New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1858-10-21
WEST WASHINGTON MARKET
u, NJ ESttor Of The n. Y. Iri1Ens-

When the Mayor asks " lax-f "ye' -. -
shall be happy to practice the VH'as =, ,hs, NV
but shall not take his opinion as
defense has either been ipdiscreet OF ''.'
,.,os, the "dasbng averment, that u
- ,he MAYOR has ernyloyed or pad any ~go'
$500 !, The defense Of the suit IN the matter oi
West Washington Market.
IT, oonpsel 10 the Corporation, IN the discharge OF
~; dn,v and under the authority vested IN re-" oy me
A,,,r and ordinances did address to those gentlemen
,.,,s,. retaining them on behalf Of the cry. kequ-
,;,;on being made by him upon the Controller for
means 20 pay retaining fee Of $500 EACH the subject
was submitted to the Commissioners Of the Sinking
Fund who, in view Of the fact that the fees received
from market property were specially devoted to the
payment Of the Sinking Fund debt, directed the Con-
troller TO draw his warrant upon that Jnnd Tor the
required amounts. The law requires four CommIs-
missioner "of whom the Controller shall be one,
10 sign all such warrants; and the Mayor, a. one OF
the four Commissioners signed with the others.
These facts were well known to "A Taxpayer" and
his assertion that the Mayor "empIoyed or paid
<bese gentlemen, "in open violation of the charter,
vas vIful falsehood which needs no microscope'
20 make apparent
The perversons and special peadings Of A Tax
Payer" will fail 70 convince the public that the
syprora by the Mayor Of the legal act of the Corpora
tien Counsel was an tegal retention" and employ
ment By him. or that his signing the warrant as one
"of the Commissioners Of the Sinking Fund was
payment By him ont Of the city treasury On ms
~arrapt.
But. saws "a Taxpayer" " the counsel 80 retained
shave entered into spulat0ns by which the city, If
che does not subsantiae her title to the property in
dispute must refund TO the State sun exceeding
5000 OOQ" We were told in GA Tax-Payer's
letter published by you Sept TO- that this stipulation
wa the admission that the city had been in posses
"sion of the property for the last four and half years.
and had collected thererom about $i7, 900 per year
of rents" which admission "A Taxpayer styles
81 this folly Of the Mayor, and says, Excepting for
this folly Ns Joct 'cod aerer hare dPpeared to dis
grace annals and further deplete treasury.
If put in plain English, this folly" is that, as the
city have collected 500, 600 Of rents (which "A
Tax-Payer says belong TO the State, being charged
with the theft, admit il, thereby d,sgrdctng "our
annals and depicting our treasury" by letting the
fact be known. Most honest and moral Taxpayer,
10 your mind there Disgrace in the seaiing-
Abe folly was in being found out and then confess.
ng it. Had "a Tax-Payer' examined the annual
reports OF the Controller, he woud have found this
same admission published from year year since 1854
1t il untrue that the Mayor has sought, is seek
ing, TO fasten upon the city the Lowber claim
"A Taxpayer" well knows that the Mayor was
always opposed TO that purchase; had nothing to do
with making IT. aud desired to it set aside. But
when the Controller informed him that further de-
Tense could be made and the city dound for and
zsnsf pay the deb his efforts directed to prevent
ing sale and consequent sacrifice of the city property.
The writer Of this was near at several Of those |
frequent and protracted interviews" between Low
Der and the Mayor, and knows, does "a Tax
Payer, that they after the Controller had aband
oned his suit, and had for the purpose of induc
ing Lowber to abstain from sale by the Sheriff. until
some arrangement could be made TO satisfy his de-
mand The obsnacy of the Controller prevented
any such arrangement, and, when the sale about
10 be made, the Mayor and Chamberlain borrowed,
uptn their personal responsibility, the of $50 O0O
and had purchased for them the property sod TO pre-
vent its sacrifice and distribution among strangers and
SPECTATORS.
To Charles o Conor and William Curtis Noyes the
counsel alluded to by "a Tax Payer ~, commend his
remarks, and think know these gentlemen and Mr..
Lowber well enough to say that " Taxpayer will
hardly be allowed to Shield himself under the ambigu-
ous tsse Of "A Taxpayer" for his sanderous Dsnua
tons.
1t was /" A TaS-Payer" who dragged Judge Do~icc
into tis controversy, and these attacks upon our
Mayor are but the cloak under which he seeks to u
press the public with the belief that the State the
bona fde owners Of the West Washington Market !
property intend, foolish and undignhed as II may
appear to him, TO attempt to show the fasy OF ms
statements, and his perversonS OF law IN the cases
referred TO. :,
Vesey and Dey streets tn 4O feet west OF West street.
and for over four years has been occupying the same
for market purposes, collecting thereirom nearly
347 900 pee annum fer rent.
The State by the Commissioners Of the Land Office
have leased the property to Taylor Brennan for one
year fer g. 600. Under this lease it is claimed that the
State owns the property and an attempt Is made IN
the name Of the people TO dspossess the city as to
allow Taylor Il Brennan to enter into possession.
The first inquiry is: Has the city title to the prop
erty ,
dep referred to by Judge Davies and "a TaxPayer,'
support the claim of the State
Section of the DoUgan Charter grants to the city
all the lands between high and lOwwater mark around
the island of course including those between Vesey
and Dey streets. Section IA authorizes the city to fill
up, lay out and build upon the same.
Section 81 of the Montgomery Charter rathes and
coIfImss This grant, and
Section 80 grants the city further 400 feet from
low water mark into the river, with full power aud
right to fill in make up build upon, and wharf ol in
front Of the same together with all the benefits rights
privileges and appurtenances connected with or be,
longing thereto, including the rights OF wharfage and
Cranagc in trout. The charters having been ratified
and affirmed by every Constitution of the State, these
grants are valid and perfect, have often been de-
cared to be by the highest tribunals of the State
and by them the city became vested with euery right
and erery estate which the Crown possessed could
give.
They cannot be repealed or interfered with by the
State, for having been made before the Revolution
the rights of the city prior to those of the State
The Legislature can, therefore, pass no law, nor do
any act which could deprive the city of her water
front, cut her off from the rights of wharfage and
Cranage. But if any doubt could exist as 10 these
rights the Legislature has removed them by the acts
of Sd April, 1893; 2d April 1905 I'd April, 1896, and
9th April 1873 in all Of which, full porer and express
authority liz given the city to lay ont and make up
West street and TO erect piers, and make basins IN
front Of and to the west of West street, far INTO
the river as the city might eject whereCer and rken-
erer she pleased and to fill in, or alter such basins, as
she might deem proper The city did wharf out in
front of West street. and made basins by such whars
between Nesey and Dey streets, aud Iii in 1913 order
such basins to be incloscd and filed in thus doing
what she had right TO do under her charters, and