New-York tribune., 1903-03-28
CITY RIGHT IN LAND.
4 Second Opinion on Nursery and
Ck;Ld's Hospital Bill.

A,hanv. March 27.--Attorney General Cunneen
stuI maintains that the bill Of Senator EisoeFs'
which authorizes the Nursery and Cnllos n0s"
n,ta1 of Nev-York to sell its property, which II
holds under q perpetual lease from the CITY VI
New-York, is unconstitutional He stated IhlS
in an opinion to Governor Odell one week ago.
hut at the request Of the attorneys for the hos
pttal he reinvestigated the question. he SUP
mitted to the Governor a long opinion to-day IN
which he holds, as he did a week ago, that the
legislature has no right to empower the hospital
association to sell the property. He points out'
however, that it is possible to e1ec' sSio
through the authorities OF New-fork CITY, "ho
may be empowered to do so. The hospltai as-
sociation desired to sell the property which Is
within the line OF the New-York Central ana
Hudson River Railroad and devote the proceeds
of the sale to the purchase OF site for nos
pitai at another location.
The opinion of the Attorney General IN part Is
as follows Z
am satisfied from the information at hand tnst ts
this is private corporation. The selection OF lss
it's managePs IS Under its control the conduct Of It's
shaiT be admitted and who shall rejected it may
select its employees and servants ana nx @ Ine'[ ad
pensaton as It pleases; its property 10 not o"neo
Section 1o ARTICLE VIII ot the State G0nstituon ,t
properly to aid 81 indyidua assoGatS1 aD1
city }rp@ aRng suot sfS p4ovson sup
port Te Of s oF PG@fd @ as proVoR 3 ns of the Constellation
very that oficers and agents or the CITY OF OF
New-York have no power to give It's properly Vi
any part Of 1t. to this corporation. ,. rrA.. 81.
title and interest of the city in this property Is
very valuable cannot be controyerted. Inc pIo- p,t
posed act authorizes agents or ofhCers OF me cty
for n9na ne b c III t propery 70 70
That it would be entirely competent for the city
which the city should convey the property IN Zee
simple to the corporation and the corporation IN
consideration of this would undertake to serve Lne
Rut as ALREADY indicated the city officers have no
right, and they have no power under the consttu- constt
tion has the legislat ture to transfer properly
poration for nominal consideration.
the a c6rporation sn@ shall de1oe the property he
maintenance and support OF objectr. but tnlnh @
public officers have no right to turn over the prop
ertv of the city to an individual or corporation IN
trust for even a benevolent or charitable purpose.
purposes should be under the control Of chosen
representatives Of the public.
Ny attention has been drawn to many sta tutes
claimed be similar to the one in question here
Of this State. l have carefully considereo
all these, and find that in nearly every instance
they merely confer the power to convey the prop
and conditions and details with the local author-
tiles. 40, ,, -,
If this statute merely authorized the local au-
tion could be made to its validity. 1t would thet
become the duty OF the local officers TO sateguar0
the public interests. and 1t must be presumed tnat
they would not part with city properly eHcePI t9I
what in their judgment would be adequate consid-
GRAFTON. But a statute which authorizes the pubic
officers to dispose Of vRlua BILE pubic property Ior
constitution, and should not have executive ap-
proval, in my humble opinion.