New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-11-25
THE SEVENTH REGIMENT ARMoRY.
ARGUMENT ON THE QUESTION OF AN APPIoPRh-
TON IN THE TAX LEVY.


TON IN THE TAX LEVY.
In 1874 the 9TH Regiment y. G.. got lease
from the city for II years nominal rent, of block
NJ ground bounded ny Sxtysxth and sixty seventhsts
and Fourth and Iexngtonaves the regiment consentDg
in the erect cause 10 be erected an aImoy
and drjIl-roorn The LEGISLATURE, in the following year.
passed an act commanding the Board of Estimate ana
Apportiuument TO make appropriation III the annual taA
levy for the building Of armores for regiments and bat
talions which take certain steps and obtain from the
Common Council an authorization and designation OF
land from city property for the purpose The 7th Reg
ment promptly took advantage of this procured thoneees
sary from the Beard Of Aldermen and pettoned
the Board Of Estimate and Appointment for an appro-
oriation. The Board did not comply, and tie regiment
obtained from the courts order to show cause why
mandaus should not Issue ordering the Board TO make
an approximations The matter argued at length be-
fore Judge DOnohuc in Supreme Court Chambers, yes
terday, W strahan appearing as counsel for Comms-
sioner Wheeler Corporation Counsel Whitney for the
Board of ApportoLment, and Peter b. Oney Tor the
Colonel and officers of the regiment.
MI Olney argued that the Board had no alternative
but To make an appropriation the only discretion left II
being whether II would insert the entire S35O0Oo asked
Tor in years taxevy spread over several years
On the other side reliance placed on the lease by
which the lands ceased 10 vest in the city except in zee
aud cond not therefore, be designated by the Aldermen
Moreover it argued that the city could not mako an
control and in this the designation was nonsense
and an appropriation would be virtual Modification OF
the lease gwen by the city, il also urged that one OF
The recent amendments 30 the Constitution expressly for
bids donations OF public money individuals corpora
tione.
Mr. Strahan claimed that as the regiment, under an
amended section the original act, had invoked the ac
tion OF the State authorities and obtained aImOry
which il now possesscs that act could not take action
again The statute he claimed, had no application what
ever TO Tins particular ease. 49,. -,
Mr. Oney argued that the law was mandatory, SAYING
THE lm shall inserted ia the annual tax levy, Ire
full discretion being that the Board might distribute the
proper amount among several annual taNeves, but IT
could not wholly refuse AZ II had done TO insert H. lhe
discretion must be necessarily Dona ndc ana lhe amount
inserted any year be sufficient To admit The
carrying out Of the purpose OF the act; Inc
leased 10 the regiment for military purposes
provisions " the statute are that STATE alinocs
may he erected lands belonging TO the city and the
general policy the city for years past has been tDa
ties should be at the expense o. the COMMITTEES, though mn
der the control Of the regiments The law or 1874 pro
ydce for tho leasing Of these lands Tor tie purposes 81
the organizations. Whether the armory were built
l,v the city or by private subscription, made no
difference either the will of the Legislature
would be complied with. AZ 10 the objection That the
regiment under terms OF the lease. Obliged u
build Tic arInory its expense MI Olney claimed
by fair construction OF the lease the regiment
made such agreement, and that oould
not esOp prevent the regiment from
asking and obtaining the benefit Of the act In question:
Nv the lease the regiment cOyeancd 10 erect or cause
10 be erected premises &c, winch dld not mean mat
he resin nj was obliged TO DO tis of its own expense
The members 81 the regiment Understood that tey might
raise the from any source The Court toOs tne
papers and resery cd deoisiOn.