The New York herald., 1871-03-29

I'LL
such fact should be @ss know. ,,c,iaer nad anita
iaO assessment Is upon s;,snpe,%T eeaisal rsTs "a;
Unjust Se cansd pPre'sSSs sSs as
scope Of the act must fall 70 the ground by the law
II In its opinion any portion OF the report was wrong,
to send 1t back for correction where 1t might be er-
subserved and S the rights Of the public
and such was the present pleasing duty ana pre-
SPEECH OF IRA sHAFFER. = -,.
This gentleman followed. He said ne confessed
tnat with many Others, he had thought. or
posed in the courts. The public were startled BY
the presentation in the State Legislature OF an act
Tps S% OUT S m0qs ss se Of reooras Of sSs
SSat Saa awndsa %hsa aS e ns ns
did not know that an assessment had been made OF
81 50o0 900 upon the Central Park. 1t was true the
OF the rights Of the CITY, but IN that case he had got
on TO the wrong track. He Is the counsel Of the
Mayor and municipality Of the city. Mr.. Peter B;
New York city than is Mr.. OGorman himself-no
more than Is Mr.. William M. Tweed This notice
was served upon the Corporation Counsel and that
answered oil the possible requirements OF the law.
1t was sufficient on this point. AS TO the awards
In this case every bond OF the city could be
swept out OF existence. What he objected to was
the way in which these awards were made. There
good deal OF 1t had been In the dark. 1t would have
been better Tor the Mayor, when they asked the
papers, II the same had been promtly given. He In.
sisted that the Legislature one Of these days might
be giving an order to hang the Corporation Counsel
by the neck until he was dead, dead. He thought
on being tried by his peers. Having thus elaborated
hs preface ne went on to say that Mr. Anderson had
talked so exhaustlvely upon the subject that there
was really but little for him to say. He proceeded
to cite several additional cases bearing upon the
question. The great pont he insisted, was that the
business Interfere
rights. II there were unjust awards In this case
they SHOULD be set aside but net the just ones. 1t
should be remembered that these awards were not
the judgments OF the supreme Court but the acts OF
special legislation. This was not to be regarded
other side shall succeed in carrying their point they
will innict blow upon the rights OF property never
once Of Governor and do away with all law.
RESTRICTION OF SPEECHES.
seat, said he was willing to hear others on this
side, but they must c0nf1ne themselves to points Of
argument not advanced already
MR.. KITTEL SAYS FEW WORDS
MIR. Kittel said he represented Mr.. White and Mr..
Parnell and after the intervention by the Judge as
limitation OF further speeches would not go over
the ground already gone over as he was glad TO
know that he would be entitled to the benefit OF the
arguments already advanced. He added that there
were other interests tnvOlvedhe interests OF those
who were assessed and the interests OF many OF
whom he represented. Where was the money to be
raised that had been assessed upon Central Park
Was there any provision In the law for the payment
OF such assessment The court under this act, he
Insisted, mad no right to saddle assessments upon
parties who ought not 10 be assessed He asked, on
behalf OF some one hundred property owners, that
II this should go back Hon. Daniel F. Temann
might be named as commissioner
EQUITY PCINTS-SPEECH BY MR.. vANDERPOEL-
The Judge inquired If anybody else desired to be
Mr.. vanderpoei rose in reply and entered upon
speech which, though he promised 1t should be BRIEF
was prorracted 10 considerable length. He submit
ted that there had been nothing final In this case.
The whole subject was open to review. According
10 the argument on the other side the Commission
q confirmation Of their report without notice to any
parties interested. he referred to the OF 1913
steps, giving IN ertenso his Interpretation OF the
same. As 10 the assessment op Central Park.
he urged that 1t was wholly irregular and
OF the act Of lsla He insisted that amDle noce had
had been used anu n so there was evidently abun-
dant power N the courts TO intervene and set 1t
aside. An appeal could be made. It was all within
the power oil the Legislature 1t was purely a
matter OF remedy. lie quoted authorities
giving relief. The trouble was, the other side was
claiming vested rights In awards that were wrong.
All tney wanted was tnat the Legislature should ccr-
rect It's wrong doing. After citation OF other au-
taorties he urged that no one could be deprived OF
his property without being paid for at the time.
OF Wall street II distinctly held, IL Barbour,
that the property could be taken and paid for i've
months Afterwards.
Mr.. Vanderpoel said he was giving his individual
opinion, which he rarely did in court Of justice.
Mr. Shatier thought 1t strange on the side or the
Corporation Counsel 10 adduce personal opinions as
argument. 1t only showed, In his opinion, the
weakness OF their SIDE
Mr.. Nanderpoe ilsisted that theirs was the strong
side OF tue case, and, ike 0ssa on Pelion he
brought forward further long array OF authorities
TO enforce this theory.
MIR. o'GoRMAN's CLOSING SPEECH,
MT o'Gorman Corporation Counsel, then rose 10
close The case on behalf Of the city. He said
May II please your Honor the tone, temper and
ability displayed by the learned counsel that has dis
cussed this case are not below the level Of the
desire 10 add very ltle TO the argument presented
by my learned associate, Mr.. Vanderpoe and shall,
e,Oe & @ 70 iGone p, se aG W,tsin
my cognizance. IL seems to me, your Honor, that
there are but two questions for the Court
The Corporation Counsel, in the afidavits READ
by him, presented fac,s suiicient to warrant the
Court IN extending TO the Mayor. Aldermen and
Commonaly OF this city the relief provided by sec.
tioa iour OF chaper hftyseven OF the law OF 1871,
entitled an act felan 10 the Widening ana @ srsgh
IN that proceedingf II our ailidavits show-and
there Is no doubt but they DO show-that errors
mistakes, irregularities and iegal' acts have
occurred IN the proceeding, then 1t becomes
the duty OF tae Court under the statute tc
yacate the order OF confirmation and TO sent
the whole matter back to new commissioners
Tor consideration. The Court will remember that the
sncon,rsd,cted. They show that in the abstract o.
q report as ned In the olce OF the Board OF Works
on the 2ith OF september last, the Mayor, Aldermen
that abstract the report filed there for the infer
nation OF all persons interested, that the Mayor
Aldermen aud Commonalty were awarded about
s.5000a In the report, as confirmed December 2S
lsTo. the Central PARK Commissioners are assessed
above tl.0O0.o0o, while the Awards TO the city are
reduced 70 forty-nye dollars This was done with
out notice whatever 10 the municipal authorities
and Without any opportunity for counsel TO be heard
before the Commissioners, and In violation 0f tht
provisions OF chapter 15 OF the laws Of 1852 IL VII
be remembered BY the Court that the proceedings u
4 his broadway wldeping originated altogether with
i the stae OF New York aid That the municipal
authorities were not moving or consentng parties
thereto that by Tie provisions OF that act they were
20 be assessed oneihird u the expense OF the i'm
pr0yement; that tne property forming now part o.
I broadway which would 6e closed by the improve
I mcni was ~ be taken from them and
given TO abuiiing owners on such terms
as the colamlssionery might decide, aud thus tha
these proceedings. far from being Instituted by the
corporation or ior the corpoI alton. may be regarded
Ia many respects as IN Invium. by the express re
qurg meat u she statute Counsel 10 the Corporation
was directed TO take the legal steps for acquiring
title for pubic use OF the property required by tnt
Improvement aud in this he acted not as Q mum
cpai, bat q state 0ficer, and neither as NUM-
Clpal nor a state oflcer was II any par
rg.ft. ha