The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1896-03-25
THE SUN, WEDNESDAY, MARCH 20, 1893

rapid transit railways we're TO he constructed
maintained, and operated by the city alone I
without deeming II necessary to decide thai
question. IT Is clear that when q railway, Is e
be run in partnership with a contractor for hit
benefit, MS here, II certainly H. not q city purpose
The Brooklyn Bridge act Of May Il, 1879
provided that the bridge WIS to. be "A public
work. The bridge company was dissolved. the
private interests were terminated while here
BY this rapid transit scheme the private inter
ests ~ tho contractor or grantee arc kept alive
and upon his failure the city must account and
pay over to him. As the Court OF Appeals said,
make the city Of New York a stockholder in the
bridge company or to cause II to loan any money
or credit to such company. IL was the purpose
of the act to uxtlnguish the company and vost
all its property IN the two cities for n public
fcrent basis from That OF a railroad,
But In order to gain light upon the question
whether u railroad Is "A municipal or city. pur-
pose ur not let us consider the history OF the
adoption In tho autumn of 1874 OF the c%onstitu-
tional amendment now under consideration
which provided that no city shnll give .nny
money or credit to or In atd OF any indtNidual,
association. or corporations, aud that. no city
cept for city purposes. Tho purpose which IT
was desired 10 secure WINS the uso uf public
moneys for the construction of ailroads "a
system. which Ind grown up IN this state
ever since 1852. and which had grown to DO
n widespread evil aud abuse, and people, Mt last
rose In their majesty and decided to abolish the
system. and IN the future not to permit the
bonding OF city or town for tho building Of rail-
roads. Can IL be pretended that while thus n
city was prohibited from giving any money or
property or lOaning its money or credit IN aid Of
any association or corporations, including rail-
road corporations. by any fair intcndincnt IL can
he considered n city purpose to lend and give its
money and credit for the entire construction Of
IA railroad
The noxt point which | make Is that the act
of 1904, chapter 75?. rs amended by the act Of
1898. chapter 5l0. is unconstitutional and void
because the limit Of the debt has been exceed
ell. Section 10 OF Article VIII. provides that
no county or city shall be allowed to become
Indebted for any purpose or In any manner to an
amount which, including existing indebted
ness. shall exceed ten percentun OF the as
sesseu vniuatioh or the ftai estate OF suGh
peared by the assessment rolls OF said county or
city on the last assessment for state or county
taxes prior to tho iEcurrlng OF such inhabited
ness: and ali Indebtedness in excess OF such
Limitation. except such as may now exist, shall
be absolutely void, except as herein otherwise
"Thc assessed valuation OF the real estate OF
the city OF New York subject 70 taxation. as APP
peared by tho assessment rolls of this city on
the assessment or 1904 for state or county taxes,
was 81 .Hl3.O51. 10. Ten per cent. OF this gross
sum Is the constitutional limit OF the borrowing
capacity OF the municipality, and such 10 per
cent. is sl6l ,3o5. -. II you deduct the then
the extreme limit of the city's borrow Ing cspac-
ity SOL .OSl .3O2. 90. Aud rs the twelfth section
Of the act OF lso5. chapter 6l9, provides for tho
issue OF 500, 900, 900 of rapid transit railroad
bonds. 1t is manifest that the constitutional
has been exceeded, and that the act of
as well as the act OF 1894. which it
amends. Is unconstitutional and void.
1t IS said that, an casy way oavoid this qucs.
non or the ueDt limit Is 10 raise COlultlOnlllS
the assessed valuation of real estate. And in
order to squandcr the moneys rung from our
tax payers IL is deliberately proposed. in the face
OF the hard times through which we are now
passing. to raise tho valuations Of our real estate.
