The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1877-04-27
eeedIngs were had . sald to be unoous..u.onal and

void.
Ii would be observed that this railroad was to be
constructed wholly through and along the public
streets OF the city OF New York, and concnded
with an absolute title and lee 10 ali It's streets
SKw RIGHT IN AUDITING PROPERTY OWNERS.
Alter discussing that point Judge Emott proceeded
to state u WAS therefore, new and special privilege
conferred upon abutng property owners in cities that
they may prevent the uses Of the streets which are
public authority, and defeat such public improve
inents unless they arc overruled by SPECIAL
tribunal authorized by tho constitution and the Legis
lature The thus conferred upon owners OF lots
abutng streets Is incident OF their properly,
but 70 wholly acreaon OF special legislation IN the
constitution The constitution has limited the power
OF the public authority 20 public streets which
would Otherwise be absolute. but IL has also prevented
private interests or opinions from being finally OBJ
structlve, BY sabjeeting tnen 20 the judgment and
control OF impartial commissioners
THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION.
The main question before the upon the present
appeal Is whether OF the law Of 1873 rs au-
thorzes the defendants 10 construct and opera1 rail-
road tracks 10 connect their existing railroads with
certain ferries and depots upon the routes designated
by the Commissioners under that act - unconstsu-
legislation Is asserted the ground that
II private or local bill granting
or granting to them an exclusive privilege immunity
or franchise and that Il Is not u general law. The
question arises out OF the amendments to the const-
tuition which took efcct In 1875 These amendments
crude and unartihcal in form and expression and
will require much Judicial Interpretation TO settle
thor meaning. Those Innovations on constitutional
law call tor the repeated application OF tho rule that
nothing but cearest violation OF the letter OF the
constitution will justify in everything tho legis-
lntve will In the railroad just decided by The
Supreme Court oil tho United States, known as the
granger Cases, that Court says:-"Every statute II
presumed 10 be constitutional The courts ought
not 10 declare ono to be unconstitutional unless
il is clearly SO. II thore is doubt the expressed
VIII OF tho Legislature should be sustained. Tho
present appeal Involves not only tho validity and con-
sluonaity OF so much OF this act as provides nrst.
Tor the appointments OF commissioners; second, Tor
the Designation by these OF tho routes
by which existing railroad OF certain class may OK
tend tracks connect with ferries other rail-
roads; third for tho construction and oper-
alton OF such extension by such road OF
It's tracks TO make these connections The
provisions OF this net are attacked. and II
denied that tho respondents take any right under
them upon the grounds-irst, that they are q local
act second that they delegate legislative powers
the commissioners who are 10 determine and select
the streets through which the company or companies
affected may build the continuation OF their road or
vate und special aud not general act, and are
equivalent TO- and IN substance and reality not dier-
ent from, an act directly comforting the privilege
OF building these extensions combinations or con-
nections upon the respondents by name
NOT A LOCAL LAW.
He submitted that the statute under consideration
and especially that part OF It. IL not local
act Every statute. however General in It's
becomes local in operation upon persons corpora
tons municipalities In particular localities where tho
persons or bodies happen be located within
lined district, and to DO the only bodies
who within the law choose TO avail themselves
Of it. law may thus be general IN It's scope or char
ticuiar application. But local statute Is
one that Is limited by terms particular district
and cannot have any effect elsewhere. To be local
within this clause of the constitution act must
be- by It's terms, confined to particular locality and
Of the kind referred to by the act must necessarily
be ocai--confined to one city or county
but the affects them all alike, although II affects
each lis locality. The provisions oil the statute IN
question here not what IL forbidden by the recent
amendments to the constituon-to w.t. private bill
granting this specific corporation the right to lay
"a vi
specific CORPORATION an exclusive privilege immunity
franchise.
ture possesses the power 10 confer upon any class
OF cxisiog corporations, upon complying with
rights which gwen newly created corporations
under tho new general laws II Is power constantly
exercised, and therefore the order appealed from
should DO sustained.
MR.. vANDERpoRL IN BEHALF THE COMPANY
Mr. A. j. Vunderpocl followed on behalf Of tho re-
spondents He rcctcd the rst section OF the act and
SAID the appointment OF tho commission by the Mayor
was nothing than referring q boar1 OF
engineers individuals 10 Ascertain whether view
OF whole question: this extension OF tho road offered
greater facilities Tor travel The Mayors Com missoners
located the road within the prescribed mc aud the
Supreme Court Commissioners gave due hearing.
No complained of want OF notice, but the appel
lan.s asked Tor more time. That was discretionary
with the Commissioners, and the question was whether
they. having filled bushel basket full OF aiIidavts,
II were, should have an additional week to
produce more The Commissioners had u no
therefore, tho testimony which they received
was on ai1davts. The Commissioners prescribed
certain conditions, which the company accepted, and
the appellants had no reason for complaint. The APP
peIants claimed In the court below that the npplca-
ton to the Supreme Court Tor the appointment OF Com
souers Of Rapid Transit appointed b. the
Company; but the railroad company
the party authorized, end could have been made by
any party interested In the construction OF tho road.
The proceedings Of the Commissioners were regular
according 10 law.
Private interests always suffer from works OF public
convenience, but private owners always cxaggerate
public improvements They are the application Of
public streets TO new public purpose answering tho
imperative necessity Tor means to DO cheapIy fur
nshei for the rapid conveyance OF persons prop
eity from one END OF a great city like New YORK 10
another They were not so great an IN
become accustomed to these silent vehicles
their heads He did not concedc that this
way elevated Tor three miles, ana the Inter-
national Bridge. at Niagara, was approached by
elevated railway How lar tAe rights oil those
paules considered by the Leg sature he did
know, but they were perfectly willing, lar the
legal effect Of II concerned TO conccde that
there but elevated railroad IN the city Of New
York. aud then tho PROVISIONS OF the thrtysi
section OF the act were constitutional and must be
tanned.
JUDGE coMsTocK REPLIES.
Judge Comstock. IN reply, argued that the act
was clearly unconstitutional and was only
passed with tho view Of circGmventing tho
constitution. He claimed tho Elevated Rail.
road never purchased the rights and franchises OF thu
Yonkers Railroad, and had no power at all; mad no
power even compensate persons for property they
but must be held to be special passed Tor special
purpose.
His argument lasted for over two hours, and tho
Court adjourned until nine O'Clock tomorrow friday
mornu ~ and will give five hours TO the argument
The Gilbert Elevated Railroad.