The New York herald., 1878-12-17
RAILROAD LAND GRANT.
YORK CENTRAL AND HUDSON RIVER RAILROAD
coAfpANY-IdpoRTANr DECISION BY JUDGE

lAAkGE GRANT OF CITY LAND TO THE NEW
YORK CENTRAL AND HUDSON RIVER RAILROAD
coarpANY-IMpoRTANr DECISION BY JUDGE
DoNoHuE.
Some time since application made before
Judge Donohue. in Supreme Court, Chambers. by
the New York Central and Hudson River Railroad
Company, to acquire title to the lands between
Sixty-ifth and Seventy-second streets. extending
from the company's track in Eleventh to the
river. The owners Of the property objected to the
application. except to that portion between Sixty
fifth and sixty-sixth streets. which, Judge Donohue
says. the proof given tends to show is the property
of the company.
NECESSITY THE LANDS.
Judge Donohue in lengthy opinion given yester-
day in the matter says that he fully with the
respondents that it is for tho company to show
cessity for the taking of these lands Substantially
they say they want and need the lands for tracks sid
ings, coal yards storage of cars loading and unload
ing and protection of freight and such necessity is
shown they entitled to the land. It is useless for
this court" he says, Ito speculate on the hard
ship fairness OF the taking, if the case comes
within the law. How far the Legislature acts
wisely otherwise in the power it be-
slows on corporations it is not for the
take land for depot or other purposes, when steam
ship or sai-ship companies stage companies can
must take the law they find it, and the sole ques
ton is Does the company show such case as should
require the Court to exercise the right? To the point
taken that the railroad company cannot under cover
of mere pretence 10 take land for depot purposes,
enter into specuaions and obtain land for other uses
than under its charter ii s entitled to- fully agree.
great deal of stress has been laid on the fact
that large water front Ia to be acquired by
the company taking much land out of the public
use. The same argument holds in regard to any
other land the company may take; notably in re-
gard to all the streets taken ana closed in occupying
la md for he in Forty AT S1
the piers to be buit are concerned, with that tns
Court has nothing to do No piers are, by any order
not now dealing with the question whether the
company has the right to exclude ships from
any piers when built or to build sheds them, The
question whether the company needs the land inside
the piers for the purposes claimed s the only before
me. and 1t seems tc me that when land IL needed by
railroad company good sense would imply that such
land should be selected as offered the most facilities
to its trade and shipping and for the delivery Of
freight That the company wants this land because
it is on the water side is why it should
have it. II that adds to the facility Of transportation
it attains the very public object for which the
about the alleged necessities of the com
pany in the matter Of storing freight as
storage business. I do not understand the
evidence as showing the view the respondents take
OF this The only storage the company contem-
plates. as understand it, is when laden cars accumu
late and consignees delayed in removing their
goods In such case the na must either aesp
obstruction or put it IN some safe place. whence it
may be delivered
STORAGE OF FREIGHT.
ITO compel the railroad to cart its freight through
the streets to storehouses out Of their premises
would obstruct the public and take quite as
much ground these lands they ask tor. While the
courts, in disposing Of common carrier cases,
speak of the relation of carriers ceasing and
that Of warehouseYnen commencing at Q certain
time, do not understand that in any of those
the courts go Ear to hold that 1t is not the duty
the carrier to keep the goods in safe and proper
place after his duty as common carrier ends II
this is so, then part Of the companys duty is to
provide such means of satekeeping. II am wrong
in this the company has right to provide passenger
rooms baggage rooms, because as the passenger
only becomes chargeabe to it when he gets on the
train and ceases to be so when he gets of. his com
fort in getting to from the cars s OF moment to
the company and something it is not called on to pro-
vide for. Certainly somewhat similar duty to the
goods which in its possession and for which the
owner cannot provide exists.
ELEVATOR.
$50 far as the elevator is concerned, the testimony
showed it to be an advantage in afordng speedy
delivery. 1t is undoubtedly true that owners of
water craft, whether corporate or individual. can
take land by eminent domain; but that does not ap
ply here because this question is not facilities
Of water craft, but the railroads facility. That the
railroad should help water craft in supplying it does
not change the principle The interest OF the public
ling of goods II. incidentally. those taking
goods from railroad companies for further carriage
by land water are benefited, that cannot be an OBJ
the law giving railroad companies the great power
that 1t does should be strictly administered. yet
when they show reasonable right under the law,
the hardship that may follow Is matter to be Nd
dressed to the Legislature. not to the Court.
Judge Donohue concludes that the company makes
out case for the taking OF the ground and shows
the progressive needs of the company from the time
when its Barclay street and st. John square depots
were sufficient for its business with the help of the
Thirty depot, to the time when the land
from Fiftyninth to sxtyfth street failed to be