The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1878-05-03
THE COURTS.
Uancelling the Lease of the Union
Ferry Company.
JUDGE VAN VORST'S DECISION,
adjudication OF the Shari-Zedek
,Internecine War.

The Union Ferry Company in 1851 obtsined from
sne city lease for OF the fve ferries under
"s management-the Hamilton avenue, Fulton, Wall
street, Fulton and Catharias strect ferros-for
which they paid $103,O 900 annually to the city. At
sne expiration Of tho lease obtained tor
an additional ten years. the rental under such lease
oeng III year, but with the stipulation that between
she hours Of I'VE and halt past O'Clock In the
morning and afternoon the charge should DO only
ono cent for each passenger and cents charge at
al other hours Upon claim that this latter ease
fraud upon the city and adding largely to the burden
on taxpayers, . suit was brought by Corporation
Counsel Whitney In the equity branch OF the Supreme
Court to have the lease cancelled. The tried
some time since beIore Judge Van vorst tho simple
dcfonce being the regularity validity OF the
Judge Van Worst gave hts decision yesterday en-
bodying the same in . lengthy opinion, tho main
points Of which given below, In which. will be
soen, he fully ndorscs the point raised by Mr. George
Ticknor Curtis who appeared behalf Of the city,
that The lease being for tho benefit OF only partcu
lar class OF ctizens and being In derogation OF tho
rights Of the sinking fund established to the
Creditors OF the Corporation, was void.
After stating tho substance OF the complaint and
tho decision upon the demurrer, IN which the right OF
show upon The trial. he says that at the time Of tho
execution OF the lease IN question there existed
Legislature Of the sas which clea,ea esabisa ses
AUD guarded sinking fund for the redemption
o. sns city debt, which debt amounted
o. the time OF the making OF tho loase to
$40, 600 00O ana upward Judge Van Worst
then points out the various sources Of the income
oil tho sinking fund, including the payment OF an
annual rent tor these ferries Of SOB 0O which, under
the prior lease, had beeu regularly paid the pur-
poses Of the sinking fund Ho then states that not
~hstanding the pay Of this rent the Union Ferry
Company had been able 10 pay ten per dividends
the company been since the date OF this lease
steadily increasing, enabling II only 10 pay ten
per cent dividends, but TO carry over every year
surplus OF earnings to reserve fund.- ana that
the renal value Is now greater than at
the nmo OF the former lease. He next
r.fers TO his previous decision thar tho SINKING
Fund Commissioners were under positive duty 10
the tax paying inhabitants and creoitors of the city
TO obtain the proper rental value Of ihe clys prop
erty, aud that the concession IN the case OF these
ferries was unjusthea .'rne Commissioners had no
right" be says, 80 give away to private CORPORA
on ana Tor the benefit of It's siockhoders the rent
which was iarly demandable, and which II appears IT
persons crossing The ferry between the hours Of nve
and hali-past seven in the morning afternoon OF
each day should be allowed 10 do so al lower rate
than whom should cross during other hours OF the
day. This concession can In no just sense be
garded IN law as an equivalent ier tho rents with
drawn IRON she sinking fund. II could
NOT be Withdrawn Tor any such purpose,
not upon any such pretepcc. And, in addition, me
rental value oi the ferries, the receipts by
iendsn are greater since The than before
The pledge OF those rents to the SINGING fund IL q
trust which should be faithfully observed and sedu
lously guarded aud the obligation resting upon public
fund ana credit OF the city should not be relaxed
judicial approval cannot well be invoked favor OF
this transaction. nor should the making OF lease OF
properly OF SO large rental value Tor a con-
sderation OF 81 per annum by the Commissioners of
tho Sinking Fund become by the sanction OF the
precedent. The legitimate outcome oil approval
oil this Lease would lavor breaches official duty and
would IN tho end defeat tho creation oil the Iund TO
discharge the city debt which good iatn and creditors
and me law itself deman i" he hollis that tho du-
tics OF The Sinking Fund Commissioners had pros
pect,ve IS we'll rs Retrospective bearing, and
could not be confined the dept then actually due
by the city, especially since $4S 000 900 Of
was created Immediately before The com me cement
Of this lease to the Jerry COMPANY. TIC dis
cussss also At some length the laws under which
new deb. was created The TACT that part OF Tho land
the Brooklyn side, previously leased by the ferry
company, was taken from them, had no relevancy "
this case, they, knowing that fact, offered take
TO do with tho sinking tund. .sBut both leases" he
continued. 'contan An agreement on the part Of tho
plantn 10 pay At the end oi the terms all necessary
expenses incurred IN the erection oil new buildings
and improvements under The former lease, by lho
terms OF which there would be received IN tho city
treasury In the way OF rent over ST. O0O there Is
an apparent want OF reciprocity and justice In the
Obliged nj the end OF aterm. during which he has
cevcd only The sum OF $40 IN all repi, TO purchase
Of the lessee AZ an appraised valuation tho boats.
buildings and other properties Tor the OF which
defendant has received Tor tho advantage OF
Loiders many millions OF dollars From what source
the means are TO be adhered to this repurchaso
lease does disclose. but provisions OF the
lease amount TO this:-Tho Terry franchises
private business corporation. Who through
Iner use, by means OF vessels and other property,
receive as gains upon their capital invested In rho
vessels and other properly many millions OF dollars.
md In The end receive back from the lessons,
money, the value Of the property SO invested. The
iact That during period OF many years convey
have been made by the municipal corporation 10
charitable aud benevolent Institutions tor mai
considerations aluaed TO by tho counsel Tor tho
icncans us an argument III iavor OF power
lioi aud dispose OF its property IN this manner. The
legality vi these convcyances cannot here DO con-
siIered or passed upon Anaogies OF TINS character
can add nothing 10 the true eiucdation OF the
ton we are now considering, which Involves tho
legality Of lease TO business corpora
mot be logically citcd 10 sustain this lease
aud shcd no true light upon tho powers OF the Com
missioncrs oil the sinking Fund, having well defined
and Important roatons 10 the properly OF the city
ana subject 10 obligations and duties growing out OF
Sucn relation which must be faithfully observed.
Tine lease IN question has not been validated.
argued by tho defendants counsel, by any of the
several acts Of the Legislature to which reference rs
made Tho legality OF tho lease has not been passed
upon by thsse acts There Is nothing In acts In
question which shows that tho Legislature had any
Sush obJee 10 view or that the Design OF The
60 accomplish such Result After a consideration Of
the and breI o the learned counsel for
uefendant ! cannot conclude that tho lease DO
upheld upon authority but otherwise. think reason,
Justice and Law rs against It's validity, anu con cudo
that there must be Judgment for the plaintiff as
manuel In tho complaint"