New-York tribune., 1890-01-29


ments made originally by the Mayer, ana not pI,o-
vided for in this Constitution, SO they put ue
clause in about the Mayors appointment IN @ ornei
to secure, under the Constitution, iegai iac''0"'
Moreover. in case of vacancy, these gentle;
men themselves are to appoint some one 10 III III
it, and they can all resign one awe a,e' tbeir places
A worse feature still is that empowering an eAec9
tive committee 10 act Really, genuemeh, al
though am not seSsi Si,S mnnicipa and egis
lative affairs, and l never saw oi.i 90 ossnrr
drawn, When are these gentlemen 10 perform
their functonP on this Is l Hedp' uaIs soon as
practicable after action by Congress, says .ne
bill. II Congress doesn't approve IT, theh wnao
becomes Of your committee Inc %aa sI yenT
froubIe FOR nothing. There is an express pro-
vision in the bill that these officers shall @ have
no function at all unless Congress passes She
aI soc no objection to that, murmureo se'eIai
Then this measure it is sad is of public i'm
portance, and every private rlght anu ln,e,e;s
there for a permanent exhibition Of arts and
sciences or how can the Will OF tne Leg u, slnouv
deprive people permanently OF tneir pro PropiAa saia
for such a purpose? great lawyer once salu u
that no such power resided in the State Ior 'hc
erection of a prison or fort or an aise',ai .sn
Don't we know from what has appearea III s,e ox,
newspapers that the theory of a permanent eS
hibition ia but n delusion, snare, sham ,i poi
we know that the whole thing is merely ue'ito y.
to give the appearance OF constl,uuonIa1hS Sf G
what is notoriously unconstitutional! ur ~,
course. the names of these lawyers stand very
high. don't want to set my name against tnoss oss
of Depew, Root and Whitney, but haVe vor seoui'e
an oninion from a great cOnstitutional laWyeI, "
man 60 great that when ] mention his name you %
won't think it worth while to consioer tnr t,,ri
names along side of his mean James " SaI.ti,
"why didn't you bring the opinion SSNeo
Senator Brown.
JAMES c. CARRIERS OPINION
"I did, replied Mr. Shaw, curtly Then ne
distributed an eight-page pamphlet wmcn reci'eu
Afr. Carter's reasons for believing the Dill ul-
CONSTITUTIONAL Mr.. Carter says: :" IL seems 10
me that there are three requisites WE mlis' "
complied WITH in order TO justify any eHciooo ieo
of the power Of eminent domain fHsu .hI "'o
which IS designed for the property must be a
nublic one Second, the want soughs 70
supplied must belong to that cas- IA S o, NECESSARY
in the sense that provision for them Is MUS MUS
pensable Third, the property sought 10 De .ahet t
must be of character which Is not ;be or ordpary
power of purchase. II the foregoing views aIe
we'll founded they seem TO furnish a solution CI U
the main question under % enrnOse sought
to he accomplished by the bill referred to Is 10
have in the city of New-York what is commonly commonly
seems to he industriously concealed in the present
bill for it is nowhere stated in 1t that tne anus
to be acquired are to be used for that OBJECT
exclusively or principally am am OF onterpiOa Up1piO1
on the municipality of the city of New-York the
right TO acquire property for the purposes inal
Gated in it, would not be
of legislative power: and as IL constitutes @
the main feature Of the scheme. no part ol tn tne
bill could be held valid if this feature of it should
be determined to be invalid.
Referring TO the bonding clause, the opinion
saws: "The proposition is to impose heaVy
pecuniary burden to be raised by taXation from ON
The people .of New-York City alone, TO deiray lhe
expenses for an object in which they nave no
interest other or greater than that OF the people
OF the whole State except Ito the extent In Which
a comparatively few may be accidentally favored
The rules which regulate the modes in which
the public revenue may be raised and EXPENDED
are not in the State Q: New-lork, so fully EN-
bcdded in the Constitution as TO make 1t easy 10
say whether this incident of the scheme is valid
The rights and interests OF the people oil
this State in this particular are less
defended by constitutional safeguards than they
ought to he, and could not reach conclusion on
this point satisfactory to myself without more
time than is allowed me for the purpose But
| think il nav at least he said the validity OF
this provision is open to the most serious doubt ,
What gives q city. the right to condemn land
for a park S'-asked Mr.. Brown, when the docu-
ment had been commented upon,
"The public health, replied Mr.. Shaw promptly
land after it has the park it can spend its money
in the erection of permanent museums ana sucn
things We have been threatened-l may as well
blurt it outthat if we resist this bll' they VIII
extend Central Park upon our lands Well let
them try it. We are prepared to meet Them Them
whenever they get ready When they have
done all they propose to do, they are going to
turn over ali their acquisitions, on such terms as
the Sinking Fund Commissioners may determine,
to foreign corporation created by act OF Con-
"There is no such provision in the bill" eX-
claimed Mr.. Brown.
Excuse me- you are mistaken, as heretofore,
said Mr. Shaw sarcastcally, and he read aloud
the provision in section IS Of the bill. regarding
.he arrangement that may be made with any
Orporation created or empowered by the Legs
Can the Legislature create corporation foI
eny such purposes Article VIII, Section /, o.
the Constitution forbids that. You cant creae ths
corporations They must be created under the
Excepting for municipal purposes inter
well. / don't suppose that this corporation
described for the municipality would be iol
municipal purposes, would it? Then, as TO inc
provision compelling the taking OF testimony III
The case of all objections within ten days
Imagine Mss Pinkney with her three blocks o.
ground property put up in one petition; ana we
forced to take brief as u the vaIue 9I ner llT,
blocks within ten days ! couldn't do 1T that'
oil And what about these awkward provisions
concerning maps and expenses? under the new New
Parks bill we paid out S2OSooo 70 be 10 IN,
maps: the man who drew this bill had glmme1
of right and OF wrong. The moment the Sonl
nissioners file the maps. says the Dill, my ian,
ceases 80 be mine and is theirs. Is tnat rlgho'
Was there ever anything like lt' 49,. -,
.Now | ask all of you to consider this OIL
carefully amend it where 1t needs amenoien,
which puts our property at the mercy of thes'
commissioners ,,, ,oa NJ
As 10 the assessment of lands" asked MT
Stewart couldn't values be determined inside
Of thirty-sx hours ,.or.,,,,o ,rh,
"ImpSssbe If il were not Impossible. whI
sboujd the statute in all cases allow sixty days
Mr. Ives had been lying in wait and nov nov
offered "a question designed to show that TN
apparent hardship TO propcrty-owhers is as erca
in the way of summary Appropriation under TN
railroad act. This. however. Mr. Shaw would no
admit. and protested anew against the in1uslIc
OF depriving his client OF hcr lana Oh 'he liei
filing OF a map.
Mr. COOK TRIES TO SCARE THE SENATORS
William w Cook tried TO friehten the com
mittec and filed them with ominous forepoo
inss. He denounced it as gross outrage 'ha
"lot Of real estate SPECTATORS