The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1871-07-02
RIVERSIDE PARK.
The Contest Between the City officials
and West Side Property Owners.
of Counsel in the
Supreme Court.
Objections TO the Confirmation Of the Report
Of the Commissioners Of Estimate
and Assessment.

Riverside Park formed the theme OF q prolonged
and interesting discussion yesterday In the Supreme
Court, Chambers, before Judge Barnard. Rarely has
this room been densely thronged, and still more
rarely has so much time been consumed in one day
here in the discussion Of one subect-the proceed.
ings opening at halfpast nine A. NJ, and, excepting
brief recess in the middle OF the day. continuing
till four O'Clock in the afternoon. The subject mat.
ter of the discussion the report OF the Commits.
slOners Of Estimate and Assessment of the park
pursuant to q previous motion made by Mr.. OGor-
man. Counsel to the Corporation. for the confirma-
ton Of such report The present status OF this
RIVERSIDE PARK
matter is TOO well known 70 require explanation.
As proposed 1t is to extend from Seventy to
10th street, on the Hudson River. and embracing
within ITS area some three thousand lots The est-
mated expense OF laying 1t out into q park is
$5.soooOo OF which onehalfls to be charged to the
city and the balance upon owners OF property be-
tween Fortysecond and 155th streets Messrs.
Hugh Smith, James NJ. Sweeny and william M.
Tweed Jr, are the Commissioners Of Estimate and
Assessment. 1t was the report OF these gentle
men that was under consideration. OF course
in the multiplicity OF interests involvei there
was necessarily multiplicity OF lawyers, and, in
fact, it was general field day for lawyers and to
say that they fought well and vaiantly for their eli
ents and their fees only saying that they
fession
MOTION FOR AN ADJOURNMENT.
First IN order after the Judge had taken his seat
on the bench and before he had fairly got his knife
open to commence with his usual custom, vlgor
Ons whiting assault piece OF pine wood
held in reserve for such occasions was q motion
for adjournment Mr.. Ira Shafer made this
motion. He stated that one OF his clients
the present owner Of the upland at Ninety-eighth
street, was entitled TO grant Of the land under water
next this upland and had filed his application for it,
one Of his neighbors. since this matter had been
proceeding, had received his grant paying $1,000
to The city, and for this land granted he had been
awarded $4,000. The next neighbor had received
similar grant on payment Of $l0 600, and had been
awarded $4,000. Justice required that reasonable
delay should be had TO perfect this title to the
right for which now but 81 was awarded to I'M
known owners.
Mr.. Kitcnel asked delay until he should have
time to examine the report as it now is He under
stood that 1t mad been IN some respects changed
especially as to certain streets He thought one
rule should be adopted throughout and desired at
least one day to examine these changes.
The Court denied the motion.
PLUNGING IN Medals RES.
Mr.. Devlin was the first one to address the Court
on the subject Of the confirmation Of the report.
He opposed the confirmation. He led or
with presenting the case OF Mr.. Carrigan.
owner Of property the Bloomingdale
road, which, he claimed was an Old road
dedicated to public use by the owners not acquired
road ceased the property in the road reverted to
the adjacent owners, under the common law.
in0n a street the adjacent owners had q right,
he insisted. to Its full value, and not 81 only,
drew carefully the distinction between the dedica-
ted roads and the roads either coded to or acquired
by the city, and claimed that his view OF the law
was fully sustained by the decision OF the supreme
Court as to Harlem lane and McGOwan's pass as In
Guided In the Central Park. Again, they had allowed
him but 81 for the portions OF 18th. 18th, Hath
and 10th streets taken Tor the Park The streets
mad never been opened nothing had been paid for
them; the streets hai only been marked out OH the
map OF the Commissioners as places where streets
might be. For Manhattan College,: for the Roman
lin owning $780, 900. and who he SAID did not care
twenty-five cents to have the park opened; for the
assessed property not improved as alleged, $40 by
the park; for Edward C. Donney and for the estate
Of Or. s. Ives. he opposed the park assessment ~
park was not public purpose IN the sense OF
highway i was NOT declared to be public
Of irresponsible men, changeable from year
to year, should be allowed to roam around
laying out park here or q park there
and paying for what the city had sold sax months
ago Tor $4,000 $4s.Ooos The thing mus be stopped.
The action Of the Board was unreasonable It was
prepOsferOus. The Hudson River ran right along.
side OF the park from end to end. The purpose OF
lation for such purposes. The river itself was
park. On the other side was, at q very short DIS
lance, the Central Park, aud could by any reason
this be thought necessity for which the property
owners should pay s5.Soo.00oG Again, the area OF
assessment was altogether too wide The parks low
est point was Seventy second street; the area OF as
sessment was extended to Forty street. below
the Central Park, with which 1t never conld CON-
pete. Again. it extended to 155th street, while
those aDove the 125th street valley could pos
sibIy be benefited by It, and all along here the
property was IN great measure owned by poor and
small owners, holding single lots VINO would not
be benefited, but must pay II this went through.
This was an outrage to all OF these poor people,
many OF whom must thus lose their lois. Further,
he urged this was not one. but two parks; the
might az well lump the Improvement Of tue Battery
In It, and then declare the lots on l55n street
and Forty-second street benefited by both.
PROTEST FROM THE POST EsTATE
Judge Porter on behalf OF The POST estate, COM
planned that they had not been allowed for Twelfth
Their property was some forty acres lying between
| Eleventh avenue and the Hudson River. rney mad
that part OF the city. They had conveyed away
none OF this properly excep. a portion for the
as originally laid in right lines, mad been closed,
and new avenue laid out and opened according 10
the land. The Commissioners had refused them any
compensation for the propert, laid down between
these old and imaginary lands. In their original
report they had struck out ali this portion-a strip
| 100 feet wide and nearly half mile long
Seeing the error they mad made. they mad
amended their report by granting merely
Valuable for villa sites in New ' York Tney had
done tins by originally awarding certain sums for
lots bounded on the avenue, and afterwards IN the
\ amended report, bounding the lots by tue centre
| line OF the avenue either added nothing to the
| original valuation or a most Inadequate amount
| or the west hall OF the paper avenue they added
nothing, although 1t included sixty seven lots For
the cast half OF the avenue, eignty-four lots they
allowed on but seventeen OF them less than $4,000,
| while on the usual rate OF valuation they should
have allowed $IS4O00. ON the paper cross streets
| they we're not absolutely closed. They did not
therefore claim the whole value but on the lowest
rule ever adopted they should have allowed $4,000
| more than they had IL was not n mistake IN
| amount, but q totally false one OF valuation.
| Property, he insisted. couG not he destroyed, AZ
| claimed, by the mere drawing Of certain lines OIL
| piece OF paper and fling 1t away In pigeon hole
aud without any Of the requisites OF the law being
observed. lie asked That the report be sent back.
| REM NsTRANCE OF EIGHTY PROPERTY OWNERS.
Mr.. Kitcnel, who said ne represented some eighty
property owners stated that some OF his clients hag