The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1874-01-31
THE MILITARY PARADE GROUND.

crs OF AW a rds and Assessments Asking
the Court Their Duty in the Premises
Feeling Among Property Holders.
The Legislature of 1871, pursuant to the urgent
entreates of the leading officers of the First dv-
sion New York National Guard and others inter-
ested in the matter, passed an act providing Tor
the laying out Of q military parade grouna in the
upper part of the city. TO the Depart
ment OF Public Parks and the Major Gen.
eral commanding the First division National
Guard was given the selection OF the ground. This
they did, selecting the locality between Kings
bridge road and the Harlem River, the plot thus
selected comprising eighty-two acres. Judge
Brady appointed Messrs. william G. Traphagen,
William Seaver and John McClave Commissioners
OF Estimate and Assessment Shortly following the
appointment OF the above commissioners,
concluded, lnasmuch as the ground Sc.
lected was SO lar out Of town, so
remote from the armories and matter involv-
Ing such outlay and increase OF the city debt, to
stop any further proceedings on their part, and
having obtained an opinion from the Corporation
accordingly and let the matter Drop With this
the property holders in the vicinity were dlssatis-
ned, ana an Application was made by the Commits.
these disconnected property holders, to Judge
Lawrence In supreme Court, Chambers, for instruc
lions as to their duties In the premises. Judge
Lawrence directed an order to show cause to be
served on the Corporation Counsel, and in obedl-
day in supreme Court Chambers. on the part OF
the interested property holders, of whom large
rstn%a ., were present there was large
John p. Shaw and Granville p. Haws, while
fighting the battle against them, there appeared
Counsel to the Corporation. Additional interest
attaches to the case from the fact that not only
from bill already having been presented to the
Legislature 10 knock the whole project In the head.
ARGUMENT FOR THE PROJECT.
Ex-Judge Davies opened the argument. He said
that the commissioners were officers OF the Court
through their appointment by the Court, ana could
come to the Court Tor instructions III regard TO
their duties. He insisted further that the Court
had made an order requiring them to ascertain the
value OF the land required for the parade ground,
and that while dlscharging their duties they
had been served with the resolution OF the Com
ON se That ne
discontinued the proceeding. He cOntended that the
Commissioners mad no authority to discontinue
similar to those authorized by legislative enact
ment relative to the opening and widening OF
public squares as laid down on the map OF the
Commissioners and made under the act OF April,
for laying out the public parade ground was
mandatory, and that after the ground mad been
laid out and the map filed the land embraced IN
the parade ground was condemned to the public
use and could not thereafter be used for any pur
pose by the owners; that, therefore, 1t was i'm
gress with all possible. rapidity with a
view to ascertain the value of the land 80 con.
Parks by Virtue Of the acs conerrnG authority IN
reference TO this parade ground, had only con-
ferred on them the authority to take the necessary
proceedings to acquire the title to the property;
that they mad taken these proceedings in applying
to the Court for the appointment OF commis-
siOners; that commissioners having, on their
application, been appointed, their powers were
exhausted, and that no act OF the Legislature con-
ferred upon them any power to interfere with the
duties OF the commissioners or to discontinue their
proceedings in the case.
BACKING UP OF THE PARK COMMISSIONERS.
Mr.. Andrews, IN reply, urged as MS hrst point OF
objection that by law the present application
could only be made through the Corporation Coun;
that notice should be given by publication il the
newspapers and the posting or handbills for Jour:
teen days, which had not been DONE HIS third
point was that the application was unprece-
Genteo, and without authority OF law ne
then went on to say that .I receiver ap,
officer of the Court, to obtain instructions
as to his duty but insisted the commissioners in
mad no Fight TO call upon the Court for instruc-
tiOns. The law required them to apply to the Cor
poration Counsel and not to the Court. His next
point was that the Court would not attempt to in
struct the commissioners, inasmucn as 1t could
make no order in the matter which would be
binding on any one The Court, If it saw lit, could
express its opinions upon the questions
OF law involved. There was no occasion,
as claimed, the resolution dscontnuing the
proceeding was null and void, the Commissioners
had only TO proceed under the order appointing
them. When the report was presented Tor con-
frmation then only could the question arise as to
whether the Department of Parks mad the right TO
lie urged that the Department OF Public Parks had
a right to discontinue the proceeding under the
statute providing that similar proceedings shall be
taken in all respects In regard TO the acquiring OF
title to the public parade ground as Is authorized
to be taken by section Q, chapter 6g7 Laws OF
1867. He then quoted section :. chapter 209
OF the Laws OF 1889, providing that the Mayor, Al
dermen and co nmOnalty shall be authorized at
any time prior to the confirmation OF the report by
the Court to discontinue all further proceedings
relative to such matter without the necessity OF
applying to the Court FOR permission to do So 1t
yUQs clau hn
laws all the laws relating to street opening pro-
ceedngs now in force apply to proceedings to
acquire title to land for this parade ground. AS
to the dlscOntinuance Of such proceedings the
statutes MADE 1t clear that the Department. OF
Parks had the same power in this regard as
the Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty OF the city
He insisted that there was no validity in the obec-
ton that the MAJOR General Of the First division
must concur with the Department OF Parks me
latter had the same power to discontinue as 1t had
to institute the proceedings. In conclusion, he con-
tended that the objection that the discOntinuance
was hardship upon those owning property ada
cent TO the parade ground was not question Tor
the Court to consider.
Some further argument ensued, when Judge
Lawrence took the papers.
rrspOpw A Nm cpa,yD ,rr r