New-York tribune., 1888-03-26
not SHOT FOR THE DOCK BILL.
SIMON srEvrNSs TELLING ARGUMENT

MIA >rsnusaroy or THE PROPOSED LAW AT AL
pANY-THE CORPORATION CoUNsELs MEASURE
ROUGHLY HANDLED-ELBRIDoE ]. GEkkf sod-
GEsTs PECULIAR AMENDNEST
The most powerful and comprehensive pro'es' 'ha'
has vet been made against tho bill now before the
LEGISLATURE providing for the acquisition OF pfiVa'o
wharf property by tho city authorities here was 'ha'
offered by simon Stevens on Tuesday pcioio 'no AS
semby Committee on Giles As Is generally known
Mr. Stevens Is an authority water front matters.
There is no phase OF the subject with which he Is DOT
familiar as was abundantly shown by the eiabofaie
argument which he presented In behalf OF his eien's
ar.Insf CORPORATION Counsel Beckmans measure, Tor
II was by Mr.. Beekman that the bill was drawn MI.
stevenss treatment OF the subject exhaustive as IL
was vigorous and when he finished II was tho general
opinion Of those who heard him that the bill had boon
badly riddled Even its advocates realized this Tor
they have since been trying TO patch tho measure up
into some of shape by trying 10 CORRECT
the defects In ii pointed out by Mr. Stevens 1hero
was scarcely point that he left uncovered le told
the history of tho water front from The time loo"
that King James H. OF England granted by the Dongan
Charter to the city OF NewYork jurisdiction ovor all
tho land between high and low water mark around
the island OF Manhattan down to tho
present day. giving In tho course of this narrative
such an array of facts, figures, dates, grants, hug%
tons and judicial opinions fairly made the Assehl
blymens heads swim These were intcrspersed
such these. for example
1t gUos without saying that tho permanent improve
mcnts of the New-lOrk wstcr fCnt that nave been
made by the Dcpartmnt Of DocLS have not been made
with that economy that would have resulted had tho
private owners been first settled with by the city,
s"saey or y nos has tho Dock Dpsr
ment shall refuse PERMISSION for The improvement OF
priy ate property which the city wants to purchase
hat must be private proper holder do, ii he cannot
improve his holdings! What must shippers 90 ior or
want OF dock facilities The trade and eommeiee & oil
the whole country as wei that OF the city OF New
York been made 10 suffer from THIS Pccuar Posy'
The Dock Dcpa tment has been comphieiy par
ayzrl for want OF funds TO 20 with the permanent
Improvement OF the water front, owing 10 inc auVco
OF the Counsel TO the Corporation Who desires 10 enn
troll all proceeding for acquiring the private wharf
property II Is now proposed to seize W ny me .J''
sci 10 the CORPORATION should desire TO have such
control of the purchase of property IS mystery 10 mo-
II ! did not know his high character wouid ieei sP
prehenslve that there some secret motive con
ccaicd beneath this advice The Law department,
rather than 10 give way or change us pocy ana ns.o
ard cormerce that Is seeking New York whafyes,
has probably unnentionslly driven sh,pphs 70 & lio
aDn Raw 10 an extent equal TO the value OF the entire
water-frOn between the points named MIN - fiS
tbe last twelve months, eight steamship linesi with
Gify four steamers In their employ: running bctwecn
New York and foreign ports, have been c9hpelca 10
Bay or tho west shore OF the Hudson
TAKING UP THE ELL POINT Bf PolNI
The second part OF Mr.. stcvenss address was iaheb
up with a thorough discussion of tho bill ITSELF which
he declared in The strongest TO be not only I'M
inst but glarngly unconstitutional "1hs cardnai
prime Pies" said Mr.. Stevens, (which should govern
I'm framing an act like this are embodied In sccton
W. of Article l. OF the State Constitution, NO person
ehau bo derr,ved Of property without due
process Of law, shall private property 10 tahoh
for public use without due compensation ahi' III
part in tho common law which does not allow OF tho
taking of property under tho sole authority OF
legislative act and without the owners consent, ex-
cept for a public But here arc TWO te'hs to Do
defined: What is 'due process Of lawP What Is a
public use - And who is TO decide aud when, as 10
whether tho use Is publicf
In defining the first he quoted Judge Folger's de-
clsIon, given on page e34 of tho Seventeen New
York reports which declares that the Legislature has
the right to take away particular form OF remedy or
70 rIye new one But What Is required Of such
legislation IS that there must be hearing before con
demnation and Judgment before dispossesslon'
AS TO the second term. public use" he said II
would be difficult 10 define II otherwise than by exam"
pies Generally he continued. the legislature
I'm the act authorizing the taking OF private property
declares the use to be public But this declara-
tOn is not final and conclusive. 1t Is said In Miils
on Eminent Domain that the declaration OF the Legs
Iature may be reviewed the Court and that though
that declaration will not be denied except In very
clear case yet Il may be denied by tho Court when
asked TO carry out the law and condemn the property
Somewhat more In det all then. an act aaihoriLihs
the taking of property should provide ,,
1st. That notice be given which presumably VIII
reach him whose property It Is proposed To taIs
ond That he have an opportunity to ask the judS-
ment OF the court as to whether or not the use Is
public. .,. . ..... 40 .,x, ,,r,
posed Commissioner as he might TO Juror ior pelu
4tb That he have opportunity TO object to any OF
his property any OF his estate or interest 'nciu
5tb That he have opportunity TO be heard as to bis
title TO or interest est ah In any y, pEpe therefor
9th That he have opportunity to DO heard as 10
the amount of compensation =. :. ,oo., on all
liz hat
these points be offered him before any OF his property
is condemned. and that he shall not Do oiS'osSosS
until after such condemnation
CONSPICUOUS DEFECTS OF THE BILL
Having thus laid down what he considers absolute
essentials OF a law of this kind Mr. stevens pro
cceded 10 argue that thesc were eO>heuousiy absent
In Mr.. Beekman's measure. In ding 80 he remarked
Those whose property 1t Is intended to take under
this proposed bill Will not deny that It's use "a wharf
pIupcr1y Is public use." But the fact Is that II is
ALREADY wholly devoted to such use, and Las been nr
goneratioils The original source of nIe years asC
burdened 1T with that use and a. wharf property
open for general Use It has ever since been helL
Tie pr posed bill Is all on ore sdr Ghe convenience
and crnoumcn,s Of public c;h, are s.Ga.osy pro
carefully Ignored.
III read tho proposed bill Alright # is only on the
plcafion for the appointment Of Comm-s,""ers thai
any question TO the rights Interests ecc: en- he
fair What satisfaction IS there In having three years
to come IN and claim the hrsnle lone rne rhnosc
to throw down.
And what shall be said Of the provision Of Section 8,
that the filling of the oath OF the Commissioners
appointed 10y tho such lnadequaie notice,
the corporation shall be seized in fee of the property
laid the maps, and of all rights and interests
therein. and all easements and seryt1es connected
Herewith, and may take possession of the same ana
use tbem; that IS, that tho owners OF all these
rights. be they of mature age or Infants, whc her
they know OF the proceedings or not, whether
they reside In New-Yorit Europe, arc dvested
of their property, their source of Income, aud
have nothing for 1t, and can have nothing
for It for three years TO comet Is this quo
nation 20 Docs Judgment pFecedo dlspossesson y
Have the parties been brought INTO court Has any
thing been done which can fairly be construed as
Here comes in another unprecedented provision in
this bin which might be called absurd II not In
lqnitous. The "court shall confirm such report