Year: 1870

RIGHTS OF THE CITY-ARGUMEST OF COUNSEL


The case Of the Mayor, &C., agt. the Beach
Pneumatic Tunnel Company was continued on Saturday
the Supreme Court, Chambers, before Mr. Justct
Cardozo.


Mr. Sullivan on tho part Of the plaintiff argued for
the plaintiffs that there a contract with the
owners for the free OF the streets made with the
authority of the legislature and therefore, whatever
the authority OF the Legislature take away the char
ter or destroy the political rights Of the city that con-
tract was simply transferred the state the State
was bound by II.


Mr.. O'Gorman followed on the same side The Darling.
ton case on which the other side relied had claimed
been decided in period Of great public excitement
when many good men thought all New-York City should
DO punished and that feeling had intruded Itself into
judicial decisions. That decision was, anything that
the City had no rights whatever One judge had dis
sened and It might yet be that the dissenting opinion
would remain, and the other be swept away In the
Kerr case the opinion 1s pages long That rea,
son for distrusting IT, but that the City any
way party How then, could that make the question
res adieata as to the City That had been over
ruled ,s 20 the main question by the decs
ion In the case OF Cray ag tho Rochester Railroad Com
panY. But IL the defendants were right way did
they go TO the Legislaturef Why not dix
their bore at once The that they
wished to avoid the action for trespass which tho
city as owner would have against them IL this eKcaya
ton pushed and caying IA should Occur per
injured by 1t would recover from the city owner
4
case OF Bailey when the CrOton dam burst and injured
the plaintiff and the city took the ground that the state
was liable but were held liable owners. The counsel
on the other side had said they IN iDsuecOD. 10
was bad fashion. recently naugurated, when auy one
appealed constitution 10 charge them with lsur-
reCOn But they stood on the law the act OF l7IJ
yeyed 20 the city all the title 70 the streets Oi tie city
the act OF 1913 vested the fee OF all the streets IN the cy
their opponents would insert not In these acts the
OF 1913 directed that properly OF the city taken for
streets should be paid for IN tho same manner other
proprietors OF property" They did not claim 10 be an
iDDeIiu ia imDeO; thoy simply claimed the nights Of
other prOprieOrs in the street. Besides n was faacy
to call the Legislature tho people Another proof " the
ctys property i'm the streets that 10 was permitted
by the OF 1918 70 close out the tst on paying dam
ages the adjacent and obtain the absolute ee


He should occasion shortly 10 present 70 his honor
at General Term the OF the Harlem Railroad, Ia
which the Legislature had permitted that road 70 take
part Of public streets. But tuat law recognised tho
Cty's ownership, and directed compensation to be made
to the City


The question between municipalities aud the central
mower was an old it had ruined King James. Mu-
nicpal liberties had hOurished with general liberty
They had been carefully preserved IN England and ira
diuOn in their The Court should consider
favorably that tradition.


This particular question Of the right TO use the streets
was likely To come up soon In various ways lie had
pictures of proposed Arcade railway, ana such a
use of the streets did To him inconsistent with
the proper uses OF street. II the Legislature should
take tho same view. would not this tube interfere with
that use Mr. OGOrman concluded by restdung briefly
his points.


Tie COnrt reserved IT'S decision