New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1917-01-29
Ex-Justice, Retained by
Hardy, Sees Gain
for City
APPROVES POINTS
FOES ATTACKED
Penalty Urged in Case the
Company Defaults in
Construction Work

hlNtIhlut bIlNt-NtH iOIh NVhNio az
track extension contract that has been
attacked as illegal is upheld by Charles
f. Hughes in a detailed opinion rem
dered to Lamar Hardy. Corporation
Counsel, and made public for the first
time last night.
Ex-Justice Hughes passed upon the
question Of the life of the roads fran
chise, and announced that the park
contract would have no bearing on the
franchise. since that had been settled
by the Court of Appeals in 1909, when
the city was prevented from removing
the tracks from the roads present
right of way along the Hudson River
The opinion backed up the assertion
Of the Corporation Counsel that the
Board Of Estimate has the authority
to use its Sound judgment" in making
Just such contracts. citing numerous
legal opinions as reasons for this de-
cision.
Explains Why City Gains
OF still greater Importance, Mr..
Hughes explained for the first time why
the city would profit by contributing
millions of dollars worth of real estate
to the expensive project-one Of the
chief objections of those who are op-
posing the pending agreement between
the city and the railroad.
He held that the covering of tracks
through Riverside Park and elsewhere
along It's proposed right of way, as
fixed in the contract. was of benefit
only to the city and an actual detriment
to the railroad. Since the railroad is
paying far more for this improvement
than the city is contributing, he said
that there did not appear to be any in
justice in this arrangement from the
city's point Of view.
Moreover, Mr.. Hughes suggested the
addition of one clause TO the contract
that would prove. he held, an additional
safeguard against loss by property own
ers. His opinion sets forth that. while
the contract provides ample guarantees
against loss through personal injury or
other causes growing out or the rail
road improvements, further promises
should be exacted concerning damages
10 be paid in the event that the work is
not completed in the time agreed upon.
Just what bearing this opinion may
have on the temporary injunction re-
straining the city from entering INTO
such a contract is not known. The
case is set for an argument before JUS
tice Cropsey, in the Kings County SUI
preme Court, to-day
VIII Oppose Delay
Former State Senator William "
Bennett, complainant In the injunction
proceedings, said yesterday that Cor
poration Counsel Hardy had asked for
another delay in the case, but that he
would contest further ccntinuances, two
already having been granted. As 10
the opinion of Mr.. Hughes, he said
that it did not dispose Of the objections
made by the Society for the Prevention
of Municipal Waste, which he repre-
sents. The Hughes opinion, he re-
marked. involved only questions of law
while his concerned the advisability OF
accepting this particular contract as q
matter of business.
That Mr.. Hughes had been retained
by the city to pass upon the Drive con-
tract did not become known until his
opinion was made public yesterday
afternoon. In a statement accompany
ing it the Corporation Counsel said that
he had sought the best legal advice
because Of the importance OF the ques'
tions involved.
10 was evident, however, that the eX-
Justice had spent weeks in studying the
complicated contract that has been ten
tatively drawn by Mr.. Hardy, members
of the Board of Estimate and Mayor
Mitchell. Every legal phase of it is
considered and answered in the vol
luminous opinion. Objections made
by the property owners who have
protested against the contract
largely because they did not be
lieve their rights and those OF
the city were safeguarded-are not
answered, because they involve only
questions Of judgment and not Of law
Nine Questions Considered
The big questions considered By
(D The validity of the proposed
contract with respect 70 the exercise
of privileges or franchises by the rail
road company.
(2) The discontinusnce Of streets
and use Of park lands Of the city foi
railroad purposes.
49, The provisions with respect tC
grants Of lands, lands under water
rights, easements, etc, TO the railroad
(4) The provisions with respect q
physical changes provided for, and the
payment of the cost Of making them.
90 The protection Of the city IN Us
control Of streets, avenues, ways pup
lie wharves, parks and places.
90 The indemnification of the city
against liability by reason Of the pro
posed work.
(7) The constitutionality Of Chapter
m of the Laws of 1911.
(8) The effect OF the Act Of 1911
upon inconsistent provisions Of th'
greater New York charter and othei
Cs) The effect of subsequent legis
lation upon this acts provisions.
Valid Franchise Not Limited
In his opinion Mr.. Hughes says:
1T must be deemed established that
the franchise granted the Hudson
River Railroad Company in 1916 foi
the location OF its railroad on streets
in the City of New York was valid; thai
it was not limited TO fifty years, but was
indefinite; that no authority had beer
given the city 10 withdraw the franchise
Continued on page s. column