590 



NEW YORK (CITY). 



croached upon and for a no longer period. Believing, 

 as I do, that this is a fair and reasonable construction 

 of the statute, and that such would be the interpreta- 

 tion which, iu the end, the courts would be likely to 

 put upon it, I can not very well affirm that Mr. "Mc- 

 Olave has usurped, intruded into, or unlawfully holds 

 the office of Police Commissioner ; nor can it be said, 

 under these circumstances, with any great degree of 

 confidence, that a litigation in behalf of the State to 

 oust him from the office would be successful. These 

 general conclusions are reached without any reference 

 to the consolidation act of 1882. Certainly, there is 

 nothing in that act to assist the contention of Mr. Ma- 

 son. JBut, on the other hand, if that statute applies 

 at all to the present case, inferences might very well 

 be drawn from it which operate against his theory of 

 construction. It is difficult, I think, to escape the 

 conclusion that the litigation proposed by this appli- 

 cation must be unsuccessful in the end, and conse- 

 quently it would be unwise and detrimental to the 

 best interests of the Police Department of the city of 

 New York. The application is therefore denied. 



This decision was announced on the 19th of 

 December, but in January, 1885, it was re- 

 versed on a second application, accompanied 

 by an assurance from the new mayor that 

 there were several offices affected by the ques- 

 tion in dispute upon which he should feel 

 obliged to act, and that it was important to 

 have the question judicially settled. 



The terms of office of the Commissioner of 

 Public Works and of the Corporation Counsel 

 expired on the 10th of December, and the mayor 

 was required by law to submit the appointment 

 of their successors to the Board of Aldermen 

 within ten days thereafter. As the mayor's 

 term expired with the year, as did also the 

 power of the Board of Aldermen to confirm 

 appointments, there was a strong desire in 

 some quarters to defeat the appointments, 

 which was aided by the political division of 

 the aldermen almost equally between the two 

 factions of the Democracy and the Republi- 

 cans. The appointments first made by the 

 mayor in fact failed of confirmation. On the 

 22d of December, Judge George P. Andrews, 

 of the Supreme Court, granted a temporary 

 injunction in an old suit of what was known 

 as the " Wolf Board of Aldermen," in which 

 the validity of the election of the existing board 

 was contested, restraining the board for the 

 time being from taking any action whatever. 

 The order to show cause why the injunction 

 should not be made permanent was made re- 

 turnable before Judge Lawrence, of the same 

 court, who, on the 26th of December, dismissed 

 the writ and dissolved the injunction. An ap- 

 plication was then made to Judge Miles Beach, 

 of the Court of Common Pleas, sitting at the 

 time by assignment on the bench of the Su- 

 perior Court, for an injunction, in an action 

 begun by several citizens, to restrain the mayor 

 and aldermen "from appointing, nominating, 

 or confirming the nomination of any person to 

 the office of Commissioner of Public Works, or 

 of Corporation Counsel," on the ground that 

 the defendants were about to join in the per- 

 petration of an illegal act by filling the offices 

 named " in pursuance and as a part of a cor- 



rupt scheme, whereby such- offices are to be 

 filled in consideration of payments and prom- 

 ises of payments of money or of appointments." 

 A temporary injunction was granted by Judge 

 Beach on the 30th of December. An applica- 

 tion was immediately made to Judge Charles 

 H. Truax, of the Superior Cuurt, to dissolve 

 the injunction, and he heard argument thereon, 

 but rendered no decision until the 26th of Jan- 

 nary, 1885, when he decided that Judge Beach 

 had jurisdiction to act in the case, but had 

 granted the injunction on insufficient ground. 

 In the mean time Mayor Edson had, on the 31st 

 of December, notwithstanding the injunction, 

 nominated to the Board of Aldermen Rollin M. 

 Squire for Commissioner of Public Works and 

 William Dorsheimer for Corporation Counsel. 

 The former was confirmed, and the latter re- 

 jected. The mayor then declared that his 

 term of office expired at midnight of that day, 

 though that of his successor did not begin until 

 noon of January 1, and turned over the custody 

 of his rooms in the City Hall to a captain of 

 police at that hour. Thereupon the President 

 of the Board of Aldermen, whose term did not 

 expire until the first Monday in January, claimed 

 to succeed to a vacancy in the mayor's office, 

 with the power to make appointments without 

 confirmation under the new law, which went 

 into effect January 1. Between midnight and 

 noon of Jan. 1, he named E. T. Wood for Counsel 

 to the Corporation in place of E. H. Lacombe, 

 who was holding over and refused to give 

 up his office. Mr. Wood subsequently applied 

 to the Attorney-General for leave to bring suit 

 for a writ of quo warranto to test the title of 

 Mr. Lacombe to the office. This was granted, 

 but when the case came before the general 

 term of the Supreme Court it was dismissed, 

 the Court unanimously deciding that Mayor 

 Edson's term did not expire at midnight, De- 

 cember 31 ; that if it had expired then he 

 would have held over until his successor had 

 qualified; that there was no vacancy for the 

 President of the Board of Aldermen to fill, and 

 if there had been he would have had no power 

 to make appointments without confirmation by 

 the Board of Aldermen, or otherwise. Pro- 

 ceedings were taken against Mr. Edson for con- 

 tempt of court in disregarding the injunction 

 of Judge Beach, and a decision was rendered 

 by Judge Freedman in February, 1885, ad- 

 judging him in contempt, and passing sentence 

 of imprisonment in the county jail for fifteen 

 days and a fine of $250. A stay of proceedings 

 was obtained, and an appeal was brought. 



The New Aqnednet. The plans for the new 

 Croton Aqueduct were adopted by the Com- 

 missioners early in the year, and proceedings 

 were begun for acquiring the necessary land- 

 rights. Bids were invited for contracts for 

 the construction of that portion of the aque- 

 duct above the Harlem river in ten sections. 

 The awards were made in December, the entire 

 work being taken by two contractors, O'Brieo 

 & Clark, of New York, and Brown, Howard 



