The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1876-08-27

section is against the provision that private law
shall grant right to lay down railway tracks. II
enacted by itself u would have OF the attributes
OF public Law. II would differ from law passed. for
the benefit OF single private corporation in It's
equivalent OF several private bills under ono title. II
the constitution feared the efforts OF individual persons
or corporations In the pursut Of public franchises 10
be granted IN private BILL did not mean TO prevent
the united Efforts Of several In the pursuit? The
result Is that tho Rapid Transit intended give,
as the defendants claim, the right to the Sixth
avenue by placing its tracks upon uprighl columns IN
the middle OF the street. IL il IN that respect unconst
tutionaL have consulted. among others. the follow
Ing cascs:-Weynhamer vs.. The People, Is ~ Y, 37S;
Schenectady aud Saratoga Plank Road Company VS..
wacher IL y. " lis; Syracuse City Bank va Davis,
Buffalo and Now York City Railroad Company VS.. bud.
ley, IL n. ", p 3as; White VS. The Syracuse and
T TsA HGsS S.%pco n n Si rs
People vs. Allen, AZ N. Y, &c., The People rel.
City Of Rochester VS.. Briggs, SO \. r.; Corving vs.
Green % Barb, p. 3i Smith vs. Inc People AZ n y,
p 33l: Matter OF Commissioner OF Parks, Albany, So
n T., D. 1877; The People rel. Aibertson, SIS n.
Y, p 81; The People ex rel Schenectady Astrononi-
cal observatory VS. Allen, n. Y. K Upon the trial /
thought II was clear that the plaintiff suffered an INJURY
peculiar to itself from the use OF tho street threatened
by the defendants, which entitled II to maintain an
action In It's name Tho row OF posts on either side Is
limitation OF the space which the plaintiff
switches turnouts, &c, whenever they required.
Especially these posts special encumbrance
Forty hfth street The above views are but part OF
the case II presented at the trial Many other
objections made based he statutes and upon
the constitution. A competent EXAMINATION OF these
would consume more limo than has already been
taken, and nothing would be gained toward determn.
ing practically the right OF the parties herein These
objections were grave aud important The true
struction OF the open 10 argument To sustain
the defendants CLAIM, II II be correct that right to
vertical supports The middle OF the street IS
particular and OF the street, then The defend
ants gain franchise by accepting II as condition I'M
posed upon them vi receiving The power specified In the
thiTty-sxth section, which Is franchise. But II Is
best 70 other details. Snch views have
been expressed to me 10 DO correct, but do not
forget that they against strong positions taken by
the counsel Tor the defendant strengthened by all that
be furnished by learning by reasoning and by the
c!oQuepcc Of rhetoric and CONVICTION. An appellate
court Will correct any that has been made. On
the facts opinion Is that al the time the acts ncor
poIat ny defendant passed the actual plan OF Dr.
Gilbert us then known, had dispensed with tubes TOR
passenger traffic TO be moved by atmospheric pressure,
ard had substituted therefor the ordinary rail-
way tracks not to rest IN tube or its equivalent and
to DO used by steam locomotives. There should be
judgment Tor plaintiff and that defendant be eno,ned,
&c with costs