New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1896-04-11
THAT RAILROAD FRANCHISE AUCTION.
FURTHER ARGUMENT ABOUT IT-A NEW NOW
IN THE NAME OF A TAXPAYER.

FURTHER ARGUMENT ABOUT IT-A NEW MOVE
IN THE NAME OF TAXPAYER.
| In the Supreme Court yesterday Justice Lawrence
| heard argument on a motion of James y Ferguson.
| taxpayer Of High Bridge to restrain the city
| Controller from resuming the auction sale Of the
franchise for surface railroad In the annexed dis
trict, which adjourned on October TO- 1895. upon
order Of the Supreme Court. after the North
New-York City Traction Company had bid per
centage largely in excess Of the receipts jus
tce Lawrence reserved his decision.
ES-Lieutenant-Governo Sheehan who appeared
for Ferguson. and who mas heretofore represented
the New-York Traction Company. told the history
Of the farcical auction from the time the southern
Boulevard Company dropped out Of the bidding.
after offering 3l2 cent OF the gross receipts FOR
the franchise until the Controller adjourned the
sale the NewYork Traction Company having bid
G.915 1-lG per cent the gross receipts The Poo
pies Traction Company had. he said. bid 10 per
cent of the gross receipts The Southern Boule
card Company had brought suit restraining
the sale from proceeding and asking FOR "a
grant Of the franchise, but Justice Beekman had
dismissed the complaint on the merits. holding thai
the Southern Boulevard Company was not as
greved.
Justice Beekman." Mr. Sheehar said. after
deciding the case proceeded to deal with the bid
ding after the Southern Boulevard Company dropped
out. He gave as his opinion that every bid after
100 per cent the receipts had been offered was He
gal as being a percentage on and not percentage
of the receipts as specified in the statute. The
Corporation Counsel is of contrary opinion. ana
believes that a bidder bid any amount ne
wishes. and that the city is bound TO get as much
as It can for the franchise.
Mr.. Sheehan further said that the Controller had
adjourned the sale three times. when not under the
restraint of injunction whereas by the siatuie
declared that this violation Of tine law was fata TO
the sale. His client. he asserted. would be IN
iured unless the highest amount possible should De
realized for the franchise by the city. and unies 50
the Controller. acting on Justice Beeknans de-
cision should award the franchise to the, People
Traction Company. s
anpIcation "Al the afdavlts on the motion
sa}d ne have been made by Mr.. Sheehan on infor-
nation and belief. and If Your Honor saw them
anywhere else save In court you would look upon
them as a huge joke Mr.. Sheehan makes cnars,s
aganst the Controller for adJourning the sale al
,hnngh he did so under the mandate of this Court,
and IN that ground he tries to upset the sa
This question" said Justice Lawrence, mas been
,brcahed out pretty often now. would IKE 10
haar THAT the Corporation Counsel has 10 say upon
~ subiect There some things OF which
nnawar,beless as plain the MONDAY, and cannon
.actnnwiedge that Of a matter which has engaged
anch nuhc attention as this have not taken some
"o ta,je1snt Corporation Counsel Dean then saii
that tho city was perfectly Indifferent as 10 when
anae n,rchased the franchise: All the CITY
.o an,s said he rs to get the highest possible
amount for the frarchise.
The matter then went over