The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1876-01-27
rIoHrTNo RAPID TRANSIT.
The Strong Oppositioa Of the Owners OF Prop
erty Along the Chosen Routes.

erty AIona tho Chosen Routes.
o. II. Palmer, e. Q. Lawrence, and f. r.
wheeler, the new Rapid Transit Commissioner
appointed by the Supreme Court to hear ana
decide upon the objections OF properly o"he''
TO the building OF a Rapid Transit Railroad on
the routes laid out by the original Rapid trans"
Commissioners, met ~ the City Hall yesterday
Many PROPERTY owners we're present. y. H.
Palmer presided, and judge Emott appeared as
counsel for the Rapid Transit road. N. u. Crane
rcpresenting property owners on Eighth avenue
between Ninety-secOnd and 10th Streets asked
to what extent they must present evidence OF
injury to their property. aud how each side was
to be h, ard. Judge Emott replied that all OBJ
jcctions should be put in the shape OF written
nfldavits. John T.. Parsons, representing 1htrd
avenue property owners tnsistcd that witnesses
should he called and orally examined. wheeler
II Peckham. also representing east sido prop
trtv Owntrs. said TINT the question OF buildinR
the road only came to the Commissioners after
failure to obtain the consent OF properly
owners thereto. and the IN At on now was
whether the commission considered the reasons
tn favor of the road sufficient To- overdue tne
property owners wishes. Therefore tue nuiaeh
Of Affirmation rest 4 on the road ana hot on tne
property owners. II had been suggested that
tho commission should proceed rs IN street
| opening cases, but these case were diierent
| Here the commission should be moved py 'N,-
| dcnco that 1t desirable to override the Cd
| lection Of prn perry owners. iii. A..
| Judge EmOit roIlicd that he came with the
| determination Of the Rapid Transit Commits
| siuncrs that the road was needed, and that the
| public interest required 1t t. he ON the routes
| chosen ~ the basis Of his case. and the prov.
| ince Of the commission $ TO decide whether
| the obi ,ctions were suniclent and upon the OBJ
| iectors rested the burden Of affirmation. Ihc
| Commissioners were not to review the action OF
| their predecessors. or tho evidence upon when
| It WIS ased. The question was whether tne
| objections vert 40 great mat pnonc lh'eTcS''
should give way To- private interests.
MIR. Palmer. the Chairman. said that Inc mat
ter was witn the directors. lhc representa-
tiyes II the rieinal commission had presented
their case. and now objections 20 1t must ue
mpde In writins. with or without AFFIDAVIT.
these objections would be regarded as evil
dcnce, and filed. Every opportunity would be
gwen Tor the statement o. ooje 'tions, and nc
fair consideration would he smut IN.
| John l.. Parsons gave notice that he Would
file written objections To the legality ~ The
commission and its right to proceed. Judg,
Emutt put IN evidence the printed VI, cecding'
| of the urnnal Rapid Transit Commissioners, ant
said he rested his case for the present. lh'
power of the commission t. take oral TESTIMONY
again came M, Judge Emntt Insisting that TIL
was not a tribunal for the examination an,
cro-s-cNaninatiun of witnesses, and Mr. Par
soIs cun'cndlns that only by crOss-cXnmininl
witnesses could the real facts be edurcd. Mr.
| Palmer finally announced That the decision q
| the commission on TINS point would be an
| nuunccd al II \. VI. to day, and that at the sam
hour on Monday the hearing Of objections woul
begin.