of public concern to tae yed- 116 of the county, In that, the:law afiorded an ample remeiy by confurming o tho statite nutii rizing thetn 1o conteal the elvotion tn determiine which i entitied 10 tlc office, while (b thin, 1o mcuns are yrovided by “too satute for carryiny luto efiect the wil of tbo majority’ under the lawn when apparently thwarted Ly fraud, aceidant, or mis. taze, Lenc LA Jurls. e uetoflll{ of equity Lo alrett awlaitord reaef, Whils ‘we hoid that equity suzy talie mriadiction tu s caso ke the present, we also hoiil thiat 1t rhon d not whers the contest of the elec. tion Ia to deternins which of two persons i toan olice,” Tue alove lanAtage ta peoutiarly a 10 thin care, only wuustiiuuug the wonl * city™ for * county.” WITH TIEAL DUCISIONS 1IN VIEW, and the rules Al e stated for my guidance, T am st & 1o 10 82 haw, undex tealiszatfonvof this b, tiers Wy A want of Jower lu the Court to pass nnon the gubject matter of tiis bl and to fsve the wnt, For the remedy by Injunction “extends 'to all acts that s contrary to law ond prejudictal 1o the futerseis of the commun aud for which there1a 0y adequate remeds at luw,'m:7 I, Btate, 203, Kerr et,al, ve, Frego: 51 Lin, 3-8, Carter Culezgo; w0 ile, 8, Mot va. Fa. Ib I H lis,, 136, People va. Whiteoribs 2 Humphes Bradiey ww. Comtaon’ Pleax, Msr, op.; Harding Bocklard, 1, & St L LR Co., dunn term, | 5 1lls., 402, S:nlith v, inits, 11 the case of Rers vs, Frego'above cited, the Supreiuo Court of Peunayivaniy oujomed 3 Lody cladminy ta be . Coamon Councti in" the City “of [Philadelphis from scting o3 uch al the sult of anotlier pulitical ody who wero duly elec’o I, aud acting as » Common Councl, siyiug, 11 Wer opanion, * We ¢ Larity tmagine any a: e clearly falle withon the devesiption fan act prejus diclal 13 the interests of the cominuuity) thao one thut cania w3 deepp & Alinds of duset and eoufurion on tho public atairs of a cery =3 tls doos,” Loldlug that the Toaledy Ly infunction was tho only sdequrte remely 10 such o case, : Tt {u rald by the respondents that the complsinants, Ly Ireat proceedings taken subsequent to the breach of the injuuction, have WAIVED TOE CONTEMPT. The obrious auswer ta that, it b-1ug a rautempt of tha process of the Court nnl & quav cruninal act, it waw | 10t 1t te power uf tie Jariies 1o waive it. 2 Dantela’ Chancery Dractice, 1%, 1t s furttier said that, the infnnction Laving ceased tobe operativa before tho procecdings for contempt were fustituied, that uch proceedings cannot now Le malitaiued. The rasen ciied by coutisel do wot apyiy 1o tus case At bar, It was mot deddet etber an ud Ldwards' Clancory, 189, or o the 16th [linois, &K, thit & motion for an attachment for contempt’ made after o shissolition of tha fujunction could oot Le supparted, Tut 1f 3t bad Lean, i both caves, tte decisions would only apply 10 a case whers the fujunction was termi- nated by a dwolution of {t by the Coart, aud not to & car i1 which {8 was terminated Ly its own hnitation, or Uy the wrongful act of dofendant, That posut i tlie cage i ot well taken. TRAT TUERE HAS NEEN A DELIDCRATE, INTENTION- AL DISOBEDIENCE of the wrid of injauction in this case fa not denled, How deliberate that duobrdieuce upon the par of xoane of the resnondents will e scen by a statement of facte apparent uion tho record or admitted by the an- swers, On Mouduy morning.tho 24th of April laat, the bill for the {ojunztion wan presunted by tun complain= ants’ solfsitors to the Judgo vathis Court, The coun- nl for the city wan sen: for, aud i response to the mesmago of tho Court the Aesitiant Corporation Counsel appeared in Court, The