New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1889-03-13
THE DECISION ONLY a PosTPoNEsIENT.
THIS Is THE OPINION or THE. coMPANY-A
BITTER RIVAL THINKS IT HAS WON
A VICTORY.


Tho decision rendered by the ceBrt Of Appeals
yesterday declaring the charter Of the New-YorlI
Arcade Railway to DO unconstitutional Is the outcome
| Of the litigation which was begun against tho COM
pany BY Orlando b. Potter, tho AStoH, and other
property owners IN Broadway, In 1899. The opposi-
| ton TO the project was based wholly upon legal
grounds As the full text Of tho decision had
not been received here yesterday, the directors aud
counsel OF the company were unable TO givo any mt
nation a. 10 their future movements with regard 10
tho project. Melville c. Smith. Of its orgnators
and member Of tho present board Of directors, said
ave can form no plans whatever until we know eI-
aetly what points ths decision covers. We have ne
celved from Different three dispatches. each
giving different version. One assures US that the
laws OF 1868 and 1860 remain valid. This would 10
dcats that Of tho i've laws made concerning the CON-
psny two are loft standing and thfee arc annuped.
OF thing, however. We feel certain. Nothing e.
cept railroad under broadway Eolvo the problem
Of rapid transit here. and We believe that the decision
Of the Court OF Appeals far as we now know,
IS a blow which the people Of Hsw-York VIII
feel as much We do. We shall not attempt to
find any other roEte because there IS none"
Tho act OF 1858 grsated tho right 10 construct pne
matte tubes not 10 essecd fyfour inches In diameter
Subsequent laws empowered tho company TO make the
tubes large enough for tbs passage Of passenger cars
and short section Of about two blocks in Broadway
Just above the Postofcs was constructed ssd put In
operation under tho patents of A. y. Beach on Feori-
airy 90 1870 Tho projected charter had so enlarged
and extended the rights Of the company that their plan
was TO bayo four tracks two for express and two for
local traffic and under tho latter tracks space for he
city water pipes.
Among the prominent supporters Of tho enterprise
were William WINDOW, now Secretary OF the Treasury
Vice President Morton and Cornelius " Bliss. The maj
plans wero approved by prominent American engineers
and by Rene Lefebvrc, noted French engineer henri
and joseph do noneolher, OF tho vell-known French
Iron Works Of that name, and Baron Kampfer, Ger
man engineer 1t was estimated that the road Wouid
cost IA 600 600 mile and about 100000 was
already pledged by capitalists here and In Germany
and France Contracts hsA also been entered INTO
With The Pboenixville Iron Works, Barlett g. Hay
ward. Of baltimore; Ryan o'Donnen, OF this o"y'
and sidney Dillon, for the building Of the road
The present board of directors OF tho company oo
noeod on the following Frederick p oertt, president
~ the c.ntral Trust Company George s. Coo, presl-
dent q. the American Exchange Bank; Jerome Fssser
OF sprnRneld, Ohio; James T. orsnnIs, southsrh
railroad man: Judge Charles p. DAILY, Melville ..
smith, James JOnrdAn, OF the Kings County EieYaseo
road state senator James r. Pierce, Edward A. 40
bolt, George w. Lyon, Morris s. Miller and James NH
ken.
The decision Of the Court of Appeals is likely 70
have an important bearing upon the fortunes Of the
New-York District Railway. Tho two enterprises
have been the most prominent and the most bitter
rivals among All sohsmes organized for rapid transit
In Broadway. The feslns among the Dis
trict Hallway people was expressed ye'ler,
day e Tribune osP0r,ssS. b ra, pSsiSSi
Raiwss CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, which controls ne ~,
charters Of tho Nsw-York District Railway nnd shS
New-York Underground Railway We believe, sS.
pcte and lasting quetus 20 the Arcade scheme anI
assures the perfect and speedy success Of our I'll
~ the proDerfy-owners In Broadway, and va Rave
the sffoneeat reason 10 believe that our system y
owners whom We haze not yet approached. knowe
we have he Endorsement Of the plaintiff IN the tccns
consent whIr the case was pending, because ~
miaht have nueTafed 20 their prejudice befDte Inv
court -..------.s---..--.