The New York herald., 1876-12-15
FERRY FRANCHISES.
RIGHT OF NRw YORK TO COLLECT FERRY
LIcENsE-ARGUMENTs OF COUNSEL.

RIGHT OF NEw YORK TO COLLECT A FERRY
LIcENsE-ARGuMENTs OF COUNSEL
HARTFORD. Conn, Dec. Il, 1870
The clse OF The Mayor Aldermen, &c. o. Now York,
The New England Transfer Company argued
here to-day before Judge Nathaniel shipman, OF the
United States Circuit Court, in Chambers.
ARGUMENT GEORGE rIcKkoR crRTIs.
The opened at ten O'Clock A. n. with argu-
ment by Mr.. George Tcknor Curtis on behalf Of ,he
city OF New York.
Mr.. Curtis said taat this suit brought TO re-
strain the from employ ing steamer known
the Mary yland ferry route between Mott Haven
and Jersey City us link between the New England
railroads and the Pennsy ylvania Railroad
Mr. Curtis said that this charter contemplated con-
troll OF every Terry established from any point within
tic city any place beyond H. and in these charters
the words "Island OF Manhattan We're used
the CITY, and with no intent limit tho jurisdiction
OF the city authorities TO that island alone IN
event OF the extension OF the city limits Such
language was for the sole purpose OF
coupling together the inhabitants o! the city and
OF the whole Island in respect 10 tho grants 10 ue
made. the granting power taking INTO its scope the
whole inhabitants. Further, the Montgomery charter
extends the territorial jurisdiction OF The city only
all OF Manhattan Island, but also tic Hlr
lem River 10 low wafer mark on the WcstcLeser SIDE
covering consequently tnc bed OF that river lie, US
look INTO the matter OF these Jerry franchises
whether the right 70 establish ferries ~ merely poit-
ical police power ln May ls45, The Legislature
passed law regulating ferries between Now York and
Long Island This was resumption oy the Lcgisa-
ters TO the city, aud the question might
then have LARRY arisen whether such
law was constitutional In order 10 RESTRAIN any
from infringing on the rights Of the c,iy II Is not
necessary to SHOW that the city has already occupied
the route and lhls Is decided IN Tho case against the
staten Island Company reported IN Jones <
Spencer, the Jerry right both private property and
police power aud in either event the New England
Transfer Company IS infringing Passing !" the ques-
tion OF the rghs accrung through the annexation of
Morrisana, &c, Mr. Curtis argued mat the language
OF the act sufficient 10 extend all and every
Of the corporate rights OF the CITY 20 This
new territory The other SIDE hc said. ad-
ms h Sow exsep s ,sn, 70 sss s aa erry
belongs to the sovereign power not to tho riparian
proprietor, lit Is public power. IN which the iives
and property citizens are concerned. Is that SOW
ereign power In tho county OF Woschester or tho
town OF Morrissaniay IL you will look ut the act of
and authority swept away Tncn has the power TO
establish ferries in that territory been reserved TO the
State? No. for tho Annexation act extends to tins
new territory all The powers OF tho ty OF New YORK
that existed under It's ancient charter tho act
really did TO extend the limits Of tho etys juris
dictlOn, with powers uuimpalrcd.
10 IT a fERRYf
Tho next question Is whether the defendants
operating Terry. In the case OF Fay. 10 Pick
cring, Justice Shaw lays II down that the right of
orriage is 10 transport passengers, carriages &C. for
hire. We not Only consider whether the de-
iondants operating Jerry according 10 the
mon law dcfnlion or according TO the laws Of New
York The other side may ask how distinction shall
10 made between fcrryOoat and coasting vessel do
ing the same KIND oil business as many ci those ply
ing tho sound. There must be i0r terry liked
points Of departure and arrival; highways on tho
lard by which truc the vessol: vessel
operating IN Tho naIuro of bridge; tho practice OF
receiving compensation Tor transportation, IN
brief. boat merely as tho continuation OF a highway
instead OF bridge over the stream. In the People
and decided by Chei Justice Nelson I'm the matter of
Terry on Niagara Riveri that person had Jerry
franchise II starting from the shores OF New YORK. re-
gaidlcss OF where his opposite terminus was Tho
TACT that this vessel thc Maryland) has coasting
accuse IS mmaterlal. or whether her landing Is in
another State or whether she passes through waters
under the control Of Congress Taglng The latter
point II s clear that Congress has power to
cl,y. Mr. Gurus said he would pass over the
matters OF mall carriage and ciaimed uso Of
the boat as connecting INK between va
rous railroad llnes and IN conclusion SAID -
~ Your Honor's decision in iavor s tho plaintiffs
IL would include Injunction, but an appeal II taken
no Inconvenience will happen 10 tho deIendxnts.n
ARGUMENTS FOR THE COMPANY.
Mr.. Simeon Il. Baldwin. OF New Haven, one OF tho
counsel Tor tho New England Transfer Company, fol-
lowed and ciaimed that AN important questioE WAS
New evident .na he charters eve no
Jerry rights to tho city except ferries from shore to
shore on the island or from the island elsewhere Now,
the route oi the Maryland nearly twelve miles In
length and neither termni IS on Manhattan Island
In nc instance has such ciscuitous route been ro-
gardcd as ferry. This Is not merely passage across
water course, but follows tho lino OF four water
courses, and The grievance OF New York
Is not that the boat lands on Its Shores
but .nat It don't The boat in nowisc lted for gcn
erai traffic, but solely Tor carrying railroad cars and
these cars only taken on board on tho arrival or
trains ana no passengers or freight are taken, except
conveyed on the cars The common law docs not rec
oaEze such purposes as ierry on tho contrary, Tho
passages OF this vessel are coAsting voyages N the
strictest sense rhc grants in the Montgomery char
ter clearly monopors aud against common rights,
and do rightuly extend to crutt other such
were use when The grant was made. II New York
city had endeavored 10 establish such q steam line
that OF tho Maryland wouldn't II have bcen speedily
euloined by the peopleY In support OF the theory
that tho ferries contemplated iu the ancient charters
oil New York could not properly rclcr TO the
various decisions in cases where suits had been
brought to prevent tho construction OF railroad
bridges, iulmical to the rights OF owners OF
bridges IN the vicinity who held such rights under
the same principle It may be argued that y railroad
ferry IS not ferry under fair construction OF the
law. fLe cases OF Aiken Vs. The Western Rail-
TO New York; and Fitch VS.. The Shore
Line Railroad Ferry ut New London, Conn.,, werc
cited Ia support Of this theory III both cases the de-
cisons having been favorable to the railroads Reach
ing the point OF tho extension OF the city by
ton, Mr.. BALDWIN cited tho case OF Detroit VS.. The
Plank Road Company az Michiganj, in which
The city limits were extended so US 10 cover place
whore tho company had ollgatc, and 1t was decided
that this did not oxtcEd TO the jurisdiction
OF the city to prohibit the existence OF such toll
gate OF interference with H. The Court then took
recess 70 two y, NJ
Mr.. George Ii. Forster Of Now York, for the Trans
fer Company, argued that II was faoro CT ferry
route than tho routes oil steamers 10 Albany or Bridge
port aud that II merely section OF the through
does not extend by the ahceut grants beyond Manha
tan lsand and that the steamer Maryland, sailing
under coastny license is under legal ob CATION To
pay license foes TO New York.
Decision reserved
THE MADHOUSE HORROR.