bill wes read in hin pressuve, No suggention was maide that tho Court bad Lot Jariadiction of tho mubject-matter of tho bill, or that Tlse insuance of the injunction would bo irreguiar, $0 far as assont c1n e linplicd from prencoce of cousol, and from the omission to make ohjo Liun, thoro can be 1n question of the srrent; whatover misunderstands {uz thera muay be 83 10 a0 actual declared ausent, Tho ion Coucl] bemg sbout 10_ineat that ovening, her the Asetstant Corporation Cotnsel nor any oge «Ine huviug time 0 oxatmine the bill on tho bebalf of *hie city, the Court upon its own suggestion doclined 1o entor the usual order fur A proliminary injunction, but, o licu thereof, entered un order “io remain in force for tam diys, wubfect fn ths ! meantime to a rightto move tor sn extension or dise sulution of st fujucuon on the yart of eitliar par- 13, Ou the same day 1 TItE FOLLOWING OPINTOX s furninhed to the Mavor apon bis request ¢ Ciry Law DEPABTMENT, CiICau0, April 34,—To the Hon, H, U, Cuirin, dayor of the af Chicugo— Htn 1 reply to your wnquiry, “ Cat tie Common Council lawliilly proceed 10 esnvaas the returns of the atection held 1 satd city on the 218 inat,, st record tho Fevult of aid canvass, the membee of a3id Coun- cll having been eojomed from wy domg by au order of the Circuit Court of Cook County?® 1 suwer that tho Jufuaction order shuuld be strictly nbeyed ; the question whetber wich injunction was rightfully or wrougfally granted {s ono not to be detormiued Dy tho pariles enotned, but by the Court o a proper heanug, ax:d,whethor efittfully or wrong- fuily, made, s violatin of the order will subject not only tue defendants to 1le sult to attackument for cane tempt, but any atioroey who sbiall advies of counae! suc violation, Respecifully aubm BERT JAMIETON, To which fa added : Ttully cuncur {u thy forcgoing apinton, Fraxcis Apaxs, ‘Tue opinion was delivered by the City Attoruey the samu titernonn Upo Which it Was wrilteu o th- Mayor, who aubsequently gave it to Ald, Dixon, Preal- tent of the Council, Diriog the eveuing's scssion of i Comamion Counci) {¢ wan in the Comuon Couneil Cliamer on the desk of President Dixon, It was pub. lisbied 11 the Times of tho uext morning, aud jrabe ably (n ‘Tite Trinuz and Inter-Oeean, Upon It ro- ceips the Slogor telegraplied the Carparation Coumsel 10 return to the cily immedtately, snd then ratained four additional counol o sdviso the eity. ivaat (e four specially-rutained adviseru did is not declared by the record, Lut neltber they uor soy of the sala- ried oflicals of the city appeared iu courl to_sugge: that the njunction order bad been laproperiy wsued, | or that Its exietence o any way fueomiaod:d or preju- | diced the city, or to ask for its dissolution AUT ON TUE KV 0 0F MAY 3 0 opinion, (rom which the following 1 en extract, war laid before the Commion Council at their asasion i We, oachi and all of s, are of the opivion that tho Cireult Cuurt bas oo jurisdiction of tha b, and that the 1pjunction 1s void. We are further of tle opinton that the defendants ‘caunot be legally punished for contompt for & disobediencs of such writ, Respect- Sully submitted, T, Lyie Dicrr, ‘Guunsee! for Carporation, MF, TuLey, W, ¢, tounr, Eiteny A, Sronns, Jumis I, Roor, Fuancis Anaus, Ave't Corporation Counsel, On the same Monay nighit, and after the recelpt of the opinio, after oight di3s of inaction 1n the pend- ing causs, aud two idaye befsre tha injunction expired by Its own lmitatiun, it was disobeyed, and the vote canvassed, Upan the previans Monday might (he Common Council had nut ouly dechund to cauvase the vote, but iu thooxcess