Year: 1876

In the Supreme Court, General Term, Chief Justice
Davis and Judges Brady and Daniels being the
beuch the whole Of yesterday occupied in listen
Ing TO arguments upon the motion to confirm the re-
port Of the Rapid Transit Commissioners There was
= large attendance in the court ROOM being made up
mainly Of property Interested IN the matter.
Ex.Judges Knott and Davies and Mr. A. j. Wander
poel moved the confirmation OF the report after which
the argument followed, developing pretty strong op-
position 10 the motion for confirmation Before roach
ing the main motion, however, preliminary motion
was made by Mr.. Jon that special order be made
excluding that portion OF report which refers TO
Ninety second street. and thence up Eighth avenue,
tho ground that tho presence the Croton Aqueduct
at Ninety second street made 1t undesirable that the
road should pass IN that vicinity Judge Emott said
ho understood the objection TO the steam railroad
Eighth avenue above Central Park, came from prop
erty fronting the Park, who purchased the
property construct private residences, and the Com


missionors yielded, and did not sanction a road up
Eighth avenue that the motion to strike out that
portion not we'll made.


Mr.. John F.. Parsons behalf OF the property
holders, opposed the confirmation OF the report
tending that by the constitutional amendment OF 1875
and the act under which these proceedings taken
the property holders entitled to an appearance
Epon the application for the appointment commis
souers particularly with reference to the pro-
reference Commission
ers that no such opportunity was given them, and for
that reason the proceedings were Invalid He also
claimed that all the testimony before tho
COMMISSIONERS made II perfectly clear that
the damage TO properly would Infinitely out
weigh any public benefit to be gained by this
structure, and also showed that the structure was
utterly inadequate TO any suitable purposes OF rapid
transit, and will so interfere with Third as
destroy it thoronghfare and inasmuch as the Gil
bert Railroad is to so on Second avenue, and the
present rapid transit road through Fourth avenue
that section OF the city will be cut of from any thor,
at
franchise OF the enormous value which this company
was trying to obtain was to be given, compensation
should be made If not to the property holders at
whose expense the franchise granted at all events
TO the city. He insisted nat the Commissioners had
given shifting right to tho railroad COM
pany to construct their road, either on tho
sidewalk or in the street, and that that such
election as the statute required IL being very i'm
portan consideration bearing the question whether
the road should bo built on the sidewalk the
street SO far as concerned part of the route, the
Commissioners had determined that the road ought


10 be constructcd and. inasmuch the sole question
was whether the road whole should be built the de-
termination that il should not in part be constructed
operated, Mr Parsons claimed. adverse decision
by them. The Commissioners report showed that
only no due hearing was given to tho
property holders but also made affidavit
that they failed entirely to consider the only questions
which should really control their Judgments; that is
whether this plan OF rapid transit feasible de-
srable and whether the Third avenue route was the
most suitable route Tor tho purpose Mr. Parsons
claimed that it was the Mayors Commissioners who
should locate and establish the route and the
qured this to DO done within sixty days the consent
OF the property holders and the determination of the
Supremc Court Commissioners to be obtained mean
time, and as that time has gone by the proceedings
illegal


Afior argument by Mr. Peckham, which
followed precisely the line that
taken by Mr. Parsons, Judge Emott ad-
dressed the Court length. He said
the advantage OF such railroad TO the city
questionable, while the injury the property owners
speculative and exaggerated. Some OF the prop
Rrty would be injured, but the property the
streets would be immensely benefited As TO tho
argument that the Commissioners should have done
certain things within sixty days, II that strictly
Insisted upon the law would be impraccable but II
that provision merely directory then the Com
mssioners might just well have done what they did
year after their appointment. There not one
dollars worth OF property taken touched and
the Commissioners simply set the public advantage
over against the injury TO property owners, and de-
rldcd accordingly


ExJudge Davies followed with few observations to
The Court urging that the Commissioners acted pre-.
tisely they required do, and carried out
lheir Instructions They took atfidavs, made per-
Ional inspection. got all the Information they could
Bnd their action should be viewed verdict or jury,
The the action OF the Commissioners OF Esti-
and Assessment under the of 1913 and ought
not TO be set aside except be shown that they decided
against the overwhelming weight OF evidence,
violated some rule of law, neither OF which be
shown in this


AT the conclusion of the argument the Court took
the decision