The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1877-03-11
NEW YORK CITY NON-SUITED.
TIE RAILROAD FERRY BETWEEN MOTT HAVEN
AND JERSEY CITY NOT REQUIRED TO HAVE A
CITY LIcENsE-IMPoRTANr LEGAL RULING.

AND JERSEY CITY NOT REQUIRED TO HAVE
CITY LcENsE-IMPoRTANT LEGAL RULING.
[DY TELEGRAPH TO THE HERALD
HARTFORD, Conn, March 10, 1877.
Judge Shipman of the United States Circuit Court,
has just rendered his decision adverse the city
the suit Of The City Of New York The New England
Transfer Company action brought to decide the
right OF the company TO tho steamer Maryland, as
a railroad connection between Mott Haven and Jersey
City, without the payment OF ferry license the city
of New York for travcrsing the waters Of New York
harbor
THE LAW OF THE CASH.
The decision forth that upon facts Court
held that three questions OF law arise -
FIrst-Did the city OF New York obtain. by tho
Montgomerie charter exclusive power TO establish all
the ferries from the original limits of the city to any
OF the opposite shores?
Second-was this exclusive franchise extended to
AMI impressed upon tho annexed territory so that
ferry could not be established from point in the
Twenty third ward without the license Of the Common
Counci or Is the franchise limited to the establish
Inent OF ferries from Manhattan Island?
Ttrd-Is the use by tho defendants Of the steamer
Maryland upon its route iorry, within the meaning
Of the Montgomcrie charter?
Tho nrst point Is decided in tho Affirmative, and
upon the second point the Judge, after giving the
arguments upon each side, declines to express an
view WnlCn
ton renders decision OF the second Unnecessary.
NOT FERRY WITHIN THE MEANING or THE OLD
CHATTER
Upon this third point after quoting the decision
of the Supreme Court OF the United States the
of the Bridge Proprieors the Hobokcn Company
Il WALL 116), that ga railroad bridse-which a mere
extension OF the iron rails which compose tho material
part OF railroad-over river was bridge within
the meaning Of law Of New Jersey, passed in 1907
which gave exclusive right erect bridge over
the same stream. The decision says
"The reasoning which claims that railroad bridge
interference with exclusive right heretofore
granted build ordinary bridge applies with almost
equal orcc the question OF whether ferry franchise
is interlered with by ferry which designed for
transportation of railroad only The boat OF the
defendants is provided with railroad tracks which
prevents tho entrance or egrcss of ordinary vehicles
and foot passengers except they transported in
which run upon tho railroad tracks The boat Is
exclusively used for the Of railroad cars
and only with the arrival Of trains II is
impossible 10 transport ordinary vehicles upon
tho boat and impracticablc TO transport loot
passengers except they conveyed to the boat In
tho cars. The whole arrangement OF the boat and
docks is for the ngress and egress of railroad cars
and not for the accommodation OF anything else. Tho
ferry Is part Of continuous through railroad line from
places north and east Of the city OF New York, TO
places south and southwest OF the city, and the trips
OF the boat dependent upon tho arrival through
railroad trains. Such ferry is unlike ordinary
ferry for the transportation river Of persons
animals and freight, at intervals less regular
for fare toll The ordinary ferry is substitute for
the ordinary bridge, and means Of transportation
OF all ordinary vehicles and is for tho &C
commodaton OF the public generally, and should
therefore be accessible TO the public This railroad
Jerry Is o substitute for railroad bridge, and is
part OF railroad route for the transportation OF the
used upon railroad track and the burden
which they boar and not for the accommodation of
any persons except those vino happen 10 be at the
time being railroad passengers. railroad terry ID
Of connecting railroad tracks, two railroads.
railroad bridge is the continuation Of railroad
tracks stream Of water. 1t differs widcly,
except in name, from general or unlimited ferry
(soe Fitch vs.. Railroad Company, Both Connecticut
Reports 3s) IL Is not within the spirit of the grant
which was made the city of New York in the year
$780, and the adoption OF the word ferry express
the invention OF railroad trans poration does
not bring within the terms of tho charter II It Is
not within the intent Of il (scc United States su.
preme Court decision in Bridge Proprietors w. Io-
bokcn Company, WALL ll6)