The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1853-01-21
TIE BROADWAY RAILROAD CASE.


courts is now pending in both the Superior Court
and the Supreme Court, in reference to the much
asitated Broadway Railroad.
In the Superior Court the immediate question
pending ia, whether Judge Campbells injunction
against the Common Council forbidding them to pass
The resolution which authorized the work, was valid
Injunction which the members were bound to obey;
and whether the latter are punishable for contempt of
court for their disregard of it? This question
partly argued before the full bench in general term,
on Saturday and the argument is to be continued
next Saturday 1t will be remembered that after
Judge Campbells injunction, the Board OF Alder
men not only disregarded it, but passed strong reso
buttons of rebuke to what they treated as an unpre-
eedented judicial usurpation Whichever side may
have been right it interesting point Of jurisdic
ton now for the first time brought up; and it will be
important for parties who may think they are about
10 be injured by impending resolutions OF the Com
mon Council, to know whether they may go to any
Judge and shut off the steam of legislative power on
the part of the Common Council by the process of
injunction; which it is contended would operate as
virtual transfer of the legislative functions of that
body to the judiciary. However this may be decided
will not affect the question Of the prosecution of
the railroad itself. The aldermen may be held to be
punishable for contempt for their disobedence to the
injunction without affecting the validity Of the act
done by them on their own views Of their legal
powers.
his in the other case, pending before the Supreme
Court that the main question is involved whether
TIE prosecution of the work can be stopped by the
veto Of the court In that case the injunction is
against the Railroad Company, forbidding them to
proceed The injunction having been at first tenn
porary, and granted on application as matter OF
course the question is whether it shall stand as
perpetual or be dissolved. This case was to have
come up yesterday in the Supreme Court at special
term, but neither Judge Roosevelt nor Judge Ed
wards was disposed to act on important matter
without the presence of full bench and consequently
it was by consent of both sides, put of to the first
Monday in February, at the general term, when it
win be heard before the three Judges-Roosevelt,
Edwards, and Mitchell.
As the HERALD is generally more looked to than
any other paper to furnish the public an ineligible
statement of important pending questions, the fol-
lowing copies OF the aidavits constituting the
foundation of the case Of the Railroad Company. No
pains seem to have been heretofore taken publish
these though the opponents Of the railroad have
made their side Of the contest familiar to the public.
Against the road, the main points seem to be, that
the grant was corrupt on the part of the Common
Council and not made in good faith; that the Com
mon Council had no power to make it, Ga question
which involves the validity of all the other grants OF
city railroads, past and present and that they had
the power it unwse exercise of it, as the rail-
road would be public evil and nuisance, and very
detrimental to the business and property OF Broadway
and further, that it granted at a nominal license
fee per III disregard OF large offers OF bonuses, or
license fees to the city treasury, from responsible
persons.
On the other side, the railroad company contend
ha< anlt IF
zion; that it will be great relief 10 Broadway, and
general public benefit that it will be no exclusive
of the middle of the street: that those offers of
bonuses were mere sham devices of enemies OF the
work put forward for the ayowed purpose of head
ing off the real sincere applicants aud Of getting the
grant into hands that stood ready to smother it by
legal proceedings: and finally, that even if those
offers had been sincere, yet still the terms which
II was undertaken by the company which had first
applied for the grant, and had conducted the public
controversy in its favor such as in truth
better and advantageous to the city, than the
said offers Of bonuses.
As there is much difference of opinion on this
general subject and the of the railroad company
has not before been fairly laid before the public the
following are the afidavits on which they make out
this case II is but fair that they should be read and
eandidly considered even by those who may be most
opposed to the company or the measure
Ii will be seen from the first affidavit, that every
member of tie railroad company solemnly denies,
under oath, that any member OF the Common Coun
ell has been under any corrupt improper influence
IN regard to his vote.
They also show that they were the only parties
who had taken the step of providing for withdraw
ing the bulk of the omnibuses from the street hav
ing engaged to buy out six OF the principal lines,
comprising not less than 2ll omnbuses at cost OF
nearly half million Of dollars, with view to trans
fer them to transverse lines from river to river and
at the same time provide just naturalization to their
proprietors and that the five cents which they are
authorized to charge is not for the travel on Broad
way alone, but for the conveyance OF passengers
from any point on any transverse line, 10 any point
on any other
morning before O'Clock in winter, and in summer;
70 keep the middle of it in repair to keep police
attendant at every crossing to help passengers in and
ont i and restricted from crowding their cars
with standing passengers which conditions are estl-
mated to cost much more than any of the bonus
U6ers.
Il cannot be denied that these documents make
cut q strong case in favor of the railroad company,
and of the grant to them, notwithstanding all the
cutlery that has been raised against them. Let US
wait and what the courts will decide, and what
he Legislature NAV do because they too have been
Invoked to thrust their long finger into the pie.
Meanwhile, let all sides have fair hearing and can
did judgment.
Superior Court.
Thomas z. Davis and Cotrlaadt Palmer against
Me Mayor, aldermen, and Conmoaaty Of Me CITY
Of Nttc York.-Cuy and County of Nebc York
Jacob Sharp, Freeman Campbell, Win. B. Reynolds,
James Gaunt, !. Newton Squire, VIM A. Mead,
David Woods John L. O'Sullivan, VIM. NJ. Pulls,
Jonathan Rowe, John w. Hawkes.. James w. Fauk
ner, Henry Dubois, John J. HOLSTER Preston Shell
don, John Anderson John r. Flanagan, Sargent V.
Bagley Peter B. Sweeney, Charles b. White, James
w. Foshay, Robert Il. Ring, Thomas Ladd, Conckn
Sharp, Samuel l.. Titus, Alfred Martin, D. Randolph
Martin, VIM. Menzies, Charles n. Glover, and Ger
shon Cohen, being severaly sworn say each for him
self that to the best of his knowledge, information
and belief no member of the Common Council has
now, has had, any interest, direct indirect
in the grant to these Opponents of the right priy
Iege of constructing O railway in Broadway; nor has
any of them received, been promised or given
10 eXUect, money! UrODertv. reward OF
kind for his vote countenance influence in favor
Of the said grant.
Jacob Sharp, John Anderson,
Freeman Campbell j. r. Flanagan
w. b. Reynolds, :. V. Bagley