The New York herald., 1877-09-19

~
view OF all contingencies upon the thousand abuting
owners was impossible hence tho order OF tho
for tho hearing should be gwen by publish
Ing the notice In six leading newspapers
the Same In dhy places along the route; tho notice
published as ordered and posted In liz places
along the route and was pie within every authority.
Diatter OF Empire Cay Bank, Is n. ". 100; Peonle
VS. smith, "a " " 5s5; HiGy vs Nosher, +8 n. Y,
owner demanded that the evidence before tho Com
mssoners should DO oral and that the should
be produced and cross examined The commissoners
determined that tho proofs might DO nadc by afidav-
It's In this there was no This was a
common law proceeding in which any party was.o be
deprived OF any OF bis property or his rights Hence
substantial opportunity was given for hearing. IL
was all that the constitution or tho law required
and having proofs by affidavit and other written
proofs and statements not unusIai In legal
proceedings sufficient Il for
tho Commission TO determine how much time they
would give for the heariEg and so long as they did
abuse their discretion as TO deprive the parties
their action was not the subject OF review
here. Tho property owners know tho gen.
era plan for ne Wrnns o. ss pro-
and assenied to by tho railway company and they had
access 70 the adavi,s and proofs furnished In behalf
of the company and hence had all the opportunity for
fair and sufficient hearing which they could properly
demand. II was clear that 10 commissioners residing
IN tho city of New YORK. and necessarily having much
personal knowledge OF the matter to be investigated
by them, all the proofs were furnished which could
probably have been influential or oil service IN thc''
determination.
fourth-It is objected that because the supreme
ought TO be constructed through the entire route dcs
mated by tho Mayors comm ssoners thcir action
lrncd. Tho route designated on the west sdc OF tho
city was an independent route, having, as / In
Ter, no connection with the route OF tho
east side The determination OF tho Su-
preme Court commissioners was IN lieu OF The
consent OF the abutting owners in any street, and
hence where route passed. through several streets.
can perceive no reason why they might not deter.
mine that the ought to be constructed in some
streets and not In others, so long complete road
upon route was lett. In this where there
were several ferries and dcpots with which copnec-
uons wore to be made they might determine that
some connections ought and some others ought nos
to be made
THE SUPREME COURT COMMISSION.
The Supreme Court commissioners In their deter
mnation that the road ought he constructed u
nned ns cor strucon TO one OF tho several methods
authorized by the Mayors commissioners In this it
Is obj jrctcd that they exceeded their authority they
did these appellants cannot complain. Tho railroad
companies had the cholco OF several methods, ana tt
might possibly complain o! being confined by tho COM
ssioners to onc but It assentcd and the case NJ TO
these appellants must therefore bc treated
# had voluntarily mado the choice. This oDjcc-
ton is satisfactorily answered In the opinion OF the
general term that no moro need be ADDED here. The
Ouly question Tor the detcrminat OF the Supreme
Court Commissioners was whether the road upon tho
route designated ought TO be constructed and operated
and this In view OF all tho circumstances
they determined IL matters not that they were
required or permitted to determine whether the par
cuar route selected was the best route for the road
The route was to be determined by the Mayors Com
mssoners and even II that was not the only feasible
the bost route. These Commissioners were TO
determine, Wow OF all the considerations whether
II was TO be constructed upon thut route. II any
better route was lett some other road might
at somo time be constructed on that IL
was part OF thor duty to review tho
determination OF the Mayors Commissioners mat tho
selected the best at least proper route
Whether the benefits follow from tho construction
OF tho road were such as to the injury
which should be done to private interests from It's
operation was question properly before both sets o
comm ssioners and with their determination Of II
we cannot least ought not, upon this
appeal 10 interfere. Tho further claim is made that
tho Supreme Court Commissioners nai 10 power 10
ri Inf rptf t,f lp 1lVg
ganization oi the Mayors Commissioners. These Com
mlssioners were appointed July l. They were re-
qured organize within fifteen days within thirty
days allcr their organization they 10 determine
upon tho necessity Of the proposed rairoad. and
withn sixty days they 10 TX the route; and thcy
hnd whole of the sixty days III which to do H.