of cautiun, had vven rescinded su urdis uauce which, it had boen sugggested, might ba rogard. cd e s breschof the {ujunction, Buch sction can ouiy bo sccountedd for upon the wupponition that tha Coumon_Counctl, & then sdvisad, were deterutned 10 respoct the injinction, Whoever gavo tho advice, fth f1und the wctlon of ' thu Common Couucil wers emfoently creditable i all parites concerned, b s not heceidary L0 asaumo anytiing as to the knowlulgs of tue Common Councl beyond what clearly ape pears in proof, Presldent Dizon kuow of the oplolon, aml both ko and ol the mombers of the Cauncil, advlacd or ussuviscd, aro ta be commended for thxir actiow, 1v It ab sll prota~ Lle, §0 view of their action upon the nightof the 2ith of Aprll, that that they would, one week later, Bave delibarately vioiated the jujuuctiou, If they Lad o City Attorney, A¥ ADVISING ITH VIOLATION ? Nor, {n view of such action by the Commuon Council on Apsil 25, 1 10 posaiblathat they wauld bave violated thie fujutiction §f they Liad not beew iguorant of the ace tual facts of tho cysn 7 Bupposing, upou (be night of {50 tid of M3y, the ommon Counctl Lad been fold that tho fujunction Liad beea granted upon notice & ety apd without auy objection wh upon fte part, and without” arguwent 3 the wjunctioncorder was for ouly teu daya, with tao Fight ot eutlier side to apply for & diesolution or o3 tenelon of wuch oruler as they might reapectively Jo- tro; that for elgbt days uous of taeie i counsel tad oven sppoarad {n court to sugsest that e fujunction bad beau improperly grauted, that 1t was iu any re- spect burdeniome Lo tie city, or tua any obe destred i City NUMBER 288, tion would expire by ita own Hmitatlo ench nformativa before them would ihe i Conncil, even with the opiniou of the wix lawyers Ia their porresnion, biava vlolatel the ivjuuction 7° Thera In notiiing i their provious condnet winch woutd Jrne tify any such smumption by the Court, Xhera 1a tothing o tho recond which atiows Lt the membem af the Comtnon Council hd any actusl knawlerdge of thin fart: “but thero was ot ono of them which wags niot within the versoual knowlergn of {he attornes gl wlgned the Lt opinlon. "I the letter of 311y | i v s ndvice, 3 Tittad facin i this cane, o 1 T of tho ad. UPON WHOM RESTO TRE Citize N4 g for the violation of this bufunetion *. U, the dam: man Couneil' who, In fgnarance of ‘the maln facia of tha caee, acted upon the adrice, or upon the attorness who, with ail L factx 10 thelr possassion, yave the sits siee'? 1 ahall nat dineriss profex-ional proprieties ar grofearional duties, Thin rerord nowhers. ttucinen that thetn was any special sxigency which deanded Immediate action nipun the part f the Clty Connell 1 moaktug tha canvars, or whythe fnnclivity of elght dare should bave boon mucceeded by auch miden vigor. It may bo matd that a viofation aron of 3 void tojunction, under Ihe elreumataneen abose detailed, “canuot’ be justified; Ahat dho as watall the mars cnipshli becatiro all 1ho more wie necermity, Bt [ ave all such questions L ba detees tuined Ly a profeemiou wwhich his a keen sénse to lts ohlikationn L fierit ; and to thy conrta, of which faw. JEA are swarm oficors: aw Uy bie communlty, which n I BUBIAINING THE PROPER ADMINISIMATION OF THE LAWY antho dndgas, whose duty oblizes them to fal admatater i1, " 11, Dosaver, o fratilying ‘m‘a‘-{fl:“x}’:’t nnopinion of the charxcter of that given: by tho six atiorheys wan ever, under similar rfcumatances, sibe mitted 1o suy elient, or. if submiltted, the opinion uever came fo the nutice of the courta of tiis putlic, WAH THIA OPINION ADVICL, Ol WAS IT HOT ? It went