New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1891-06-05
s. B. BUTCHER EXAMINED.
THE Ex-sUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC
WORKS BEFORE THE CANAL COMMITTEE.
ANIMUs OF THE QUESTIONS PUT HIM IN RE
GARD TO THE PERMIT TO THE WEST SHORE
ROAD TO LAY TRACK on CANAL
RAyK-H1s COURSE DIRECTED By
THE CoURTs-HANNAN STILL
ONT or RANGE

RASK-H1s COURSE DIRECTED By
THE CoURTs-HANNAN STILL
KEEPS OUT of RANGE
rpy TELEGRAPH TO THE TKiBUNAl
Albany lime 4-The Democratic Canal lhVesus"
ton Committee is still " shooting In the ar WIZ
% ,ts bullets is aimed at the present Democratic
- omoio,s Edward Hannah the Democratic
srar,nt.ra.nt NJ Public Works, keeps guardedy out
:, an He has not vet even visited the Assembly
narlor IN which the committee has been engage" ~
ts harmless practice. To-day the cmei "i'ness WOO
sIlas B. butcher, the Republican euperi'enun' VI
pubIic Works in the years 1850. 1881 anu iooH ma
Dutcher was mainly examined In reistoh 10 MS 'o''
rection with the occupation Of Erie Canal iands os
the West shore Railroad. Mr. Dutcher sho"eu rum
public documents that he revoked permo "hich hau
hn Granted nv the Canal Commissioners 70 the rail-
.o con,panv TO occupy canal lands; that he refused
, Grant hermit: and that II was the supreme Couro
u,ticb condemned the canal lands and put them In
possesson Of the railway company
Toward the close OF Mr. butchers testimony seT>
oro, Questions were put to him. with an innocent
air in relation TO the general policy Cd ue o'nV'
ntinr canal lands TO private individuals ID case
,bnse individuals made improvements TO them "hch
Imnroved the canal property. These lues"o"s VIZ"
oslad apparently in view Of Mr.. Dutchers s'aVeNV
that the court appraisers sold the canal iahus " ""
Wet shore railroad for the nominal price Oh % oil
acre in consequence Of the many Vaudole inp
ments made to the canal property. Mr' puIcner ga
pressed the opinion that the west ~ 100 - an,I
exnended between 81 100000 and S2'oOo'ooo III 80
,r,rrovements and had much more than npaiu '"o
r+a+. in mis- way for the canal property taken'
H.. uos asked to express his opinion as to the WIS,
49,, - srncrntendent Hannah In granting cana'
v,uonertv at Buffalo to the Buffalo Dock ana Oon
reciion Railway Company. ms Is uio 'o'" en".
.h,., ,obp r sheehan. brother of Speaker shee-
duct
largely interested. Mr. butcher repheu 'hA' 40 w
~. Isrected This property for many years. ana thcie
fora ,pas not in position to give his OPINION "'
tben asked: aft that canal property IS 'mPio'o. =.
the hermit superintendent Hannah mas giVei' ~ a.
IA in the publIc interest?' Mr. Ducher answered. '
II would be, II, represented tnc eai''' 1I|.
,ror1d aIso be improved in value THESE quesuoh'
- ;dorht.dlv addressed to Mr. butcher with inc
IT., ~ Giving superintendent Hannah ana epeaAei
choobor sunport when they finally called upon 10
give their testimony ,..u..,orcos
NJ DutcIer being asked to state the circumstances
under which a permit was granted TO inc WeS' oho'e
RailUay 10 construct part OF It's line OH 'io oo'
hank Of the Erie Canal said that one uaS III -
Aovercd laborers IN the employment Of that railway
rrorrinc upon the canal lands, and asked them loi
,to,n anthodtv They showed him permit graheu
49, canal Commissioners Wright and Barkley' oo'n
memorials in 1872, authorizing the Ne"- iorh' VS.
shore and Chicago Railway Company 10 occupy III,
lands I'm question. lie examined the poi"i'' " ~
It read as follows: -. e,.o ..a ch,c, =,
puoad Connanv is hereby authorized to locate us ran
ood ne follows with reference TO the eastern anu o
divisions Of the Erie Canal viz In all cases there sn'
hv waterway OF seventy feet and berme DaA vi ~"
less than ten feet and two tow'paVh oiiAS NV ~, ,h
twelve feet and all bridges to be elevated NOT less C
,teon foot above the canal bottom and at all crossings
a clear way equivalent 70 ninety feet al rlsh' Sns.'
