New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1872-07-24
LOCAL MISCELLANY.
THE RIVERSIDE PARK.

HE RlfERSIDb Ihhh'
PRESENTATION OF THE FINAL REPORT OF THE
COMMIsSI0NERS-OBJEC OF PROPERTY
OWNERS.
The Report of the Commissioners of Esti-
mate and Assessment in relation TO tho Riverside Park
WAS presented Yesterday for confirmation to Judges
Leonard Barrett and Brady in the SURE nc Court Gen
era Term Judge Brady stated that he had some prop
erty affected by the proposed Improvement anu no
would therefore exchange seats with Judge frat VINO
was presiding in Chambers. Mr. OGorman' On the part
OF the Corporaon called attention TO the ardus labors
OF the Commissioners in preparing inc repoip Il" .no
numerous objections which had been made, snd TO the
vast pubo ,mnortancc of the matter, and asked for
speedy confirmation Of the report John E. DeVln' IN
behalf OF 30 propcrtyowner presented the iOuoWino
points OF objection:
That the proceedings were Irregular from oio very o
ginning that by the statute of 1888 the notice In part
ton should specify the nature and tho extent OF the III
tended improvement. and this had not been lone III ts
case that these proceedings, being entireS statutory
the law should be complied with in all repectsi that
the nroceedpgs were void for want OF urdction and
that there were no such parks; that th(Act OF lS67
giving the Commissioners title, was unconstitutional
and void, and hence all action under IL vas OF no va
ldy or effect that the Legislature canno'delegate to
mower of domain unless 1t Is clearly ana ENTHUSIASTICALLY
declared in the law authorizing the proccdingsi that
tbe mark il TO be for public use that the fact that the
g. g.. Bowling Green. the Beach-st triage, and the
Canaf park that the OF assessmentyas unreason-
ably extended to property a mile distnt from the
northern and southern extremetiesi tnat there
were four parks, as stated ny me Oohinis-
sioners themselves, though some werenot separated
by greater space than the width OF avenue, as IN
the case OF the Central Park and Manhahn-sqgaIe, anu
il was unlawful and unprecedented OcOnslder more
than one public park in the same proceeding mat tnese
parks being near 10 the Central Parkwere unneces
sarv and that the Central Park occupied ground on
which 100000 people could live, and thee parks woua
exclude about 10000 people ana the extet OF the au
was 40 limited that the city could not sae tho space
that the Commissioners had not comphd with the law
appointing them, as they had not evdeiB useo men
Judgment in the consideration or the inter OF assess
ment as required but had adopted the OF ASSESS
and they had failed TO acquire that part the PARK now
occupied by the Hudson River Rallrod COMPANY haS
strip nearly three miles long and &C fec wdeIn9r had
they assessed that part OF the same rad Whleh Mas
within the present area OF assessment Lhat they
proceedings of the first Board of Commissioners. 80
In conclusion Mr. Devn contended tht 1t was illegal
npocrs Of law He therefore asked INT the report be
not confirmed, but sent back TO the Commissioners
H. H. Anderson presented one oblecOn u the report
on behalf of the estate OF Jacob Hareno, which he
claimed assessed enormously. Theots fronting on
the Park in Seyenty-secondst. and thse IN the rear
having 40 connection with it, were assessed IN the same
amount although by no means benehedlo the same ex-
tent He asked that the report DO sehtaOA iVl OooO
Mr. Deiahed appeared for Mr.. sutphn who owned
property west OF Twelfth-ave betweenieyeny-second
and Seventy thirdsts., assessed SIPS eng the only
piece which had been assessed at all onhat line. lie
thought the Commissioners had made mistake, ana
desired to call the attention OF the CourtD the fact
s. f. Church, large property owner, asked that the
report be confirmed Immediately. He SAD that be was
assessed on q lots 81 90 than any 0e else ana II
another wear passed by would he assessed 900 more
The property lost s50O0O0 by be delay IN CON
rmaton the report, and he had beeDut or pocket
large amount being unable to build orsel or do any
thing with his property. o.
J. NJ. Davis appeared for propertyNyners IN one
Observation-Disclosures. and 1weftl-ae., which was
not used as a street. He claimed tina he should De
allowed the land taken as inc luulc Ol Wdb
would have been Twelfth-ave., II laid 0 but no was
only allowed TO the line of the sidewalk.
recess was then taken, after whlchMr. O,GOrman
replied To the objections advanced. At 81 M the Court
obi