The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1860-02-15
THE BROOKLYN FERRY CASE.

THE BROOKLYN FERRY CASE.
s...o~..,; Deeision Of Judge Hogeboom
SUPREME COURT.
The People q the State Of Ne,o York rs I've Nayev, Alder
men and c0mmonaay Of the City of Men revk On, = R0's
2. Ha~s, Ce*Pao07 Of said C.y.-This is mouon NJ
'uno'0n. The facts sufficiently appear IN the opinion
the Coart Iogeboom JTnis Is an application by tn,
plaintiffs for m injunction TO restrain the defendants from
granting any lease leases Of the Fulton, Cstharin'
street, South, Hamilton avenue and wsl street ferries
between the city Of New York and Brooklyn and espe
caly to restrain them from making the bAne in the man
ner proposed in the public notice Of the sale thereof BY
The CoGproller under GATE OF November l6 1862 The
application is founded upon two general grounds
l. That by the act OF May H. lS4o, the defendants
have no authority 70 make any sale or lease Of the ferries
In question: but that the u conhded 70 CommsiC
appointed by the Governor
q That the defendants have the power Of sale or
lease, they are conducting the In violation of the
ameaded charter OK the city OF New York Of April Ia
1857 and also in vi,aton Of the duties imposed uuon
them municipal corporation to the public n larca
VIII pe convenient TO consider frat this last branch Of
the application. -
If the plaintiffs have in fact established clear violation
OF law, or clear msuser abuse Of their corporate
powers ON the part OF the Defendants regard as an
appropriate ground for injunction The threatened oct
made confer rights OF property and are last for ten
years. and the fact OF their having been actually granted
J.
subsequently set aside Under these circumstances
Abe preventive remedy only lawful the safest
and best which can be adopted. (sronss Com on Eg
ur, SEC 907, 8, o. Code, sec. 2l9. Benson va Mayor
&c, Of New York, 10 Barb Rep 226 Davis vs. Mayor,
&c; Of New York "a n Y Rep, sos Milham VS. sharp,
parties TO enforce the remedy They represent the gene
raj pubhc-the body of citizens who sggrieyed An
action Probably lbe Commissioners UNDER t tSe
act Of lS46 would DO regarded as possessing
mere naked authority lease coupled with an interest
here hp htchd poa
might doubtless the act be in force sue for violation
OF their rights but doubt even such action would
bar suit by the people, instituted by their Attorney
General prevent violations charters of general laws
ana OF common law obligations, tending to the rrepara
Die injury and prejudice OF the citizens at large Especial
iy s this when docs appear that there arc any
lessees under the OF 1885, nor that they are
The snsdy IN mart ana nv ,ae very nature Of
rates OF errage which such might feel NOT
inclined 70 enforce Dootte VS. Supervisors Of Broome,
co, ~, n T. Rep 100 People VS.. Mayor &C., of New
York, Abbott 25S Hale Va Cushman, MtcaW. dos:
Roosevelt Va Draper, lS How Pr. Rep. 1877 Abbott,
los Mann W. Wes,over, Sup Court, third ds,rictj
Waving for the present discussion of the aues,ion
whether the law Of ls45 valid force let US next
consder the question whether the defendants have been
guilty Of such violation OF their common law or satu
this Court The ioSy section Of the amended char
ferries TO and The leases esq0S 10 Se
made by public auction, and 70 The high
curty to be limited o-tbat is mot TO exceed ten years
Duration and 10 be revocable by the Common Council
for Encouragement or neglect to provide adequate
Communications, the essecs purchase fair aprased
valuation the boats buildings and other necessary ferry
property Of the former essees previous notice Of all such
Comptroller for thirty days IN each Of the daily newsps
pers employed by the Corporation II Is claimed on the
part Of the plaintiffs that By the terms Of the proposed
iars In requiring twenty per of the annual rent to
be paid at the time Of the sae in requiring security only
aggregate amount Of The renis Of The ferries a con-
siderAon Of purchases in requiring the essees 10 keep
on each ferry boat IRE apparatus Or force pump with
der the direction Of the Chief Engineer, for which
the 'lsssees are to be compensated at the rate
of twenty dollars per hour. caunot discover
In any OF these provisions violation of the statute in
question The provisions OF the law generai-not
entering into much detailimposrg certain restrictions
and obligations, but not prohibiting other additional
The leading object Of the section was 70 secure pub
,eS duration and pevpcsSa character q the le.seS
protection TO the public To require certain moderate
70 be paid in cash at the time of sale was not Al un
reason able or unusual requirement, and advisable
not necessary prevent fraudulent bids Nor do think
violated the provision that the sale should be 70 the
provision must receive reasonable construction II
intended think, compulsory upon the Corporation
mounts Is in exercise Of sound discretion they should
think reasonable. 1t might be literally implied with by
condition Of SALE which shoud require the whole purchase
money TO be paid the next day, the next week after
security was given. But that would be unreasonable.
50 Of the requaton 2 pay Or bid at the time Of the
tai Of the ferrss ooO) as condition Of purchase.
This does not violate the section which requires
der he for sum less than that amount, the
only consequence that there is no sale; and new
perhaps on more a VOraOs ss%s Se
one. evnces just regard for the interests Of the city
not pretended that the rent unreasonable in amount
and expressly appears that does not exceed fair rent
OF the public alps and piers for commercial purposes
The provision requiring the lessees Tor a proper
on each boat FIRE apparatus and hose certainly not
violation Of the section above referred TO- for says no.
thing about IL and cannot regard the provisions therein
sve prohbiory Of other just and salutary conditions
not Inconsistent herewith, imposed BY the Corporation
] regard this particular condition rs not unreason
able, having in view the frequency of fires IN the
the Convenience Of operating the nre apparatus by
means Of the engines upon the boats. It Is,
think police regulation competent for the defendants 70
make II may be said also In reference 70 all the before
mentioned alleged violations Of this section that none OF
them appear TO be derogaon Of the rights Of the
raj public that particular public Immediately
presented by the defendants and therefore scarcely Afford
ground interference by injunction the suit Of the
lars The other principal objections to the proposed sale
lease Of the ferries are, that they proposed 70 be
leased together IN single Iease-thas tue purchaser
the five ferrieshat the Of ferriage allowed to be
charged for foot passengers exravagan and oppressive
fraudulent continuation between the defendants and the
Union Ferry Company, having Tor It's object TO destroy
ana % Of Se ps These
are the more important allegations in the case, and
require the consideration OF two Questions; -sirst,
how Tar these allegations arc founded In fact;
and ,sscond how far they JUSTLY the interference
Of this Court They claimed 70 DO in fact violations
obligations or duties resting npon the defendants as nn-
ncpal corporation towards the public There IS no ex,
prees provision the notice that the ferries Shall De SOLO
together fairly to be inferred from the terms OF
the notice and necessary 10 be done in order TO com
DIV with the resolutions OF the Common Council Sucn
. sale is no, violation Of the act Of 1857, either
IN letter or spirit There is nothing which FOR
bids sale in that form, and II IS lett 70 pc
NAV be regulated or controlled by the action Oh the
Courts is question which shall hereafter discuss For
the present shall consider the question o. TACT IN s
ON the part OF the plaintiffs tend TO snow ina. ne
ferries cou be probably at charge Of one cent tor
foot passengers and that responsible persons are reay
take lease OF the ferries upon that condition, pay
ING The present rental TO the city OF new
York, and that q proposal go 70 run me sams