suh,ect to the approval by this toard OF the maps W "
hereafter submitted showing tho location IN ue u"
| N said divisions. All work within the oiue l.he " "
biot 70 the approval Of the Commissioner IN charge
| Mr. Du+cber Immediately revoked the permit III
Democratic successor, James shanahan thus ueScioe
Mr. butchers course: . A.. ~,
Nv nrdecessor as he reports believing thae 'he oo
,c,,on NJ railroad under those permits wouu serious,
interfere with the free and perfect use Vi INC V-
dd on the sth day April. 1881, although tho oon
many claimed have performed WORK uhuer .ne ', ,
.rd that there was reservation IN saiu permits o VIZ
o.. ., tho state for resembling the same revoke anu MI
~, the aid permits by written notice served on IN
d,.ootors NJ said company. 1t would appear from th
records that Immediately upon the revocation ol ms
rorrits applicatons made by saic company !" w
Superintendent Of Public Works Tor pern'S'o' " eO
st,uc. It's railway across along ana upon I"hu
nratad for canal purposes The permission desired wa
fnsed bv NV predecessor From the records In the caS
Il "a assumed that refusal 10 grant such PERMISSION W"
basod on the theory the authority conferred upon W
OF Public Works by Section IL OF Onap'e
90 90 tho Laws OF 1894 and by Chapter 40, Laws o
,s,o was inconsistent Article 7. Section g. OF I'M
Constitution which provides that The Leeisiature s
NOT sell lease or otherwise dispose OF the Erie Canal ~
osweeo Canal the Champain Canal, or the Cayuga an'
Seneca Canal; but they shall remain the property oil I'LL
State and under is management forever"
Upon this refusal application was maze 70 Un
Suprene Court by said company for the CONDEMNATION
such lands and for the appointment OF appraisers 10 w
temine the compensation to be made U tne o'N lo
value of the premises nterseced touched by tho roat
n It's road The Attorney General at the request OF TN
Superintendent Of Public Works. represented the state
opposition to said application ,.
Judge Churchill OF the Supreme Court, on Septenpe
:. 1881, gave a decision against the state lie rule
that the constitution did not prohibit the construC
ton by railroad company Of It's road across alVh
and uponn the State canals that the right 10 sue
construction was only limited by the provision tina
the navigation OF the canals should not be interfere
WITH Judge Churchill concluded his opinion b
giving the following order:
Let an order he drawn. appointing appraisers to
appnted By the court to apprllse the comp nsation
he given to the State for the occupancy OF the lahu
described in amended petition OF the Ne"-fork yves
Shore and Buffalo Railway.
SUPERINTENDENT butcher Immediately wrote leue
TO Attorney General Ward, stating Judge Churchill
decision inclosng him the papers In the suit an
asking him to give ihe subject careful consideration
view of the enormous value OF the states lands a.
focied Mr. butcher Informed the Attorney GENERA
u,ot tho state had expended millions OF dollars in az
should be taken to protect these lands from injury
railroad The Attorney General, replying to III
communication of butcher said
| After careful examination Of the opinion OF Judl
,inrehul and Of the constitutional provision aud I'll
several statutes applicable to the subject nave come
the conclusion that the opinion is correct eNpo'uon
the law and that appeal therefrom "ouiu ohy resu
In an animation Of tho order Of Judge Churchill made
tho motion in which opinion was rendered.
add ralOTad ~
Mr.. butcher, thus compelled by the courts "l'huie
all further opposition to the West Shore Railway iaSln
~ tracks rpon the BERN bank of the canal. III
courts appointed appraisers, who appraised the lana
and thus the lands came into the possession Of the raj
way. ~.
THE West Shore Company said Mr. Dutcher' " COZ
irced the court appaisers that it should be compete
TO pay only nominal price for these canal land
claiming that IT actually would enhance the value
the canal by It's railway structures. 1t did eXpend'
am told between 100000 and S2,oOoooo along III
line of the canal in snoring the banks OF that cana
,,iIdt,c etona vertical walls and otherwise Strengthen