New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1897-09-30
Mr.. SCOTT WILL NOT APPEAR
A NEW COMPLICATION IN THE KINGS
BRIDGE ROAD FRANCHISE FIGHT.


GRANT THE FRANCHISE. Be
CAUSE HE BELIEVES
THAT THEY HAVE
40 POWER TO
GIvEIT
Corporation Counsel Scott sen: letter 10 the
BOARD OF Aldermen yesterday refusing to
time 70 appear for the Board to ask the Supreme
Court to vacate the injunction which has been co.
ta!ned forbiddng the Aldermen to grant 10 the
Third Avenue Railroad Company tho Kingsbridge
road franchise. ar. Scott, In his capacity OF the
city's legal adviser. appeared before the Court
yesterday. when rhe injunction motion came up
before Justice Russell and asked for adjourn
men; to give him time to examine tho papers and
also TO prepare a communication 10 the Board OF
Aldermen the subject
In his letter 10 the Board Mr.. Scott has stated
ir detail his reasons for declining TO continue as
counsel to the Board In this proceeding. and he
has given them In a clear vigorous and straight
forward way. Substantially. Mr.. Scott does not
believe that the Aldermen now possess the legal
right TO grant this franchise and he does not pro-
pose TO contend In court that they have such right
WHAT THE LEGISLATURE PROVIDED.
Under ordinary circumstances" his letter says.
II should deem It to be my duty to appear for tho
Board and to ask that the injunction be vacated.
and that the Board be left free 10 act In such a
manner as IL saw fit under such legal advice as 1t
might receive. The circumstances attending 'hs
case, however. peculiar As YOU are wen
aware the Legislature has from time to time
made efforts TO obtain for the city OF New-1orK
compensation for the use OF its streets by surface
railroads Many valuable franchises have been
granted In past years without adequate provision
for compensation 10 the city.
Mr.. Scott then cites Chapter s5 Of the Laws OF
1856, known as the Cantor act. which PROVIDES
THAT when application was made TO the iooai
authorities for consent to the construction OF "
street-surface road in any city or village. the reso-
luton granting such consent must proNiae' as a
condition that the right. franchise ana prlVileEe
OF using such highway should be soid ri pun.
auction to the bidder who would give the largest
n.rcen,ars ner annum Of the gross receipts derived
from the operaton OF the said railroad which pei
oentsee should. in no case be less than " per cen"
per annun of such gross receipts Tor ana ou'l"s
the period Of the first five years Of the operation
Of any portion OF said railroad or railway, aho
Der cent per annum of such gTo'' reoe'P'S "'V' Wv
expiration Of the five years
NO MORE PERPETUAL FRANCHISES.
?. ma. confidently hoped. the Corporation Coun-
ssl.s letter continues. that the result might DC "
eenuinA competition for these franchises ou' ''o
hone was not justified. The question OF aueqrae
return. TO the city for It's railway irahch'ses no
since attracted great public Afternoon anu "o 90 tbe
ceived the serious and careful consideration Oh Va.
c,aa,er New-Yorx Charter Commission Inc Nc"
charter provides for a new system inVoi'"e VIZ 40
FOR a limited period of franchise " u ,.ar
streets with an ultimate reverter 10 Inc cry. 90
ouot,ne the views OF the Charter Commission anu
the section No. IS OF the act. devised py 10 NM
hers for putting them in force. M. scout s'!o
The phraseology of this section Is peculiar ani i
upon depends The question as 10 ordnance now
Under discussion. You will observe tnat ny act no
smesse or right 10 use the park b
ways or highways Of the city sna or oTpora,ion
Sor longer period than twenty year,, % an
expression after the approval al and in view Of all
the Circumstance OF the case It seems e 20
have been the clear intention OF grantins Of fran
cbises in perpetuty from and after the very Ss a a
that the Governor affixed his signature ~ wv ''
THE PRESENT CASE AFFECTED.
I'll. Coronation Counsel gives some other reasons
o., srr,v,np at this conclusion. and goes on; III is
true that the effect Of section ." ~ So"e"' co.
avoided by the contention that what Is the'eii' 'o
hidden Is the granting Of franchise oy 'ne iiuN'0
nal assembly and the argument Is nlaae 'hd' '
much as there is no municipal assemo'y III Co ,"oo
ence and will not be until after January l. Io''
therefore this restraining clause can nave no eneo'
! on the present Board of Aldermen. caihot D
isat,re to make an absolutely nugatory and ABSURD
restriction. as this would De II we 70 on the
contrary the presumption to be derived ron m the
reading Of the charter ana RON ne me - me 10 tend
an Think thai the clear intention Of the Legs
ian1nase ~ Section q the meaning that would
sssalS s'''S were 70 srcks seson and
treated surpusage The intention OF me ne 6isno
s Tss nf fpsnehses Should be gve ed for
operation and experiment IHere Is si mo and the
legislature realized that, unless some restriction
was made upon the granting OF franchises peIweem
j. 1895 there would probably remain after me ias
mentioned date no valuable frsrchl;es 70 be as
posed Of under the new system OF limited ra'cses
with reversion to the city.
MAY HAVE CAUSED THE PROVISION.
Mr.. Scott further believes that this very Kings
hrjdpe Road franchise may have been In the minds
of tho charters trainers and OF the ,aw-making
mower "At the time he says chat this charter
was under consideration. proceedings had been
initiated looking 10 the granting of franchise for
the use OF the Kingsbrdge Road for street rail-
ro1d. and owing TO an apparent competition be-
tween two railway companies for the grant Of that
Fl II II sR mo d to be the Usi last
great railroad franchises which this generation IS
likely to see apped Of e plan so in Se
Greater New-York Charter. because the character
Of the territory through which a TeS dha mat
as the franchise may not for Some years be very
ppsa bs the charter as the ultimate life Of SUCH
q franchise. 4. would Undoubtedly prove to be a
valuable asset to the CITY,
WHY HE CANNOT ACT FOR THE BOARD.
Mr.. Scott ends his letter with this emphatic
fusal 10 act as the Boards counsel In the case:
Entertaining these views cannot public
interests Of the city OF New-york deem 1t TO be my
duty to contend in cour; that your honorable body
the legislature has forbidden you to pass. II viii
therefore be impossible for me 10 move for the
sppriss you ,hps early Of the fact to the end that
II you should desire 70 have motion made in your
should have ample opportunity 70 procure counsel
to make such application"