New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1896-03-25
AGAINST RAPID TRANSIT PLANS.
ARGUMENT BEFORE THE APPELLATE DL'i'-
ION OF THE SUPREME COURT

ARGUMENT BEFORE THE APPELLATE DLVio-
ION OF THE SUPREME COURT.
The Appellate Division OF the Supreme Coui'
devoted yesterday afternoon to the matter VI .''o
findings of the Rapid Transit Commission, wmch
recently made It's report 10 the court Ihe HITTER
was brought before the court In the shape OF mo
ton on the appeal OF the Sun Printing and PUP
fishing Association. Franklin Bartlett, as trustees
under the will of Henry Mason. and OF Mason
Carnes owners of property along the Inc Oh Inc
proposed railroad. represented the appellants
The appellants aver that the act of the Legislature
under which the Rapid Transit Commission was "p
pointed Is unconstitutional ard is against the puo''
veal. Franklin Bartlett. as owner of the premise.
No C92 Broadway, was of the appellants AS w"
as their counsel Among the other lawyers present
were A. b. Eoardman and Edward NJ ohepdiu' io'
the Rapid Transit Commissioners; Theodore con-
molly for the Corporation Counsel; Eiihu ROOT anu
George G. De Witt for Robert Goelet the ChcHicai
Bank and other Broadway property owners "eo, &c
Zabriske and Archibald J. Murray for Henry MI
ton and others. and John f. Roosevelt. Ezra A.
futile and james c. Bushby for Park-ave property
owners
Mr.. Bartlett contended that the Rapid Transit act
was unconstitutional and void. because It violated
the provision found alike in the old and In the ne"
Constitution that no county. city, town or village
shall hereafter give any money property. or ioan
its money on credit to or in aid of any individual.
etc or become directly or Indirectly the owner OF
stock In, bonds OF. any association or coI0l
shall any such county. city. town or v''asc DE
allowed incur any Indebtedness except for county
city, town village purposes" He quoted nj ieiisth
decisions supporting his contention. ana sild tla.
In the Rapid Transit act there were at least elsht
violations Of the Constitution.
Elihu Root also spoke against confirming the IT,
port OF the RAPID Transit Commissioners
George c. DE Witt then talked about the daHlass,
which would follow the building OF the proposci
road those property holders who have vaults eX
tending under the street and said that 10" esti-
mate OF the damage in Broadway alone would De
Z al n. Ipr would
s2S.jo The city. he said. has received for perh'Sr
build many OF these vaults large sums OF
money. But this would not be the only damage 10
property-ownerS Trade would languish, rents, go
down and traffic be almos, entirely suspended our
ms the progress or the work
j. T.. Roosevelt followed. and urged the Court 10
devote careful thought to the great damage when
abutting prOperiy-owncrs would suffer by Inc eve
cution of the Commissions plans.
MI Zabriskie said that 10y the building OF the pro
posed road the damage 10 vaults would exceed Sli,-
0o0.e0 He declared that the road would cost al
least sl0N~O.W1. without any good result. Inc
underlying falacy OF the finding Of the RAPID iran
sit missiorers. Mr. /1hriskio held. was on their
statement ana belief that the work could be done
tho 50 200 coo the city IS permitted to apply Tor H.
Mcssrs. Tut,le and Bushby submitted brief WIN
out oral argument They object 10 that part OF the
road which Is 70 be- carried on a vafuct above
COnnOy took part In the proceedings.
Ii Was o'clock before Mr.. SHEPARD. FOR the Rapid
Transit Commission. had a chance 70 be- heard and
the Court decided that Il too late 10 hear further
argument An adjournment was ordered until
Thursday