The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1876-11-24
4 hrlsn ron oNn DOLLAR YEAR
How the tnion Ferry Company Compromise
$50. ihc Interest Of the Ciiy"

How the Union Ferry COMPANY Compromise
$50. ihc Interest Of the Ciiy,"
case of interest to properly owners
Is being argued before Judge Van Worst, IN the
Special Term OF the Supreme Court. IL "
a suit In equity to set aside the lease made
by the Commissioners Of the Sinking
Fund to the Union Ferry Company, for
the nominal sum OF one dollar a year.
During the Mavoralty OF A. Oakley Hall, and
while Richard Connolly was Comptroller they
being ex-officio members Of the Board OF Sink
Ing Fund Commissioners, In 1869, the renewal
Of the Union Ferry Company's lease came under
consideration. They were paying $l05,tO0 n
year for the lease. which included the ferry nj
Fulton street, South ferry, Hamilton avenue
ferry. Catharine street ferry. and the VOL
street ferry. On the 81 Of December 1859, they
addressed a communication to the Commits
sioners Of the Sinking Fund, setting forth that
by reason of the grant Of portion OF their
promises TO the New York Bridge Com pany,
they would be Obliged to vacate one OF their
sllDs. aud to make some consequent alterations;
that their plans included the building Of a new
ferry house, but that they would not feel justl-
fed In going to the necessary EXPENSE IL their
lease was to 10 confined to the unexpired term
They asked that 1t be borne In mind that they
din not run the ferries to make money, but had
bound themselves to expond all money received
over ton per cent dividend on their capital
stock In improving the ferry facilities.
At meeting Of the Board Of Sinking Fund
Commissioners on Dec. o. 1889 preamble and
resolutions we're adopted referring the question
mike such equitable lease "a they doomed to be
Tor the best Interests Of the city. At the next
meeting Of the board communication from the
MNof ana Comptroller was read, which re-
ported In favor Of making lease 1T nomin |
rent,proyided that the company. which Wis own
statement old not run the ferries To make
monoN, would agree to lower the fare to one cent
Tor foot passengers. and one bali the existing
rates for horses ana vehicles. The company re-
sponded that they felt deep interest IN the
city Of BROOKLYN. and we're willing to reduce the
feriii re to the lowest practicable uoint. They
suggested that Wilson q. Hunt and John 4
Acnew the Commissioners who had appraised
the property taken by tho New York Bridge
Company, be appointed as NJ btrators to exam
inc the business OF tho ferries, and report the
lowest rates at which they could be run.
On Jan. 10, Z. L. smith President OF the Union
relry company, appeared before tho sinking
FUND Commissioners. and made n statement on
and disbursements, and a resolution was adopt
ed thlt lease be granted to the company for
ten years at the nominal rent OF ~ a wear, pro-
Nided they would agreeito charge only one cent
tofoOt Passengers betwecnitbe hours Of five aud
seven. M rninR and afternoon. 1his proposition
wa accepted by the company, aud tue lease ex-
Mr.. George r. Curtis, who appears In the suit
~ hcA II OF the Mayor and Aldermen of the city
OF New York. pointed out the magnitude Of the
Interests involved, IS which a lease from winch
ovJr Sl,Cp.DO would be paid into the treasury
had been given FOR ono dollar year. lie began
hie argument bv sk ctcning tho history # the
legislation on the subject of the sinking fund.
I'm ler the ordinance II February -, 1874. all
rents from ali sources not already ulcd-ed or
appropriated were pledged to the sinking fund
I)r ihe payment or the interest on the city
ponds until they werc redeemed. For this pur-
pose the rents were t. tie kept distinct from Ill
other fuads. 4 he ordnance OF 1850 Ia which
the ordinance of 1914 was Incorporated aud con-
solidated, authorize "a the Commissioners Of the
Sin king Fund 10 sell at public auction such real
esi.tc belonging to the corporation aud reserved
fuf rutlc purposes as the~ deemed best for the
puzzle int rest.
In lsG9. 1t tho very time when this renewal
was under COusi Grafton, c ausc WAS smu lgled
into the tax lew which rcreaied The provision
req ling the sinking Fund Commiss onerS to
adv, rtisc iOl PROPOSALS aud sell such franchises
To the highest tlIuer. and emf Owcred them -
sell at private ssle. when. H. then judgment, he
ihierc,is 81 tue ci'N isiiied II and uudcr tnis
authority the lease was executed. The Comm
sioncr- could, c"nstiiuitonally. sive away over u
miiil'h Oh aellars ~ rents, then they could give
aw.y ali the rents II the city. hut. inleren-
IDENTITY Of the question Of consiitutionality. Le
held that the lease was invalid. because made
without Authority OF law. The Legislature cOu d
not have Intended 10 authorize such lease. lilo
he'd that the power t. lease 1t prVa' U sale could
hOt be construed L. empower the COmmis-tyn-
cis to eve the pro acrN 90 the city away. II The
sniu1sln. of fiye zines intu the tax levy II Is0g
ccuid authorize them - give away u franchise
worth million ma half, thcn II auth riE Il
u, "a t. ave away all the fern # the city aud
building INC true intent 81 the ltw IN cAaug-
ins the reqUra mcat Of apuniic lie 10 The an
tNOriN u sell IT private sale was never cluas
that tul lcas- should be made on the most ad-
Nan,agDuu- terms Tor the city. Ana whatever
may tt TIE effect of thtt adt II 1850 he held that
u was i,mutl ~ tie at o! April ~. 1870, whlcn
gave to Tho ID ok tommifs.uners The power 10
leaae all wuall and dock property. The renewal
ia" lease WAS not cpNeummAtcc until j me
-. Is,J, aud II wa, there. re. made aftoi the
tas-i - oi ;hc uct -iyin- the Dock Commission
ca, jun. dicti0n. lie quo.eu from the opinion
q CJgpo9atleH tOuusvi Nh,turl rt |.y 70. 1873,
20 show that toe lease In ludrd lhrgc amount
# wharf prone rti. and arg iej, thef lore. chat
even II the Commissioners at inc SINKING funl
h.d rlgnt 10 lease .nc Inc lrpcg-hi franchise vi
tn ferTi, they mad no power 10 Lease the wharf
property herewith. lie held tnat tho lease Il
Illegal nd void, because II l. a cloud upon .rOp-
city belonging 10 the city without being legal
mcunlbGance, aud because II Is AZ inst Lublc
policy.
Al the close Of his argument Mr. Curtis offered
"a evidence tie various citT ordinances, &c,
which ne had referred to. some discussion ell
sued between lila anu the opposing counsel,
Mes,gs. SliiIuGn aud MILLER, upon techhicAl on
Jrc;icn raised by the latter 70 the hdmi. sibtIty
Of the ordinances. The argument viii DO re-
STUNT this morning.