Notwithstanding tho fact that our rentals are fall
ing. And whether your Honors taxi the view that
the constitutional debt limit has been exceeded
or not. | am certain that YOU will agree with
that II this rapid transit scheme be carried
through most of the other public improvements
now contemplated in this city and county must
be stopped and can never be completed. and IN
OF this proposition | call your attention
TO the enormous sums OF money required for tho
completion, OF public improvements, already
made by. acts of the Legislature, and also to
the Indefinite sums which Will be required to
perfect public improvements contemplated and
as to which up to this time 10 specific appropri-
atoms have been made.
Another point to which l call the attention
Of the Court is that the two principal rapid
acts that is to say. chapter T52 Lnws of
1914 and chapter 5l9 Laws of $50 are uncon-
,titutional and void, because they Ar. local bills
and grant tie right to lay down railroad tracks
and also grant exclusive privileges. immunities.
and franchises. The old and the new Constitu-
the Legislature shall not pass II private or local
bill in any of the following cases: Granting TO
my corporation. association. or individual the
70 lay down railroad tracks; granting to
my private corporation. association. or indivi-
iuai any exclusive privilege, immunity. or fran
,hises whatever
The rapid transit acts grant to a corporation.
association. or individual. called IN said acts
the contracting person. firm, or corporation
he right to lay down railroad tracks, and these
also grant to n private corporation, associn-
or individual many special privileges. i'm
and franchises. The opinion of Pre-
siding Justice Van Brunt in the matter of tho
East River bridge will doubtless he cited agalnst
,ur contention, but that opinion was based upon
ne decision of the Court or Appeals i'll the mat
er OF Church. reported in % New York, and
wing TO the provisions contained In the new
il must now be admitted that tho
apid transit acts are local acts and are there
ore unconstitutional and void.
And the new Constitution says in Article
Kill, section =, that all cities are classified ac-
TO tho latest state enumeration. rs from
line To time made, into three classes. the first
lass including all cities having n population of
10000 or more. the second class all cities
laving a population of 10000 and less tnan
900, and the third class all other cities. and
provides, further, that laws relating to tho
affairs OF government Of cities, and
he several departments thereof. are divided
nto general and special city laws: general city
are those which relate to all the cities OF
Which relate to n single city or to less than
IL the cities OF a class Examine this section
{ 1898 is II local biz or act. II Is clearly II
peciul city law, as IL relates to less than all the
llies Of the largest class, those containing
81. 900 inhabitants. and special city law is u
peal act. and the Rapid Transi: act was. there
passed in violation. OF the inhibition OF the
contained in the eighteenth sec
ion Of the third article.
The people OF this state in their highest
en,ion. have Decided that any law which re.
either to a single city or to less than all
he cities OF "A class Is a special city law. the
: NiiN' " OIL 'itiCo - |
{ two hundred and fifty thousand or more SO
hat any act referring or relating TO cities
aving over one million OF inhahitants,' even II
here were several cities OF that population.
ould tie "A special city law. And this constitu-
Onal construction by the Constitutional Com
of 1924 is binding and controlling not
My over acts subsequently, passed. but ns to
very city law now upon the statute books,
neither 1t were passed in 1894 or 1880.
For the position | now take | have high jul
icial authority. The supreme Court of The :
tate OF ohio ia two cases has held that acts
lch as these Rapid Transit acts are local or
leCial acts in the case OF the state cx rel. the
ty OF Columbus against Mitchell! in DeCcm-
NJ, 1877. and IN the case of the state on the re-
ItIOn OF the ACCOMPLISHMENTS against AHder-
III in January, 1896. The same contention has
lrther been sustained by the supreme Court OF
nc state Of New Jersey ia the case Of Coulter,
5 the city Of New BrunswiCk.
The next point is that the Rapid Transit act.
napier 10. of the Laws OF 1904. which created
le present Board OF Rapid Transit Railroad
commissioners. Is unconstitutional and void,
cause IL violates section = of Article y. of tho
zen Constitution of the State OF New York. IN
lRt one of the commissioners the President or
- ChRmbc OF Commerce OF the state %: New
ork. is not elected hy the people. The last
OF section = OF Article y. II the Con-
tuition reads An other officers whose cleo
on or appointment II not provided for by this
constitution, aud all officers whose offices may