New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1878-05-03
REASONS FOR THE DECISION.

REASONS FOX HE DEClcION'
GROUNDS on WHICH JUDGE VAN WORST BASES HIS
oPfNION-THE BOATS TO RUN UNTIL THE CASE
is DECIDED on APPEAL.
From 1861 to 1870 the Union Ferry Com
pany paid SIC3 900 annually rent for IT'S hve ereS'
The Hamilton Avenue Ferry, South Ferry, Wall Street
Ferry Fulton Ferry and Catharine street Ferry shofy
before the expiration Of the lease which was I'D ioIce Ut
that time an agitation for cheap ferrlage spIahS up
The result was that the Sinking Fund commissioners
gave ten years Of the ferries 10 the Union Ferry
Compauy for II year, on condition that the TERRACE
from . O'Clock TO balfpast T. morning and evening
should be only one cent for each foot passenger Last
wear under the advice of George Tcknor Curtis the
CORPORATION Counsel brought suit to vacate TINS lease on
the ground that il diversion OF FUNDS pcd%eu 10
the creditors Of city, not for the benefit OF inc GU
zens in general but the benefit of particular class
Tho case Uas tried before Judge Van Worst IN supreme
Court special Term who then, motion to dlsnlss
the complant dsnosed Of the technical questions IN an
elaborate opinion reported at the time lie mas nov
given his decision, the merits that the lease Is Nou
In his opinion after Teciting the facts above men
Toned Judge Van Worst points out the duties
of the Sinking Fund Commissioners under the
laws and ordinances existing when the leases
were made especially those which made Their
funds pledge for the redemption OF the forty m'-
Ions Of debt then existing and soon after increased oy
over fortyeight millions. To this redemption all lheI
sources Of income, including this SlO3,Ooo' were
nledged.
Ferry Company tine power pay dividend OF 10 per
cent ON capita of 81 900 0OO and its business has
steadily increased so that under the new lease II mas
been able not only to pay 10 per cent dVdends ph aso
TO carry every yeara surplus to reserve fund Inc
rental value greater than ever, yet the city only
gets nominal rent.
The Sinking Fund Commissioners, Judge Van Worst
continues were under positive duty to the aXpaylng
inhabitants and creditors OF the city to obtain the
proper rental value of the cys property They had 10
right to give away to private corporation inc rent
which was fairly demandaDle, ana when VIC coIpoi"I
ton was willing TO pay, for concession 10 specIi
class of persons That conc. ssiOn Is not III Jaw an
equivalent for rent AND tne result sU" of the fqr
res. The defendant companys receipts are greater
The pedSe of these rents TO the sinking fund was
trust to be faithfully observed, AID judicial appfoVa
cannot be invoked IN favor of this transaction, nor
should it become by the sanction of the court rece
dent. The legitimate outcome or SuSn an PLSt
would be favor breaches OF official dnty ana deea
tie objects of the sinking fund. Tue fact that part OF
the land under the old lease taken FOR the Brooklyn
pier OF the East River Bridge does not the Juuge .ois
at All affect the qu s;On But lie calls attention To me
fact that this well the elder lease requires ne
ings, vessels etc Under the Old lease there was over
$1,000 600 be received by the city, so that there was
under the lease would this payment be made! II !;
bargain that after receiving millions rom tlG use 0i
their capital, the Stockholders III thc company shdsI %
eeive back the lessons in money the value OF te
property invested The instances cited by the defendant
companys counsel where such things nave beeh done
bearnO just analOglcs and shed no true en upon tnc
ana are subject To duties and obligations 70 be faithfully
performed No act of the Legislature mas validated s
"The lease cannot be upheld" says Judge Van Worst
on authority. But otherwise | think reason, justice
and law are against validity and conclude that
there be Judgment tor the city as demanded In the
complaint"
WHAT THE COMPANY WILL DO.
Joseph A. Perry Managing Director and Treasurer Of
the Union Ferry Company said yesterday after be had
been informed Of Judge Van VOrsts decision: The
counsel for the company will carry the case up TO the
Court OF Appeals" He continued: And suppose
the counsel for the city would have done the same II the
decision had been III our favor Until this matter Is
finally settled by the decision the highest court, 1t
Will be impossible to make any statements as TO the
company's action. Even If the case should be decided
against us by Court of Appeals, the course which
the company would be compelled TO take would depend
on the terms OF the decision Those terms might be so
severe as to compel the company TO give up running It's
boats at once or they might allow the giving of new
lease in place OF the present The terms OF the
present lease not Of our own choosing but were
thrust upon us hy the Commissioners Of the Sinking
Fund. From 1861 to 1870 we had been paying an an
nuai rental Of SI03. 900. During 1870 the rent was
only 5000 account Of the taking away OF part OF
our space for the bridge We desired zen years
lease i'm order TO secure ourselves III the erection OF me
new ferry-house on the Bro9kyn sue sue dme e
commissioners OF the Sinking Fund offered to let MS nave
lease for ten years, the nominal sum OF ~ ANNUALLY
provided that would make our rate OF ierLlage one
cent each Ootpassenger we TtJectci lhelr lIopo
sition at The commissioners then offered 10 ct us
have the at nominal sum II we WOuu carry IouV-
for cent each during five hours each day
from ; o'clock TO hafpast y morning ana evening,
We accented this proposition with some hesitation We
wOud have preferred have Kept our former rate OF
ferriage and to paid the annual rent OF TlO"ooO
Int we were told that If we did not accept me ploP1s
fion other persons would, and so we yielded TO the
commissioners terms ,,., -. /. III,
continue to usual, Notwithstanding Judge an
VOrsts decision that have no lease and we shl eh
pect from the Court Of Appeals decision more favor
able to our interests"