The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1865-06-15
The CrOtOn Aqueduct Controversy.
SUPREME COURT-CHAMBERs.

49,. Rooio SuA6o A0Vu"iu.
JUsE A-SsepAe,s and Darrah, rslators, o. Iehn &
Giles cmd George 4. Jzsm'ah-Ths case, on which To
authority and power of the Legislature in contact
with that claimed by the Corporation of the city of New
Leonard
The plaintiffs were appointed Commissioners OF tho
croton Board by virtue OF an act of the Legislature
passed April 1888 but subsequently removed by
tho Corporation OF the city and the defendants appointed
In their stead. The whole question TO whether tho
Legislature can deprive the Corporation Of the city Of
New York, or any private corporation Of It's vested
ana
without the assent Of such corporation and without any
compensation, is involved In this controversy Other
important results will likely follow on the decision that
may be rendered In this case. The points relied upon
for the defendants the new apponees under the Copo
Fa-Property franchises, rights and benefits belong.
ing to the Corporation OF New York whether granted by
the Legislature otherwise acquired stand precisely
the same footing though acquired by granted 10
any private corporation. So far relates 10 each and
all OF these things, the Corporation OF New York Ia
person-here is no difference, not the least This has
been repeatedly held
Secnd-Ths rights Of tho Corporation Of tbs city Of
interests precisely the those which the Man.
haitian Bank has It's property and franchises; and
over tho other. We think this can be made clear
Third-h Is well settled that these Water Commission
ers now In question are agents Of the Corporation and
FauiA-The Croton Commissioners are tho private
agents Of private corporation and their duties relate 10
the private property and private rights and franchises Of
the COOPERATION.
- EVM-Ths vested rlghis properly and franchises OF
this private corporation not subject to legislative
troll ~ "a
SzAUpon principles long established It admits Of no
doubt that whom the Corporation Of New York accepted
the CrotOn water grant, and expended ts money In the
construction Of the works. the contract between the Cor
poration and the State complete and the rights OF
the Corporation became vested rights which subse
quent Legislature could disturb without violation OF the
laws and constitution of New York and OF the constu
lion Of the United States - - 49,
aQpo Of the conditions the grant which the Corpora
toh accepted that II should appoint its officers
over the Works and the salary to be paid.
SevenhTh6 shtctc Of 1858 Is clear violation OF the
constitution OF the United States and attempted abr0ga
ton Of vested rights, fragrant violation Of It's
tract and against she constitution Of the State Of New
York.
Eiga-Nothing 10 better settled than that the right
of property and franchise carries with the right
troll that property and to enjoy the bcuo6t Of that
Tnth-The statute Of 1888 undertakes, by indirect
means deprive the Corporation OF Its private valuable
rights property and franchises without compensation
This the constitution OF the State forbids Is also
attempt to appoint 70 Office In violation OF article ten OF
the constitution And the act Is ALSO in direct violation
OF section Of the article II Ia clearly
stitutiona.
These points were ably argued by Messu Perrepont
and J. X. Whiting
For the REALTORS Messra Fullerton and Marsh presented
points 10 argument In contraventon Of the views put
forward by the opposite counsel and having closed the
Judge took the papers and reserved decision