53

mediate predecessors of the petitioner and the said Wm. T.
Valiant, in the office of commissioners of the Board of Police,
were entitled to exercise their functions as such until your
petitioner and the said Wm. T. Valiant should have estab-
lished their right to the office otherwise than by the produc-
tion of their commissions aforesaid, and proof of their qualifi-
cation.

And inasmuch as your petitioner was held upon a commit-
ment issued under the above order, in consequence of his re-
fusal to give the security therein required, he prays that he
may be discharged from confinement by the order of this hon-
orable court to be passed in the premises.

And the petitioner, to so much of the said return as sets
out the warrants charging him with riot or inciting a riot in
the said city, answers and says that they do not, nor do either
of them, afford sufficient ground for his detention by the de-
fendant.

The answer in the case of Wm. T. Valiant is the. same as
the above, and further, as to said warrants, the petitioner
says, by way of plea, that he was not, in point of fact, en-
gaged in a riot or riots, or inciting the same, as charged in
said warrant.

Mr. Latrobe said that under the law they may controvert
the truth of the returns, and plead there is, not sufficient
cause for detention, and also offer any matter by which it
shall appear that there is not such legal cause.

Mr. Horwitz, counsel for Sheriff Thomson, read his answer
to the return, modified to suit the circumstances of his case,
denying that he was engaged in any unlawful assembly, riot
or rout; alleging that Messrs. Young and Valiant had been
legally appointed police commissioners, and that the Sheriff
was bound to obey their orders, and that the commitments do
not present a sufficient legal cause for his detention. Mr.
Horwitz said the Sheriff stood in a peculiar position; if he
refused to obey the police commissioners, he was liable, under
the law, in a penalty of $5,000. He also said that for the
present the pleadings are made up.

Mr. Rogers, for respondents, said the answers to our returns
are of a very ambiguous character. The counsel have not
traversed the return nor taken exception to the facts of the
case. We find it necessary only to reassert the sufficiency of
our return.

Mr. Schley.—We are willing to meet you on that issue.

A COMPROMISE PROPOSED.

At this stage of the proceedings the counsel for the old
commissioners privately submitted the following proposal of
compromise. The knowledge of this proposal and the
response was confined to the counsel in the case.

All further proceedings under the writs of habeas corpus to