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

different periods, namely August and October Of
last year. From these facts it IL evident that the
passenger travel on Broadway urgently needs the pro-
vision Of some improved means Of conveyance, which
shall move it in q reduced number OF vehicles and
with a less occupation OF the street The complement
of omnibus is usually twelve passengers. The grant
in question authorizes the construction Of comfort
ably adequate in dimensions to the conveyance OF
eighty passengers and these Opponents are informed
and believe that the can be moved by a single
pair Of horses and will leave generally on each side
space within which two carriages can move abreast;
besides, that the rails will afford no impediment to
the free movement of vehicles across and upon the
middle portion of the street. The maximum number
of down passengers now conveyed in an hour, ac-
cording to the statistics observed and already referred
to, being 2,0l6, and the maximum number OF up
passengers 2s0S for which are used, IN the former
case 30 omnibuses and in the latter case "a omn
buses per hour the number OF cars OF eighty
ger capacity, which would move the same, would be-
in the instance 49, and in the other instance, 3d.
Cars of sixty passenger capacity being employed,
these respective numbers sufficient for the maximum
hours of the travel, would be "a and AZ. And if
il is assumed that number Of cars be employed,
equallng only onethird of the number of omnibuses
now required for the aforesaid amount of travel,
namely 80 cars per hour, the number of passengers
which they would be adequate to convey in the hour
would be, instead of 2,0l6, or 2,SOS, as follows,
namely, 400, with cars OF sixty passenger capa-
city, or 200, with cars Of eighty passenger capa-
city, When this great increase of public accommo-
dation is viewed in connection with the great reduc
ton in the number Of vehicles moving it, and conse
quently in the amount OF occupation OF the carriage
way, these deponents consider the relief to Broad
way, which will be afforded by the intended railway,
to be matter Of absolute and conclusive demOnstra-
ton. And these depOnents further say, that many
other reasons cOnduce to the conviction entertained
by them, that the said railway will be great public
benefit, to the relief of Broadway, to the accommo
dalton of the people, to the improvement of business
and travel on the said street. and to the general good
of the CITY, besides those which have been mentioned
above; and they refer to the report of the Select
Committee of the Board of Aldermen on this sub
ject, made to the Board ON the 18th November last,
document No. 81, for more particular statement
thereof, OF which copy is hereto annexed. In re-
ference to the other applications for the said grant,
referred to in the complaint in this cause the dep0
nents say, that they do not believe, and have
never believed those applications to have
been made in good faith, for the purpose Of
building the said railway; but believe them to have
been mere devices, designed for the purpose of pre-
venting the defendants from succeeding in obtaining
the said grant, and for the purpose of getting the
said grant into the hands OF parties whose hos
tity TO the proposed measure in itself had been fire.
quently and strongly ayowed, and was still avowed
being unchanged at the very time OF making said
applications. Those applications proceeded either
altogether from the known and public opponents OF
the measure or from them united with a few other
names of applicants on the same memorials. The
said memorials were two in number addressed to the
Board of Aldermen, and five subsequently addressed
to the Board OF Assistants after the passage OF the
grant in the former Board. Among the most pro-
minent opponents of the measure, during the pro-
gTess Of the controversy conducted before the Com
mons Council and the public, We're Thomas A.
Davies, D. Henry Haight, Stephen Storms, Phi
lip Burrowes and Alexander T. Stewart; and
with one eXception) all the said applications pro-
ceeded from some or others OF those citizens, or from
some or others OF them, III connection with other
names, as sgners. The one exception alluded to was
application from the attorneys, who had been al
ready retained by OF the said citizens to oppose
and if possible defeat the grant solicited by and
granted to the defendants and who the plaintiffs
attorneys in this cause Throughout the controversy
alluded TO, the general grounds of opposition and
language Of the said opponents of the measure were,
that railway was impracticable in Broadway; that
it Illegal, and that the corporation had no power
to grant such permission; that it would be public
nuisance; that it would be abated such by the
courte, or torn up by the just Indignation of the peo-
ple and that it would be destructive to the business,
and very injurious to the rents and value OF property
on Broadway, in which those opponents were largely
interested. They, or some OF them, frequently de-
cared that they would spare no expense or effort to
prevent the consmmatiOn OF what they thus regard
ed as an illegal outrage and abominatiOn. These de-
ponents and their associates therefore, did not be-
leve the counter offers proceeding from those same
quarters, for tine same grant to be sincere, bona de
offers, such were entitled to the consideration
of any legislative body; and they believed,
and believe, that their real character was mani
festly visible on their face. And that belief and
conviction became the greater certainty, from infor
nation reaching these deponents, through different
channels, respecting the acts and declarations of
others OF the said combined opponents of the
railway project. Through such evidences and relia
bic sources OF information, these deponents were in
formed and beleve:-That a lot on Broadway had
been sold by one Of the said opponents (Nir Bur-
rowes) to another gentleman, residing in New Jer-
sey connected with him in business in his Office (Mr
Harrison) as Opponents were informed and believe
with view to suing out an injunction in the United
States Courts, against the prosecution of the said
grant, the said Courts not being bound by the law
respecting city railways already declared by the Su
preme Court Of this State and that counsel had been
consulted, and papers prepared therefor considera
bic time before the passage OF the grant in the Board
Of Aldermen That another (lr. Davies) had con-
certed with the leading representatives OF the omni
bus opposition to the said application, that they
should both allow counterolers and applications for
the grant 10 stand before the Common Council and
that whichever of the two should get it, (namely,
whether Mr.. Davies, with his associates, Messrs.
Haight, Storms, and others, or the omnibus
proprietors), it could then be killed by injunc-
ton, the understanding being, that the party
holding the grant would not oppose any enectual de-
fence against the same, and that if the former party
should get il, on their pending offer, they would
transfer it to the omnibus proprietors, with that
mittee Of the Board of Aldermen, Tin favor of the
measure and of the application Of the defendants)
another of the said leading opponents (Mr d. Henry
Haight,) had gone to the chairman OF said committee,
alderman Stnrtevant) and had complained that the
said report was unfair, and placed him (Haight) in
a ridiculous light in this respect namely, by referring
TO the applications for the grant which had proceeded
from the former opponents of the projected railway
and by dednciDg therefrom an argument in favor OF
the said project founded ON the presumed change Of
mind in such opponents in regard to the merits of
the said project that the said Haight then said to
the chairman words to the following effect You
know that don't want any railroad, and you ought
to have known and have no doubt did know that
the only object Of the application was to kill it..
And this understanding and conviction, respecting
the true character and object of the said counter APP
pcations, were not at all affected by the circum-
stance, that they were accompanied with tenders of
security; because it was manifest that such securi-
gagements, the performance Of which was to be ar
rested by legal Injunction And therefore these de-
ponents and their associates continued notwithstand
ing these counter offers, TO urge their own appca-
ton, as an advantageous and proper petition to be
granted for the general benefit Of the public and the
city, and for the relief Of Broadway, the applicants
therefor being sincere III their intention and ability
to carry into effect the object Of the grant in ques
ton and to defend il AGAINST all the attacks by t