The New York herald., 1872-12-24
THE BROADWAY WIDENING.

Decision OF tho Supreme Court, General
Term, Confirming the Report or the
Conlmissi oncrs-A Further Appeal Prob
able I'm tho Case.
In the course Of the legal controversy as to the
confirmation Of the last report OF the appointed
Commissioners for widening broadway above
Thirty-fourth street, the full facts OF the case pro
and CON have been given In the HERALD and it
Is unnecessary to repeat them. The last step was
an appeal from the decision OF the Supreme Court
Special Term confirming the report OF the Com
mission. decision upon this appeal was rendered
yesterday in the Supreme Court, General Term, the
opinion being given by Judge Larned.
OPINION or JUDGE LARNEp.
After stating the facts or the case and the
grounds Of the appeal, together with an explana
tion OF the effect on behalf OF the appellants to
have the hearing OF the appeal in some other de-
partment, Judge Larned takes up the objection
1a te Was sgmen Dy Nny Two od 81 tne ~ COM
point, showing, as he claims, that the two sigma
lures were enough to make 1t stand good in
law. He next answers the objection that
all the proceedings were contrary to the fifteenth
amendment Of the constitution OF the United
In another case before the General Term, and there
fore 1t was unnecessary to examine 1t In the pres
ent case. As to the objection OF noncompliance
with the provision requiring the report to be
made within six months, he held that II was not a
matter OF Jurisdiction; that the Commissioners
diction was not lost by the delay. Having disposed
Of this preliminary roint. the opinion proceeds as
follows:-"An objection Is taken that the fourth
section OF chapter 81, Laws OF 1871, by which ma
jority or the new Commissioners were required to
be other than the former Commissioners, was un-
constitutional The ground Is that the constitution
has provided the power Of appointing Com
missiOners to the Court, and 1t is urged
that the Judge who made the appointment
construed the act as requiring him TO appoint one
Of the former Commissioners. 1t does not seem
that the Judge considered this imperative. Even
could not make the law unconstitutional. The
law does not positively require the appointment OF
any one Of Che former commissioners. 1t ex-
cludes two Of them ron the appointment. Now,
the exclusion OF two men out OF all the competent
Inhabitants OF the State Tor at least OF the city,
cannot IN any reasonable sense be construed as
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION
giving the appointing power 70 the Court. It Is
who has, as Juror heard the tried before. If
the statute had provided that no convicted felon
say that such a restriction was unconstitutional
Constitutions are to have broad, not petty con-
New York. IS so'ssg Objected ssa the
Commissioners have adopted new area
o. assessment; The Act Of 1871 author.
OF injunction and to refer the matter back to the
Commissioners. II directed the Commissioners to
assessment in whole or in part as the Court should
direct" He held that the commissioners had kept
entirely within the powers delegated TO them. lie
then takes up the remaining objections and arrives
at the same conclusions. He held that the objcc
tiOn that no notice regarding the appointment OF
Mr.. Wood had been served was simple irregular
ity. He held further that the Court could not en-
terrain the objection that the land oil OF the
appellants had been dIsproporticnately assessed
THIS being matter that lay wholly with the Com
missioners. Another question he decided was that
where awards had been made to land owners no
sub-tenants could come In for damages. Ihe
minority report, he held, was not before the Court.
A THREATENED APPEAL.
II was stated that an appeal would be taken from
No n III
case would be carried TO the United States Supreme
Court.