further thwn meroly to declarn that the Conrt had 1o jneadiction of the hi, sud that the tnjunction was void, 1t katd tn the Common Counctl : “WWears furtlar of the opluicn that {he defendanin caunot be kegally pumnhicd for coulempt for 8 dise obediancs of the nJunctn."” The s3oruoys ntpreas Iy adunt that, wheit they gave the oplnton, thuy ox. Jacted th auretion uf canvasking tho et would o brought hefora tha Connail by the presentation of flic opinion un the eventigg of May 51 ttst tiey sy posed, in the ateenca of tha opinicn, the Conncil woutd unt proceed with the canvasy, and that, ou aciount of 48, they would procosd, 2 The Council had & right to regird such an oplaton, piven under anchciccuinatances, 33 sdvice; snd they a promptly an 1, 1 REGARD THE ATTORNEYS IN TIIE CASE A8 vastly mora cilpable than the mamlers of tlin Com- mon Council, 1f | aw naht in the vlewn herotofare fore exprosad, tbir opnion wis mot the law, and thiey mave (L a3 the lav, when through it a disobedience of the Taw wan 0 Le Accored, 1t ua the rospondonts livt e madn tho'r cana by thele suswer sl of thew atv ofienders, 1 miy not Inleva tlat the anewerd preseut tho exict factt: that thery are Aifferent degress of enipability tu tho condiict of reapondzuts. o oveu that €ane uf thei have come mitted o offenvs of which the Court, If tho facts were jully disclosed, woulil be hound to' taka notice, bt the respondents sttempt 10 ake no such discrim. amation, They nli come 5 and ad:uit the willful viola. iz of the injuncticn, and xaz thit thov had a rigat fodosts tust JLwes & vod weit, Wilh auch an wnvwer, if ths wnt ls not vold, the Cours must punieh, _ ADYICE OF COUNSEL {n 06 legal exeveq, thouplt it may projerly be contde i Tult:gation, 1 oo Tnjune,, S, 8313 21 Wis,, g2, Lat: 7 Patge, 3345 3 Vs vy aud B, od0, puni<hment ohonid bo Ineted oat in thin care excopt what 1oy bo required for the vindication of the law, T bellevs thiat iy be ACCOMPLISHED DY FINES, tabe enfare.d, 1l need be, by Lupnsinment, Tather tn by tny' Banber puuishnical, Such wan the view taken by tha Bupedor Court of New Yotk in ihe cate befors cited from 18t Duer, where most of tuo Aldcrmea snd Ase wistant Aldermien of tho City of Nuw York (twenty- rosan_fn number) were punished by Onow varylng from $i- 0 :0 3157 and costs of suit, and where oaly one wi Loto fiued and {mprizoned. That eao more nesrly rescrobica tho ono at bar then sy other to wliels my ottetition lian been directed, Thre was in care 3 wantou vio'atton of the injunctin, the Aldermen climned tiat the Court bsd no juriadio- tiou in the casz, It waa thoir wiefortuuo “tiat the Buperior Court of New York and the Colizt of Appeais, wills thelr niany able Judges, conld not concuir 1 the vlewsof the twenty-soven Aldsrmen and thelr solicite o ATTACHMENTS WILL D I3STED agalnst all the respoutente, sl fines will hs fmposed npon_eash ona uf them—upun the Allermen sand i §1C0 enchy, anid upon he reapondeats’ at- rueys wio dasted 0 the opiuion to the Comsmon Counctl of &0 vach, and s respondenta will noveral. Iy Ve colnmitied uutl] thelr respective fnes are paid, TAKING AN AVPEAL. Judga Dickey thon rons audssid: *Mav it please the Court. 1 desire to take ny nppeal from the judgmeut of tho Couit to thu Supremo Court.