New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1886-10-22
CASE OF TIE CABLE RAILWAY COMPANY
EXHAUSTIVE ARGUMENT BEFORE THE COURT OF
APPEALS.


ALBANY, Oct. 81 (SpeciaD. -FulIy twentv.
five pounds OF printed matter including briefs pamph
lets and evidence. were left Court Of Appeala
desk to-day when counsel concluded their arguments I'm
tue New-fork cable road The cable road 10 now
making Its last struggle for existence on an appeal to
the Court OF Appeals against the General Term OF tho
supreme Court OF the list District which refused to con-
firm the order OF its commissioners for the con.
strncton OF seventy miles OF cable roads in New-York
city, franchises for which voted by tho Common
council ID the heat OF the excitement Broad
way disclosures IN New-York and pending legislative
action on the so-called Cantor bill The cable company
to-day was represented by Senator william NJ Evarts
Robert sewell and Everett p Wheeler. "Charley"
shaw' the champion Of the cable system before tho
Legislative Committee, wss also present Tho OPP
position was represented by d. J. Dean. acting
for the city government: william c. TrulI
and Luke F. Cozans, for the Chambers Stree. Railroads
Wheeler III. Peckham and Aaron j. Vanderpoel for
property-owners In Madson-ave between Twenty
third and Fortysecond sts, and John NJ scribner
Augustus C. Hutchns. representing other antagonzng
Interests. Mr. sewell argued chiefly on the merits of
the cable system over horse-cars and Mr. Evarts de-
voted himself to examination OF thu legal ona.uo,.
He held that the Cable Company was organized pror
10 the Surface Railroad act and under the Rapid Transit
law Tie opinions OF the General Term were chiefly
confined to the right to surface under
the act OF 1873. When the the company WAS
planned there law under which any street rail.
road could be built except the RAPID
transit act. The constitutional amendment for.
bade the further constructing OF horse surface
roads until the Legislature should declare nv some gen.
era act that additional roads OF that description mzhs
be built On November 80. 1888 Mayor Edison an
pointed his commission under the Rapid Transit Acr
ne system approved by the Bosri OF Aldermen in
March, 1856. The Court OF Appeals should grant re.
versa or he order The amended Cantor Act, chapter
laws or $50 recognizes secures and preserves fhe
cable companys rights and AS well repeals section TO-
avs OF 1854 The order appealed from should be re.
Gersed with costs and the petitioners motion granted
Mr. Evarts's speech consumed the entire session and
n. OyrrfO tan min
lin to close. The opposing counsel submitted
,rlefs In these the point Is made by all
mar section 10. chapter 252, or the laws
" 1854 popularity known the General Surface Rail-
DAD Act expressly prohibited the construction OF rail-
oads under the Rapid Transit 1878 by virtue OF
shlch the cable company derives its All the
ounsel also held that the cable company Mas not
exay Incorporated as failed To comply with several
0VsiOns or the act OF 1879 that IL therefore has
% right TO appear In court. Mr. Dean held that steam
aiIroads were never authorized. Mr. Peckham held
Dat the claims OF the cable company amounted nearly
conhscation OF Maflsonave. unless conditions were
imposed, and the commissioners had power TO i'm
ose conditions Mr. Trulrs brief exhaus-
We examination or the powers OF May or Edson's com.