There could be no action To procure tho appointment
OF the supreme Court Commissioners until amer tho
route fixed and such action was not required 10
be taken within the sixty days II could, under
any time before tho construction opera
tion OF the railroad should he commenced.
hive as sv.n careful 10 an inc inc
argument of this ana conclude that there aro
constitutional objections TO the Rapid Transit act and
no valid objections TO the proceedings under the act
and that the order appealed from must be affirmed
Chief Justice Church concurs
Judge Allen concurs. (Sce memoranda by Judge
Judge Folgcr disscnts.
Judges Andrews and Rapallo dsscp. on the ground
that provision u made TOR compensation OF abut,ing
owners.
Order affirmed.
VIEWS or CYRUS W. FIELD AND OTHERS ON THE
DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS
The annou nccmcnt OF tho decision tho Court ofAp
pcas In the rapid transit cases yesterday produced
tcnse excitement throughout the city, and in tho Offices
OF the companies, the New York Elevated Railroad
Company and tho Gilbert Elevated Company, II was
the theme of inccssant comment ana congratuation.
at gives Us everything want" SAID Mr.. Cyrus
W. Field, tho President OF the New York Elevated
Railroad
III is one OF the most comprehensive aud satisfac-
tory decisions rendered in this State" said Mr.
Jose +. Navarro, ofthe Gilbert Company.
AZ very point Is covered ny tho occision," said
one OF tho counsel for the companies There Is no
longer any doubtful or mootcd questions The battle
among the judges Of tho Cour: OF Appeals evidently
made the New York Elevated Railroad case. Why,
SEQ here this despatch informs that Judge Earlo
aiirms tho order with opinion, Chief Justice
Cnurcn and Justice Miller simply concur while Justice
Alien concurs with a memorandum. Justice Folgcf
dissents and Justices Allen and Rxpa dissent on the
ground that provision is e for compensation to
abutting property owners. 1t wonder there
struggle amoug the juugcs this question, for u
the whole case. Ths ruo OF law, however, IS 100 well
settled, Tor dsmages in any or these cases could
only be consequential and in this state al
damages are never allowed by the courts.
I'VE have been waiting or this decision long
time" SAID Dir. William Foster, Jr President oi tho
Gilbert Company, lever since April, in inct. The do
lay has pnrnlyzcd us ieariuy. but we sbali to
do at once, ms to get working section oi tho
road completed before The frost In,ertcres with our
operations We have contracts by which the road will
be built three sections, each Of them being indo
pondent OF the others Fully threo thousand men will
be employed do the work and 1t will be pushed tor
ward as rapidly ~ possible"
| 'rbis decision, SAID Sir. Field, confirms the pro-
cecdngs oil inc Commissioners, and permits the New
YORK Elevated Kau0ad 10 extend it's present track TO
the Harlem River. and TO run northward from tho
Battery the sidc through Third avenue to the
Harlem RIVER, connecting with the Grand Central
Dcnot at Forty.seco street ~
81 nave received pretty iu abstract Of tho case
telegraph" said one OF the directors Of the Gilbert
| COMPANY ''and scarcely RESTRAIN my delight over
IT, la the nrst place Il was unanimous, AL the judses
OF the Court OF Appeals concurrng IN the opinion OF
the Chief Justice. Then, IL is comprehensive
ties all the questions affecting the construction vi tho
Gilbert ROAD, the Court ruling that there
sity for Obtaining the consent OF property In
the oil his opinion Judge Church rules that
there delegation OF legislative power to the
MISSION appointed under the Rapid Transit act, and
that tho Rapid Transit act rs constitutional All
rights which were conferred upon the Gilbert Com.