New-York tribune., 1876-06-28
. RAPID TRANSIT LAW AND CHARTERS.

RAPID TRANSIT LAW AND CHARIERS.
ARGUMENTS OF JOSEPH Il. CHOATE AND JOHN X
PORTER IN The SUIT AGAINST THE GILBERT
ROAD.
Joseph Fl. Choate finished yesterday his ar
gument for tie plaintiffs in the snit Of the Sixth Avenue
Railroad Company against the Gilbert Elevated Railway
Company. He argued at length in opposition 70 Mr..
Carter the form OF structure devised by Dr. Gilbert
was essential part OF the charter under which the de-
fendants acted and that change in that structure was
not merely legislative regulation OF the mode OF per
forming duties imposed by the charter but an actual
annung of the charter. Then taking up the Rapid
Transit act he claimed that the whole power of the
Rapd Transit Commissioners to regulate structures de
pended on their first laying out lawful routes, and that
the route OF the Gilbert Elevated Railway was expressly
made unlaw full by the act Of 1873 He then briefly
the testimony that the proposed structure would
be an injury the plaintiffs especially and 10 the ave-
ME generally and stated the constitutional questions
that the act Of 1875 delegation Of legislative
power 1t took public street for private use With
out twO-thirds yoteaD objection to which the charter
OF the Company was also habe that it took private
propery without compensation, and was ~ violation OF
contract under the Dartmouth College decision These
are questions which ex-Judge ComstOek will argue more
fully today
John K Porter presented in part the final argument
for the Gilbert Elevated Railway Company He conceded
the great Importance OF the question involved to the
plaintiffs for be said the issue whether they should
have monopoy OF transportation OF passengers
through Sixthave. at their own terms III wac asD OF
great Importance 10 the pabic for u was question
whether two hours day an uncomfortable haugn8 by
straps should be spent IN going from home 70 business OK
half hour with comfort The diseomfcrts oi Passel-
Of the public; and the public, the press the
had declared rapid transit of prime necessity 20
NewYOrk, and tnU the present means OF transit on
After ealing to the importance Of the princi
ple that one department OF the state Government should
not interfere with another ia its legitimate sphere
that the should not undertake to set aside what
the Legislature had declared expedenf, except when
clear constitutional duty eydentJudge Porter re-
viewed rapidly the evidence brOu BIT By the Sixth Ave
nue. Company show special injury, the frightening OF
horses the deerrng Of passengers from epcring the
rapidrans road and claimed That IN the bsht oi the
opIOsing evidence all this reduced 20 one fact
t1at the elevated road would be rival road But that
he claimed Shoy worthless as a legal i9ee'lDn,
and the ele waited road would surely reeVe the phtH
from unprofable traffic. For years, Win number OF
passengers smaller by several millions than now the
pad"tth' ths nsa Tss Whom e elevated railroad b
deprive them OF would probably Lead them ~ give
Judge Porter examined at length the constitutional
objection under the amendment Of lS75-tbat 10 Local
a>I authorizing railroad should be psssed-and con
tended that IL was intended 20 repeal charters tAen
IN existence and certainly not 70 take away tie power oi
regulating and modifying charters expressly fesel "a py
The Constitution to the Legislature The Constitution
expressly preserved charters already giyen ana eh,
prsssly recognized charters gwen by persons ectbg
pnder the authority Of the state that the whole srg
ent agSns, ,amHd 'T e G bd N Heyated Ray Company
WAS chartered company, with dehllte route suyeei
the powers Of the legislature 70 In1ay It's Sorso
ton and had 10 need OF any consent Deean.e We Lts
lature in the act which provided Tor n0dcaCD Oi "
construction chose to incorporate provision Tor the
charteIing OF other companies
Judge Porter will finish his argument today, after
which exJudge Ccmstock on behalf OF the H1tA Avenue
Railroad Company will close the discussion
In the case OF the Ninth Avenue Railroad Company
against The New-YoIk Elevated Railroad Company, on
tTia no the Court of Common Pleas before Judge Van
oesen defendants closed their testimony yesterday
Tue evidence on both sides will probably be closed
today