New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1852-11-20
Extensive FIRE-FoUR BUnDIsGs Burned

/
Extensive FIRE-FoUR BUuDIsGs Burned.
About u o'clock last evening fire broke out in the
large brck and frame buildings in the rear Of Nos "a
and 26 Grove-st, occupied by Robert Patton as car
penters shop The alarm promptly given, and the
frernen in large numbers the ground,
but in consequence Of the great amount Of combusti
bic rnster in the buildings the flames spread with the
mort astonishing rapidly and before they could be
subdued the premises were with their contents con
stnr OF about fifteen toOlchests and other property,
entirely destroyed
| Mr. Patton estimates his loss at about $4,000 The
flames communicated to two frame buildings, occu-
pied by number of families, in the rear Of Nos. l26
and l2s Barroiy-st These buildings being very light
verealso destroyed Loss about $1,000 The occupants
lost large amount Of their furniture snd other prop
| cry Captains Lovett and Taft Of the Ninth Ward,
Turntu Of the Eighth Carpenter of the Fifth, Bren-
nan o. the Sixth and Banta OF the Fifteenth werepres
with e large force of men, and prevented large
/ amount of property from being stolen
A fire was discovered at 81 o'clock last
evening in the second story of Messrs r. Hoe Co.'S
! pattern chop, corner OF Broome and Colunbiasts.
The damage to patterns, &C. cannot be readily ascer
tanned but l. supposed 10 be several thousand dollars
fulycOveredby insurance The hremen were soon onthe
/ extingushing the flames, which were confined to the
apartment in which they originated As lights or fire
have ever been allowed in the building the of
the fire has been ascertaned. 1t VIII cause seri
on. interruption 70 Messrs. Hoe & Co.'S business.
The BROADwAY RALROAD.-THE MINORITY
REroET.-The minority OF tie Special Committee to
whom was referred the petitions Of Jacob sharp VIII
linn Mcnzies and others for the privilege Of laying
down ard nakings Railroad in Broadway; also, nuner
GUS petitions and remonstrances in favor OF and against
such project respectfully reports as folows:
In examining into the propreiy Of railroad in such
n thoroughere Broadway met at the outset
with the great fact that of the many thousand owners
of real estate the line Of that avenue but about
solitary dozen of the measure, wl3 the
whole O. the residue unanimously opposed 20 IT,
and imther when reflect that Of this vast number
Of opIonents men not only OF enlarged views occu-
pying the highest position in community Is proper
That arguments and objections aancii ncd and pu forth
- them upon project serou " affecting property 70
the value Of millions OF dollars should be carefully
urnned and weighed before any legislative body
cludes iisef on subject Ga such importance.
II seems to have been conceded upon the argument
before this Committee that the original plan or PROPOSE
ton Of the petitioners 10 lay three tracSs with cars of
four fest in Width two stories in hight aud twentyour
feet in length WIS entirely inpracticabc
Re, OFT is therefore Ind TO another expedent
On page ,il3 Of the Majority Report it appears that
the he OF the width of onlnibus-ie seven
co-and IT, stated by the petitioners there should be
q necessity tor having three tracks thus, at least
yone feet six inches Of the would be occupiedby
their rail carr instead Of twelve feet six inches orr
qiney proposed leaving the epacc of nine feet each
side between the rail ana the curl wherein all carriages
and vehicles using that part Of the street below the Park
would lie obliged to cGnine their travel and the whole
street cen lie taken for the railway upon the ap
prevail OF the Street Commissioner.
The statement Of this fact Is sufficient to show
why the owners oppose this project. No argument cen
Broadway in motion that nothing short of a space at
least seventeen feet in width each side OF the outer
track would be required TO allow two vehicles TO pass
while the arc in motion nothing less would be SUI
fccni to meet the wants OF those vehicles necessarily
obliged TO that potion OF me street below the Park
1t may BE- borne in mind by those who have given e
tcutCn 10 this subject and the Arguments edducod in
favor Of it before the Committee, that the petitioners in
the outset proceeded with the assertion that Broadway
was sixty feet in width and afforded plenty OF room Tor
the laying down OF arailwGy.
A portion OF that committeeman certainly the pub.
lie must have bcen-astonished upon being informed
That broadway only. in truth averaged forty ono tce
in width Thit Tie the portion needing any relief IN
which is that part stunted below the Park, scarcely
averages thirtyve feet in width while NJ Rector t. Il u
but thirtywOtCCt nine inches wdc as asccrIhhcd ny
SEXUAL admC.p urCment. a.
Til. inpor1ant fact would in ordinary cases be fuiii
cient in itself create suspicion IN the MAD OF any
ptron the spirit actuaiing tic app MS LOT y
p7nc monopoly which thus early, has not only swat
lowed uu ali the omnibus lines in this CITY, but has Ike
wiz produced such accelerated movement on part OF
this Committee aud Common Council as 20 cause IA me
mrds Ci the community doubt OF the truh OF the ola
ptovfrb, "wsc bodies move slowly
But il would seem to be a matter o. no important
that tlCac petitioners have been Obliged TO abandon a
their previous plans so carefully maiurci lot me ryJ
OF Broadway. No matter that the main iact-ald Whch
must have been within their knowledge as to lroai"aS
lot averaging thirty feet in width from cufDto euro
below the Park, was carefully concealedf ict
a majority Of this Committee conceive such mistakes OF
conceaments to be perfectly immatcral ana the par
ties who made them deemed sufficiently public
spirited to be entitled TO this immense monopoly
amounting substantially 10 giit OF S2OOOlJ per ANU
from the City Treasury and all this too, while tc Com
miitce ard the Common Council have before then pc
tiiions from such responsible persons a AeN1ieI
stewart Stephen Storms. ID. Henry Haight, IhOnis l.
Davies; snd others, offering 10 give the Cay pDis'
ranging from 10000 10 s?O0OO0 per annui ior Tue
privilege Of laying these rails and running cars thereon
There be question rs to the responsibility Oh
these gentlemen or OF their good faith in making the
application because they frankly tell you thst tney
pect realize from this monopoly sum sncien, 70
indemnify them for the losses their property on inc
street will sustain In the construction OF such railway
Then why not give 20 them the privilege, why sv Il
to those petitioners who possess no properly on tio
street Why give il To individuals who have no. ohy
shown themselves entirely impractcabe but have oaed
their application upon false statement as 10 inc "'
Cf Broadway. q
may be said in to this, that the law officer OF
The City advises us we "cannot exact any ooHu- III 49,
Wei admitting that such i the law il there any exac
ton herei Was this argument e. er heard In t,s VIZ
fCrries have been letetN 10 DN''~
,gLen chr vborves hal been similarly letl or when
many other franchises have been simerly dsposed Oh "
former days. the
Il II possible that the people OF tllls community -
iax paversyH fail 10 perceive the msiness Of this an
swer! No And if any member of this COMMITTEES !.
poets payer to perceive the difference between
ting ferry and letting the privilege 70 railway '''
he viii be sgnally mistaken -,
There is no difference between the two Gases al :,
Is no exsction when parties voluntarily come 'oi
and offer 10 give this large sum per annun -. cha
fDr the . n
taking of this voluntary offer would be an eNHetio,
US see where stand, and let see whethef' !" -
this privilege to these petitioners and merely selln
return the ordinary license fee for each car, We ar
making gifts of the rights of constituents 70 ns
OF about $4,000 per annum, ,r,
u..--ee that the IarLi. haxin fhs mlnoDo-A co. ~!