New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1853-04-02

4.
20 gr,nts for the exclusive privilege Of running railroads
in cities a. to insure gritty and fairness 10 the grants
the promotion Of the public interests in-tead OF ndl
ydusl benefits ard adequate security against nlu-
res 70 privtte rights
And If thi. be admitted the mex. question respects
the constitutional powers of the legislature thus 20
trol the exercise Of municipal authority.
The reasons for the Interference By the supreme
legislative authority Of the State by general laws reg
usfe the powers Of City Corporations for the purpose
already indicated grows OUT OF the pec1arfes ~ the
case In pursuance Of the modern system established
by the Constitution Of l45 for the purpose present
ing monopoies snd exclusive privileges General
Railroad Law hss been passed, which opens 10 unim-
lied competition the business Of constructing Railroads
throughout the State Thus il i that mOnopOlies are
rendered impossible But that system Is wholly IN ip-
pIcable 10 the streets Of cities They narrow
that there can he bat Railroad in each Of them
Whoever therefore obtains the night 10 construct that
Railroad inevitably acquires a monopoly anu most ex-
tensve important aud exclusive privileges affecting
immediately the vital interests Of the whole City. NO
check is or can be afforded byihe General Rlrosi Law
or by the competition which il invites. And yet the
same general policy which 1uced the passage Of such
General Railroad Law, and guarded the privileges
granted with the greatest care against abuses and
against possible injury the public dem nds that some
other checks and guards should be nterposed 70 pre-
vent the abuse Of mOuopoles and exclusive privileges
BIZ the granters Of Railroads in cites
This proposition seems 70 the unfersigned 80 pam
and updeuiabe that he will not dwell longer on the
general question Of the expedeDcy OF legislative pro
visions in the class Of cases presented.
Maby Of tn reasons urged the report OF the ms
ority of the committee against the passage OF the sen
ate bill and against the passage OF any bill on the suo-
ect local 10 their chsracer and connel enrey 10
the City # keeYork The undersigned, a. VIII Dc seen
hereafter consider the subject AZ general one IN Wacl
ali the cfe- of the state are equally interested, in which
the same reasons exist tor legislative interposou and
The guards and restrictions against the danger OF
abuse necessary. He Will not therefore discuss tne
peculiar reasons which may exist in the City OF New
York either in favor against Legislative intervention
IL is enough for hs purpose that great alarm mas
bsen excited at supposed abuses, ana that
thus the danger OF them has been ponSl
out 20 as 10 arrest the attention OF the people
end Of the Legislature Our statute books are too fu
OF laws passed, sometimes on the application OF the
corporate authorities Of cities and sometimes directly
in opposition TO their renonstrances 20 require at nus
day any precedent for the proposed regulations. How
general law which admits the existence OF corporate
ty the very effort 10 regulate them, can be SAID 10 ne
judicial in is character interfering with the judicial
authority the undersigned il at loss 10 understand
The courts are adequate expound and apply the ex
stDg laws hut the evil II that the a~ itself Is deec
tive The remedying of these defects cannot be re-
gsrded interference with rights sreacy acquired
The law in It's nature be prospective. That The
Legislature may Itself commit the same errors and be
guilty OF the abuses a. municipal corporation u
an argument hardly respectful 10 the supreme power IN
the Sute
But In the bill which the undersigned herewith sub
mite II will be perceived that Discretionary or grant
ing power whstever ia reserved to the Legislature
The only authority it will possess will be to grant or
withhold the right Of eminent domain IN cases where
IL not already Ve-ted in municipal Corporations Tor the
purposes OF railroad And the idea advanced in the
majority report that the reservation Of Gny di7cretona
~ pow or the Legislature in respect t. granting rail
roads in ctes would be the more dangerous because
could not be controlled by the ordinary Courts oil
Justice only wholly iuappcable but strikes the
undersigned being Of those singular alterations
into which prone TO fall when they permit but
one idea 10 occupy their minds Surely the majority
ould mt a
powers because they cannot be controlled by Courts OF
s own creation! That a general law regulating the
exercise Of the Discretionary powers OF any Corpora
ton may produce Injustice in the sense OF the majority
report Is very probabe that jusce Is said to consist
in this that certain Companies in NewYork who have
constructed their roads will not be affected by the pro
posed act Such an argument would forever close the
Halls of Legislation against all abuses and violations Of
duty.
Tie other considerations urged in the Minority Re-
port against the expedency of any law on the subject
will be found wholly inappcable 20 the bill herewith in
troduced The undersigned now proposes TO consider
the question respecting the Constitutional right OF the
Legislature modify, control even repeal the pro
yyi ne Of the Charter OF Municipal Corporation, crea.
ted for public purposes This right is not expressly de-
MED in the Majority Report the regulations OF the gen
temen who signed IL are too high 10 be hazarded on
such point. But a doubt Is modesty interposed.
From the time of the Dartmouth College case 10 tins
day there has been case including that one either
in the Courts OF the United States, of any State, in
volyng the question in which the decisions have not
been uniform, constant and without exception that If
the act Of incorporation be grant OF political power, II
il create civil institution TO be employed in the admin
straion of The Governn emit the subject Is one IN which
the Legislature Of the State may act according TO ns
own Judgment unrestrained by any Limitation of ia
power imposed by the Constitution Of the United States
This is the language OF Chief Justice Marshall in the
Dartmouth College case. Justice Washington says
in the same case There are two kinds Of Cor.
poraiions aggregate viz such a. are for public govern
meni and such for private charity The rst are
those for the government of town. city or the Ike
snd being for public advantage to be governed by
the laws OF the land II would seem reasonable that
such a corporation may be controlled and lie consiitu'
ton altered and amended by the Government in such
manner the public interest may require such egs-
atve interference cannot be said to impair the contract
by which the corporation founded because there i,
in reality but party 10 Il the Trustees government
OF the corporation being merely the Trustees for the pub
lie But the Of private corporation u entirely
different &c. Chancellor Kent says Public corpo-
ratons such created by the Government for
politicsl purposes Counties, Cities, Towns and Val
iages they are invested with subordinate legislative
powers 10 be exercised for local purposes connected
with the public good Such powers are subject 70 the
control Of the Legislature OF the State"
These principles have been recognized by all Courts
without exception, and in this State particularly, in
cesee reported in Page 554, and Barber d7.
But Is alleged in the majority report that the entire
power the streets and avenues in the City OF New
York has been invested ny their Charter in the Com
mon Council Of that City. The undersigned Is by no
means convinced Of the accuracy of this position,
spyblc one for public purposes, and is of the same
character with all The Other powers possessed by that
body: end OF course IA subject 10 the same general
powers Of control and regulation by the Legislative
thorty of the State The quotations already made,
establish this beyond all question.
The remark IN the majority report that the night OF
ene at domain hes been surrendered by the State 10
the City Of Newiork IN respect TO the streets and ave
nues Of the City Is startling proposition. The night
thus designated which il the right 10 the owser
ship OF land by the presumed original grAntor the Gov
eminent for public purposes, Is IN It's nature preroga
i've and attribute OF government and incapable 81 sur
render That the Government has delegated 20 the
Corporation o; New-Nork, in the name and behalf OF
the Government, toAcqure title 70 land occupied by
streets and without the consent Of the
upon making just compensation Is very probable, But
hike all other powers grsns AID authorities that
porStion l. for pbc purposes, snd on the principles
tresdy stated subject to the power of the Legislative
10 control requisite and repeal.
The power Of the Legislature being therefore un.
questionable toe only other question 70 the expedien.
cy OF exceeding it, The undersigned has already gwen
his views upon the general question that whenever and