The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1891-12-30
PROPERTY OWNERS REFUSE.
DoNr WANT UNDERGROUND RAPID
TRANSIT ALONG THEIR LOIS.

DON'T Want UNDERGROUND RAPID
TRANSIT ALONG THEIR LOIS.
So the Commission II Collecting Rerssais
Now to 60 20 the General Term with.
and Directors VIII Ne Heard before n
Supreme Court Commission.
The Rapid Transit Commissioners met ycs-
terday afternoon in the Farmers Loan and
Trust Company building. at William and Dea-
yer streets. The hostile attitude Of property
holders along tho proposed routes was tho
main subject OF discussion. twas decided not
to attempt to obtain further consents.
but to follow tho advice OF John ii.
Bowers. counsel to the Commissioners.
and apply to the General Torn to appoint q
commission which will inquire into tho ad-
visibility Of constructing the roads and report
to tho General Term. On the report OF this
Commission tho Court will determine whether
or not the interests OF the public will be served
By building the road. II It decides In the af-
firmative It's decision may BIO taken In place Of
the consent OF the property owners
MIR. Bowers sold to q reporter OF The Sun
that Immediately aftor the approval Of the
proposed routes BY the Common Council and
by the Mayor and Department Of Parks, q let
tor had been sent to zach property owner, along
the lines by the Rapid Transit Commissioners
the line. Which they were asked to sign or re-.
fuse to sign A very large mum ber Of consents
tbs az Ss Ssy
found impossible to obtain. the signatures
their refusal or their absence In the country.
In many other cases the consents came In
s SK U4 e
tIs consent 81 all the trustees could not be
MANY other property owners" continued
the route shoSd be built hesitated to c9nsep S
supposition that 1t might afterward be held
that by SO doing they Ind abandoned any
arising Il from tie construction Of the road.
1t became apparent. therefore. that It would
be 1T whether the
sent Of a majority OF. the property owners
along the line, even with the addition Of tho
serious question that confronted tho Commits
s sion in oht3ininG these consents Is this;
take the necessary steps to obtain. II possible,
the consents Of the property owners along the
line of the route. and then proceeds:
For the purposes OF this act tho value of the property
on ai Mc 81 nn @
and the
situated confirmed Or completed last befors the local
provided
" The consent that is thus required to be- OBJ
tanned is specified in section OF the net as
follows:
Provided that the consent Of tho owners of onehaf
in value Of the property bounded on and the consent
ton OF street or xnwny upon which it is proposed to
construct operate such railway railways Should DO
first obtained.
Tho serious question that arose was
whether tho consent Of majority OF the
property owners along the entire line. would
;ority OF the property owners on each street or
avenue into which tho road ran: that is to say.
S the bs p the
missioners should fail to obtain tho consent OF
u majority Of the owners of property on Nfadi-
lesser distances. as. for instance. on Park row
or the short block on Cham bers street, whether
the consents would comply with the terms Of
the act.
by The f9p a
f meanins V Of The act IS that the sonsent Of
majority Of the property owners should be suf-
the case Of Henry Hilton vs. The Thirty
fourth Street Railroad Company; as indicating
Of the Constitution and chapter 252 OF the
the 10, same YG US the wording Of
railroad along the line OF several streets It is
So f0an ai % sh Of
erty bounded on each street. or portion OF street
upon which 1t is proposed to construct the
railway. as the case may be. and when 1t Is
proposed to construct surface railroad upon
a rortion. Of street or 2 portion OF several
the owners Of one-half in value Of the prop
to be built upon.
For these various reasons have advised
the Commission that they had better mako an
whGse q OF t9s route may be
ers., Even II the consents can DO obtained the
"n w the y thu
a,nce Of the canvasSers has already shown that
consents II the opinion to which I have re-
Accordingly the form of affidavits to be
verified by the canvassers has been prepared.
and they nre in tho hands OF Mr.. Amory. who
property owners for the Rapid Transit Commits
Commission will be in q position to make it,
b be distilled in %pp!yins to tic TeSn
f Feb ha Generai Term T Two Weeks mo-
tie s9 given su by a da Is Teausd s fs
public ITewsrapers published in the city
mated by tho General Term, OF the Supreme
bS thc tss co %
DO pressed with all diligence. and the only
question as to the Commissioners making tho
hs aas ean Be Is
matter. for rs / understand tho statute. the
gommissionsTs must show to the General
owners o., one;half In value OF all property
along the line"
4 TRAMP VARIETY SHOH.