New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1894-08-25
ELEVATED RAILWIYS ~ THE COA'hN


What Is known ~ the Marks amendment has
had curious history In the constitutional Con
ycntion Shortly after the meeting ~ that body
Mr. Marks. lawyer aud delegate from New
York City. introduced it in It's first FORM under
which il provided that In proceedings for
the condemnation 81 private property The dam
ages should be- assessed by jury. Trial by
Jury thought Mr. Marks. was not only the pal
ladium OF our liberties In general. but that OF
the property owners rights In particular, ana he
must no longer be left to the mcrcics Of three
commissioners appointed by court Of record,
as provided by the present law.
Now the queer thing about this Is that tho
crty-owner. particularly In Ncw-lork CITY.
appears 10 be not only contentcd with The law
~ ii stands, but would be thoroughly discon-
tented with the proposed change 1t Is also In
terestIng TO notice hat the Manhattan Rail-
way Company, which is not peculiarly synpa-
thetlc with owners Of real estate, especially
those along It's lines, has been for several years
using all It's exertiolS 10 obtain the passage OF
q law for the assessment Of damages by jnries
in the suits which AUDITING property owners
have been compelled TO bring against II because
1t has taken their property away without the
formality Of IA condemnation. In the clrcuni-
stances it would seem II Mr.. Marks wanted
a palladium for the elevated roads rather than
for the property owners. and some such view
appears TO have prevailed In the Convention,
which handsomely defeated the amendment
after 1t had been reported unfav0rably by the
Judiciary Committee.
Mr. Marks now saw n great light. 1t was all
a mistake on his part. What he really wanted
TO do was TO protect the property-owner. whether
he wanted protection or not, 80 the Marks
amendment reappcared In new form, leaving
ii 10 the propcrtyowner to decide In each case
whether he wanted the commissioners or a jury.
This amendment was reported unfavorably by
the Committee on Preamble, but somehow or
other they reported. at the same time, the pre-
else equivalent Of the original amendment, which
had already been defeated Their plan was that
a jury should Sit when required by either party
to the proceeding. This not only gave the rail
road the right TO elect jury trial, but prevented
the property owner from elccting trial before
commissioners. and, therefore, left him I'm much
the same situation as II jury was required in
all cases 1t must be said however, that the
Committee on Preamble afterward reconsidercd
the matter and passed resolution favOring Civ
Ing the option 10 the property-owner only. In
this latter shape the matter came up again last
week before the Committee Of the Whole. and
the new proposition was defeated on n motion
TO report progress by vote Of - TO ~. But
afterward Il motion made by Mr. Root TO strike
out the enactng clause failed by vote OF 6S
to ~, so that the matter Is still in Committee
Of the Whole
Is not Mr. Marks misdrecting his energy. as
he confesses that he did In the Of the first
proposition? Is it not fair to look upon the
mooting OF this matter at all rs n gift from the
Greeks: The efforts OF the Manhattan Railway
Company in the Legislature show that II wants
a jury trial In these matters. II wants them.
both because II will enable them to crowd our
already too crowded court calendars with hun