Year: 1872

error 20 assess Slo0o on rear lots ana no more on


Mr.. Delaaeld said that for three years this prop
erty had been virtually under condemnation. It
ton TO . lot west of Twelfth avenue, between
Seventy-nrst and Seventy-second streets. This was
ably an error. The assessment was 81, $50 while
no assessment was placed on the lots ad AGENT.


Mr. Church said that he was assessed on twenty
one lots. The assessment now was 8, 600 less
than under the previous assessment and II It was
put on mrt1sr there was probability OF the assess


MT O'Gorman asked what award was made to
lar. He hoped that the report would be confirmed.
and an epd be put at once to the matter, as then
and only then q would know how
their lots could do SO, which was Impossible at


Mr.. Davis called attention to lots owned BY Mr.
Peck, showing discrepancy IN the awards in some
cases and total neglect OF awards in other cases.
that Il was the manifest duty o the Court to
revise and correct the report OF the Commissioners


Mr. Pritchard said that he found since coming
into court the commissioners had changed their
report touching leasehold property. He wished to
Court might see what their rights were. ~ '"'


~, CoRPoRATIoN COUNSEL TO THE RESCUE.


Mr.. OGorman, Corporation Counsel, on behalf Of
the city, said that in public work of such great
magnitude 1t was source OF congratulation that so
little objection had been made. over thirty thou
sand lots had been taken for this Improvement.
and yet the directors were not two per cent Of
those interested. Very important duties devolved
on the Commissioners They were to some extent
q Court, jury and witnesses. Wnen such reports
came up It was the custom to regard them as the
verdict Of jury All the facts had been before
them. The values OF lots depended on various con-
tingencies II was not possible for the Court intel
hgibly to decide whether the values given were
c0rrect. AS to the area Of assessment this
was very wisely left to the Commissioners He read
the portion OF the act bearing on this point II was
aso he claimed set forth In the act that the Park
was TO be for the public use. He dwelt upon the
subject Of the utility of the improvement. This
Commission. II further proof was wanted he read
the published views Of the West Side Association.
He reviewed at length the points submitted by Mr..
Devlin. He urged that they were ingenious, but
untenable. AS to area OF assessment II left to the
dinerent parties assessed, there would be no as:
down to the improvement itself 1t had been urged
that there were four parks. There was only one
As to the failure To- Sn
property he claimed that the railroad companies
were not benefited, and therefore Justly exempt
sisted that the second Commission used the books
and maps OF the previous Commission, and that the
acts Of both Commissions were one proceeding. He
amendment. and with this, having finished
up his response to Mr.: Devlin, took
up the various objections OF other counsel.
consideration the importance OF arriving at a
speedy determination OF the matters submitted for
their consideration. Every days delay was OF
great consequence. The taxes were about being
settled for the year. Much delay would render an
entirely new proceeding necessary, and therefore he
united with the various learned gentlemen opposed
earliest attention.


Ex-Judge Strong followed in an argument defend
ing the action OF the Commissioners in reference to
the Hudson River Railroad track


At the conclusion Of MIR. Strong's remarks the
Court, having been in session nearly five hours,
viii probably give Its decision as to the connrma-
tion or otherwise OF the Commissioners report.