The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1860-03-10

Dy inc said CoTpcrauop, are hereby repeated
The familiar rule of constr action as to repeating
statutes, this Repeats by implication not favored
II the two statute can be SO construed that both may
stand they must receive that contraction but If the lat
ter statute only partially rerugnapt the former only
80 much Of the former repealed clearly nconss
tent with the latter Full effect may be given TO the law
OF 1857 without restoring In any manner 10 the city OF
New York the governmental power OF establishing fer
res which had been carefully resumed by the Iegsa
turc in 1916 CopcedDg that the entire act OF 1916
repeated in 1887 what the legal consequences Of such
repeaa would undoubtedly upon the Cor
poration the to establish future ferries But how
would II affect ferries that had illegally established
prior TO such repeas could not by mere silence legal
lows from these Oe wse sooa that ssa o.
the act OF 1867 do not embrace thcy intended
TO embrace illegal creations which not legal FERRIES
nor the property Of the corporation These two crossing
places In legal ferries" They were not
nor had they been franchises The right to charge
and receive tolls at them had been conferred and
did not exit ANY assumption such right an un.
authorized exacton fronfthe public The city Of New
York actually twenty five or thirty ferries
and full effect be given to the Of 1857 by conung
It's operation TO these These two ferries have been csab
lshed, while the power to establish them vested
soey in tie State they would, II legazed, become the
property OF the State and the State would be entitled to
receive the rents and emoluments accrung from them
In claiming the complaint that the right regulate these
ferries vtsed in the Commissioners provided for in the
act OF $780, by reason OF the repeal of much Of that
as Greater ouch Commissioners equally true that
the ferries themsev Illegally established and there
fore the defendant should be restrain ed from leasing them
The assertion and apparent sanction of the doctrine that
Notwithstanding the purpose Of the Legislature
these governmental powers In ferries manifested In
1645 yet by the act OF the has been
70 the city OF New York all places
within Its Jurisdiction and for all future time seems not
only TO magnify the m ortance Of this controversy, but
furnishes additional why this lease should be
restrained until this claim be carefully examined by
the General Term and the Court Of Appeals This can only
be done with safety and propriety UPON the anal heating
and decision Of this action upon the peadngs proofs
The Injunction should Be granted because the proposed
between the defendants and the Union Ferry
Company % vest in the latter monopoly OF the ferries
he ucoa VnRk and -nerny luu -A:-A
would be detrimental commerce. injurious to the in
erests Of the inhabitants Of Brooklyn and New York and
against public policy Is not claimed that there is any
corrupt agreement to participate the profits OF the
transaction, ultimately csnsummated by lease" But
exclude nom the competition the great mass Of mankind,
and secure the ferries to this company proved by the
FOL oSwpg - Z, having been
ferries with capital Of $500 900, applied to the defend
ants to sell aud lease in one parcel ali these ferries This
for these ferries and then abrogaed the former Of
toll and established in lieu thereof rates, increasing
the former tolls more than one hundred per cent The
company then, with view to the arrangement ap-
Piled TO the defendants to consent TO have the old leases
fall in immediately and before the expiration Of their term
v-The Fulton South and Hamilton avenue ferries OK.
PRED In Nay, 1851 and the Caharine and Wall street fer
Iies in May and july 1868 The defendants assented to
these applications, and the result agreement TO
shorten the leases provided the and lease were
The defendants also the proposal
ana have them covered by lease By the terms the
sale thus agreed upon no persons become the pur
ability pay to this ferry company the sum Of
for the property owned by them at all these fer
res to pay down the sum required IS rent to give secu
ry 70 be approved by the defendant the Comptroller to
pay the rent quarterly The also provides by
implication, that the present high rates Of toll may
be charged and collected under the new lease
while men OF ample stand ready to take
the ferries and run them for half Of these In
Of this cousve agreement the defendants re-
ect the authenticated offer made by the Corporation OF
Brooklyn TO secure to New York all the rents they asked
In fbQ md tad
rates, thereby TOTALLY dsregarding the unanimous wishes
Of the Common Council Of Brooklyn, their sister city, In
tween New York and Brooklyn would be stronger than
between New York and this ferry company in this
agreement which such undue advantages to the
ferry company, over all the world, founded In an
just ss Illegal and just as perncous though were
founded In actual personal corruption Independent Of
any actual agreement the proposed sale and lease are
fat and clear violation Of the terms and eprt OF the act
Of 1857 under which the defendants profess be acting
In exposing for gale five ferries, in lump, and 10
the purchaser 70 buy ferry property such
and other bidders, The leases should either
not at all In preventing that competition at the
sale which the clear purpose OF the statute required
chaser and in excluding the great mass OF Community
from becoming bidders BY OF the onerous terms
required 10 buy five ferries while they able to buy
one In requiring that the amount bid should at least
equal to the present rental (proved be in re-
curing payment Of twenty per cent in ad Vance in re-
to be the order Of the Chief Engineer
at the rate OF $40 per hour The validity of the law of
$50! IS averred by the defendants and It is said to be
clothed with power to repeal the of 1S45 II resumes
on the part OF the State the entire control OF directing tho
manner Of the sale saseg Of the ferries leaving the
rents TO the city, and declares that the sales shall BIO
made to the highest bidder public auction who will give
adequate security 1t is not necessary therefore, to
prove that the conditions unreasonable nor that they
are in terms prohibited is enough that they are not
expressly sanctioned Even If the claims presented
he part Of the plaintiffs in this action were doubtful yeta
stronger case could scarcely be presented for incokng
the equitable power Of the Court to restrain by injunction
The granting Of this lease until the legal rights Of the par
ties may be deliberately adudgcd in this scson and
injunction should therefore be granted q
numerous questions iavolvsd he pia sa poSons
should seem to be sound and legal II familiar role
o. equity that where The title 70 property e involved
desermined-by reason q the injury and incon-
pass INTO other hands Scarcely any spSrecsbs injury
result thereby 70 the defendants Toe term Of the
proposed lease TO ccmmsncc Nay I. 1851, and the
July 1853 Under tho act Of 1855, giving this cause
preference the be prosecuted TO the OF last
resort within Mn h:I 1ss Tine ana hsn 4 the assndsn.s
that now hangs over them Inc principle involved in the
New York ferry questions have been passed upon
Term. emnentiy proper that an opportunity should
be Afforded to have Them setted, and il viii mot be
doubted by the Court tina: there will be honest earnest
and the STATE authorities 10 have these questions heard
ana decided in this by the highest legal tribunals of
the Sae at the earliest moment The pecunilry interests
anected by this action immense, the tolls already
having reached nearly q million Of dollars annually
and they VIII increase largely during the ensuing
ten years. while the principles involved @ great
er consequence. The proceeding agans. ehioh COZ
'ert is ST attempt ~ sustan r.5Io n,saJ
poly NJ with the spirit our government aud the
Character Of or people, The policy Of the 40 iayors the