The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1853-12-05
Supreme Court-Special Term.
Before Hon Judge Roosevelt.
JONES' WOOD PARK.

FOURTH DAY.
Tee D. Mr. Girard continued his argument In favor o,
appointing and opening the park claiming
that the Court could not look into and determine
could only be raised in action Of ejectment after
land, should be taken. Is Com. oil. Embury Con-
nor) That the question whether this land should bs
taken for park jaoata-ths people bad passed
upon and decided years ago. and this
why the legislature had psssedhs law Without petitions
That The opposition the part Of the corporation
based upon resolution passed by corrupt majority;
mal,g of this park will not put anything into their
pockets they being he said opposed to thing which
w the ~no as1s so il
the character of the stock referred to in the
it bring. par not they to be paid gold and silver
by mandamus; az John eco, 10 Wend 1868 s95 81
Wend 40, Barb and If thay then refuse they
liable for contempt. q Barb 'h., Pr. $50. Note.)
He concluded by urging the court to appoint commas
Flor OF known liberal views who woulc give these
o~Iers liberal price for their lands, he being satisfied
sid willing to pa, literally for L. That this was favo
rite project Of his but the Central park he
had fa,th In and hoped to it carried
Mr.. Dillon, the corporation counsel followed arguing
in aso, Of the application. he isfed sing
the law tat ths Legislature not only imposed this duty
upon him. bur also intended he urge it upon The
to the best Of his ability That the Legislature has
the power by this law did exercise the right nj
neht domain, in determining that this land should be
tafen for public and the Court should this
act literally and, possible give effect to its provisions
as Wend a7i, owIsrs vs. City Of Albany Ia answer to
the pOIOsluen coGnel iOr the owners lnat law
to be consu Vigorously because it attempted TO
take private property He sisted that all laws should
lave liberal construction, according to their fair
ing ard intent. And there principle which
tho,ised any distinction between CONSERVING a Law
which authorized the taking of private pro perty
for public and law for any other purpoe.
That the l. gislature itself had here exercised
the light Of eminent domain, and that power
had not been delegated TO this court. He admitted
that the caus in this law which the Of the
land upon the whole of the property of the city at first
Ieemed 10 him PECULIAR but upon reflection the
for this evidently vas that the Improvement in
tended to be for the Of the entire public The pre-
uoces Of the Court had been attempted to be excited by
giving the history of this b to that it had be-
In haste passion hac ever been supposed tina. that
would make law Unconstitutiosa Upon the question
whether he law mandatory not he stated The rule
to be That when law relates TO object of public
the public health, public justice and the
word nay" Is usee-then it is held to
must; and the establishment of public parks he
claimed great public concern and he knew of
verify Of legislative enactment than those
which promoted the public health Such has been held
b- the proper uct6n OF several Of the Acts
wien similar IDS had been used-,3 Wend asa matter
Of Fourth avenue; Hill Ia, matter OF Mouut Morris
tquale He admitted there might be difficulty Ia dis
Lorg OF this stock 10 private Individuals provi cd 1t
unset but then he had doubt tina. the Saviogs
banks and many other public Institutions Of our city,
would gadly absorb all bonds OF the kind which might
be issued under this law In conclusion he denied hat
this project gotten by speculators; the
cchrary those who had urged its adoption actuated
solsy by desire to benefit the peops-the poor vel
the rich and thai it would be benefit to all classes
the city generally he thought could deny.
The arguments here concluded, and tae Court ad
earned