™ The Court—T underatand it {a your right un- der the decision tn the 613t Ilmow. Lot it be douo. dudgo Diclby~Ves, sir. Tho Court—Let it by grantod. then, in the cnsa of the Aldorman, by filing Loudw iu the swn aof $200 each, aud iv tho case ot the counsel in the peunlty of €500 uacit, Tom Foloy—\What do you say to the Clty Clerk ? Tho Court—1 shall make it lcss for lim than for any of the otuors, 1 hud furgotien i, Judgo Dickev—Will your Ilouor mudicate tho timo in which the bouds are to b filed 7 ‘Tho Court—Iustanter—that is. any timo dur- 1ng tho day. Uunderstand that is tho covstruc- tion put unan thet word. Judgo Dickoy—1 am talking about tha bonds for an appeal. i ‘Tho Court—Thoy #hue.s bo fled during the oy, «dge Dickey—Mr, Storra, one of the reapond- cnik, i nocossarlly abuent on profeswional duty. 110 hss gone to Mt, Veruon, as 1 am toid. Tuo Court—1 shall not do anvthing vindictive, and if Mr, Storrs {8 not horo I shatl not havo anything dane, Judgze Dickey—1 do not underatand that tho giving of o bond oneraten us a atay of proceed- g until it is fled. [, tharefore, wonid wug- gest that a singlo day ia but a ehoit tive, Usge ally thoro are tventy days given. ‘Tho Court~They aro all hore, and T must de- vote tima enouch now Lo pasa upon thesn hands, I do not think thero 18 any reason why 1t shiould ot be dons tu-day. Judge Dickey—Tt would probably occupy less of your [louor's trme if you would say to-mor- IO Imorning, The Court—Well, [ will & ing. to-morrow morne JAMIESON'S OPINION, Judge Dickey—Will your Houor allow me to mako a eumgle romark as to a mattor whorein your Ilovor haa rtaied 18 a fuct, aud it does not. 3 reeord, and, as faras I am con- it is not true In pomnt of fact.—ihat st the timo the opinion was rigned by tho six nttorneys the face that Mr, Jamieson had given the oploiou rofarred to b Your Honor was known to us. For Taysolt, X never heard of it until aftorwards, and I pro- sume that thoro are several othors i tho samo #ituation. | doubt uot it was mado inadvertarntly on the pari of your flonor, ‘Ihe Court—l mav have beon nnder a misap- prelwasion. | understaud the fsctan I have stated, but of cousao I mccept your oxplanas tion, Budgo Dickoy—As far as I kuow, none but e, Adams knew auytling about #8 uutil after- wards, Thero is nothing on tha record thas shiows that any of the othors did. ~ We will have tho Londs propared by to-moriow morniug, ‘Tl Court—That will be all right. Judge Dickoy—\Ve also dosire an excoption to Do outered 80 as Lo preservo tho quuestion, The Court—0T cauras that will ba done, T NAMES, ‘The following aro the vames of the tweaty-twa Aldermen : ‘Thomas Folay, ¥, W, Warren, E. T, Cullerfon, Patrick _ MeClowry, J. . Wildsath, T. F. DBailey, Jamea O'Dricn, b, W, Clark, Jr, Goorgo E, Wbite, J. L. Cambeli, 8, Quirk, Michaol Ryan, Nicholas Eekbardt, Thomas Htout, l'oter Mahr, Jacob Leugacher, Lows Schaffnor, Dawvid Murphy, gllch-\al Bweeuoy, Jon T, Corcoraa, and Arthur Dixon. The attorneys ware W, C, Goudy, E. A, Btorrs, J. P, Root, M, F, Tuley, T, Ly!o Dickiey, Core orazion Couusel, and Francis Aduws, asdistant, Lo list Ju tilled uL tho addition of City-Clerk J. K. O. Forseat, who rocordod tho result of the canvae, ——ati ALDERMANIC AND OTH=R OPINIONS. TAKING IT EASY, Contrary to what would be geucrally aupposed, tho Aldermen think little sud tslk sven lesa about their pet caso of contempl. The papers iu tho caso were all mado out days ago, and will bo pus upon the Suprema Court docket s8 soon as practicable, Tue Aldormen having buy §200 bouds to fllo, it was but ustural that they should feol but litt'o concorned about the matter. They aro tenacious in their opinion that they were on the righs side, snd, a8 & consequeuce, Judgoe Williame' decision meots with unbounded diss pleasure, though there are same Aldermea. frank enough to ssy ho treated thom about right. Qutaide of the lawyers, MAYOR COLVRY seemsd to be the only one dlaposed to talk abous the matter. Ie'wsa of the opinlon that a