New-York daily tribune., 1859-12-27

CT1-erTlOr IIaT-en,
farm, with the swamp next to the same, and s4slas
~ several rents reserved by vIrtue Of former grams
and saving 10 all other persons, oodles p9iiuc All
porae their respective liles 70 any OF me s1et i
nr tepemepts and saving 70 the inhabitants OF 1loss
that have plantations by the waterside, between wan
shout and Red Hook the night of transporting taen-
.elyes and their goods only IN Their own soa's'
from and TO their own respective dwellings OF Pss~i
tons without paying ferage, 10 hare and to H0id, a
sud angular the premises Aforesaid, ana every pan
aud parcel thereof except and saving as herein eA
cspted and saved unto the said Mayor, Aacrfnen Au
C6mmonaty of the City OF New-1afki and thSif
sors forever TO their only proper use and oenoo of
ever. =,
passed special act 10 confirm this charter, and all
other grants made TO the city by Colonial authority
Durng The same session. statute in relation to ferries
was passed by the Assembly fixing penalty Of Eoo
for infringing upon the ferry privileges on the East
River. This act was the only ferry av Of the Colony
| and the State down to l7s9.
| But a single attempt seems TO have been made 70
| break up New-York's acknowledged monopoly OF all
ferrie, In l7i6 the Trustees Of Brooklyn applied
| 70 the General Assembly for relief, and bil WAS
pas,ed through the lower house by the close vote oil
10 10 repeal the Ferry act far "a !: related TO the
| f,eebolders of BROOKLYN. The bill was lost in the
| Coupei. and never became law. Acts were passed
y; 1901 1910 and 1872 in relation 70 ferries, making
sob changes in prices and sze of boats, but ali con-
cdne and that 1901 especially decarog that only the
city authorities of York COLD establish ferries
The general Act Of 1913 10 reduce several Ia re-
latne TO New-York City into act particularly set
forth the rights and duties Of ferrymen and estab-
lisbed table of charges as long and intricate as
modern protective tariff In March, 1914, petition
of Robert Fulton and VIM. Cutting, who designed to
establish steam ferry boats the Legislature raised the
fares to cents for foot passengers and ls3 to ~ !
| cents for vehicles, with privilege OF conmuuog Tor
foo. passengers az $lG per year. The act expressly
continued the old barge and saboats, and gave the
Common Council power order ships out Of the path
! Of the steamboats In 1922 law was passed fning
ferry companies for OBTAINING passengers beyond regu-
lar time, and prohibiting the of the regular boats
for any other than ferry purposes except TO relieve
| vessels in distress.
There was no further State legislation regarding fer
res for nearly twenty five years. NewYork, through
her Common Council, managed the whole business
and is worthy Of note that the Colony the State
ever fnterfered at all with the ferries on the North
River But in 1916, an act Of different tenor Was
adopted at Albany. Three Ferry Commissioners were
appointed majority Of whom could grant leases f)r
feIries between New-York and Long Island for pc
Rod Of not more than ten years at time These Com
nssioners proceeded 10 lease ferries and issue was at
once taken, our Common Council in 1850, leasing the
came ferries. The Courts were invoked for injunc-
| tons. and the well-known case of Benson The
| Mayor &C.. of New-York arose before Judge Barculo
We cannot follow the argument Of the Judge, but his
leading points thst the ferry franchise was prop
cry held by an indefeasble title, vested right Law
fully acquiIed which could be taken away by the
Legislature This decision, in connection with that Of
| kille1 fha la avr
of iss5. Judge Roosevelt held that the rights Of the
Corporation, as SET forth in the charters absolute
and in the nature Of private property both TO ferries
then established or hereafter 20 be set up thai the law
of ls45 conferred right Of title 70 leases made under
il; aud he granted perpetual injunction against the
establishment of ferry by the defendant, and by nat
ura inference against all persons not duly authorized
| by the corporate power of the City Of New-York.
The latest amendments TO the Charter Of this City,
passed in 1919 and 1857, did notniDg more with the
ferries than provide that the leases should be sold at
auction the highest responsible bidder and this ia by
some persons considered interfere with the com
preheDsiye rights granted By Montgomere's Charter.
| Except some ununporsnt minor regulations by our
Common Conncil the above sketch notices actual
legislation in regard TO the Ferries Of NewYork and
sets the matter in the clearest possible light. The
Charter Of the City of Brooklyn has not word about
Ferries; the contrary, the last section declares that
The provisions Of this ac, shall not be construed to
| recognize authorize any eneroachmert upon the
navigable waters of the Eas River or harbor of New
York" Yet there to be radical difference Of
opinion on the other side the river, and appca-
ton has been made ostsusbly behalf Of the people
Of tie State for Injunction TO restrain the Controller
from selling leases ofthe Union Ferries, directed by
the Common Council. The complaint, we think, sets
up as one claim that the Ferries belong to the State
and not the City. But the decisions of Judges Bar
euo and Roosevelt before alluded 10, TO be
elusive. II ferry franchise is property, then the
grant TO New-Yerk, tolerated by Nichols, infinitely
granted by DoDgan extended by Cornbury, reiterated
by Monigomerie, ratified by the Colonial Assembly,
and specially rearmed by the State Constitutions of
M 1921 and 1916, in the clauses saving all such
grants, is most unquestoDably the right of tais city;
and no form of Legislation affect il any than
if il were mortgage or deed duly executed under
The statutes.
OF the specia grievance, 20 the rtes Of ferriage
aud the eonduc, of the Union Ferry Company, in view
Of the proposed releasing, we have spoken at some
length in our paper Of the 9Th Of Dece nber.