The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1876-01-06
THE STATEN ISLANDS FERRY WAR.

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM II. PENDLEToN.
Since the arrest OF Mr. William II. Pendcton, the
representative OF the New York and staten Island
Ferry Company for alleged contempt OF order Of
Court the excitement among the people of Staten
Island has been revived. Yesterday he visited by
a HERALD reporter, to whom he made the following
statement
The North shore staten Island Ferry Company in
1878 ascertained that the premises No East River,
then occupied as a United states barge office, belonged
to the city OF New York and the government
scnted to occupy other quarters be procured tor
them and TO give up the premises. order that {
Department, OF Docks might be enabled TO provide the
company with suitable ferry slip. Upon this being
known the Union Ferry Company OF Brooklyn made
application 20 the Department Of Docks for
tic premises for additional ferry 70 Brooklyn
and a competition then ensued between the two Terry
companies for award Of the lease OF the premises
Committees from the Union Ferry Company and the
Norh shore Staten Island Ferry Company we're IN
viied to appear before the Dock Commissioners,
and a committee OF prominent residents oil staten
Island also appeared urged the claim OF
one slip IN the interests OF Richmond county
They represented the discomfort and Inconvenience
the people Of staten Island were put to for want OF
proper Terry slip The Commissioners received bids
IRON both companies until they reached the sum OF
$4,000 per anuum. being ten times the amount re-
ceiVed 10y the city from the adjoining Terry slp After
due dchcratOn The Dock Department decided 10 give
u 20 ne terry 70 Richmond county at the highest
market price oid nasmnch as the ferries to BroOklynf
already occupied over LOO ieet OF bukhead on the
last RIVER tor which they paid only 81 a
wear TO the city. Upon this the North shore
staten Island Ferry Company had hardly erected
the buildings docks and ferry houses necessary Tor the
ferry, then an opposition was put against them in
the interest Of somebody who did not appear The
flli use OF The slip enioined suit commenced
By f. neaheld smith, who then Corporation Coun.
81 but the suit actually CarIicd On by the Jaw
hrm OF Davies Work MtNamee, the paid
counsel OF the staten Island Railway Ferry Com
pany. Henry r. Dawes, his son. and Mr. McNames
appeared counsel Tor she city ali the proceedings
ana ia all other which have been Instituted by the
CITY against this company. Is the city liable for the
ices of this outside counsel o. the Staten Island Rail-
vav Company The taxpayers interested the
answer 10 this question. II the city IS not liable for
compensation for the OF these counsel be-
comes question the proprc.y Of the practices Of
The CORPORATION Counsel
Afer the Nortl~-hore Staten Island ferry bad been
running from pier / East RiYer for some time u dis.
covered The sources whence the opposition proceeded
and obtaining the consent OF the Department OF Docks
20 the premises for another ferry company 10 run
ferry from that pier Stapeton staten Island, IN the
interest 81 the people that side OF staten Island. IL
extended thai privilege 10 the New York aud staten
Island Ferry Company Immediately thereafter an ao-
ton was commenced and an injunction obtained re-
stranng the New York and staten Island Ferry Com
pany from using these premises under their lease.
As soon as the question was raised A. 20 the
right Of tho company TO use the premises Tor THIS
purpose the stockholders Immediately considered The
pfoprey Of asD0sRg Of ther boat and thew were ad-