Year: 1876

TRANSIT


We have before condemned as frivolous anu
factious the pretexts under which suits are
! brought and injunctiOns obtained against the
projectors of the East River bridge ana the
several rapid transit railways. Suits against
the three projected roads in Third, Sixth, ana
Ninth avenues are still pending. They appear
to be, directly or indirectly, in the interests
of the rival hOrse-car corporations. Inc at
tempts to hold public meetings as protests on
the part of property owners or indignant
citizens have been failures. The popular
feeling is the other way. The people
generally desire rapid transit as growing
public necessity; and where it can be done
without violation of legal rights OF individuals
and existing corporations the courts VIII
doubtless recognize this popular demand. Two
suits against the New-YOrk Elevated Railway,
which built and is now rapidly extending the
Greenwich Street road, are based on COM
plaints that individual rights are violated ana
in consequence have received greater consd-
Grafton from the Judges than they deserve.


John Patten has obtained permanent IN
junction against the building of side track
in front of his hotel in Greenwich-st.; and j.
V. Spadcr has secured temporary injunction
prohibiting the proposed extension across the
Battery The first has been appealed to the
General Term, and the second is opposed on
the motion to continue the injunction. 1t Is
only necessary to examine the complaints III
these cases and. to contrast the alleged in
dividual damage with the public convenience
and advantage to be derived from the pro-
posedworks to show that the suits are vexatous.
L., ih.th Ia N.
street in front of his hotel are interfered with
by The laying OF the foundations of the road
not permanently injured, only temporarily in
terfered with. 1t is further alleged that his
hotel property is injured by the running OF
trains on the main track. Such lnconVeniences
arc of course always exaggerated, and are alb
surd when contrasted with the benefit to be
conferred upon the thousands of passengers by
the road. The injunction was continued on
the ground, among Others, that Patten owned
the property to the center OF tho street, and


that the interference with him was an IN
fringcment of his legal rights. The appeal Is
based in part on denial of Patterns claim.


The brief of Judge EmOtt for the Company
quotes the decd of Patten showing that
his limit is at the western side of the
street. Possibly Mr.. Patten may be entitled to
damages from the Company on other grounds,
but to conccde them on the claim that he OWLS
under and half across the street might make
tie city liable some day for laying its Croton
pipes above his vaults. Doubtless 1T Is an IN
convenience to him to have the work OF the
railway 90 on, but it - no greater than Wonld
follow the laying of water or gas pipes. Mr..
SpadeI's complaint is even less reasonable than
that of Mr. Pattcn. and is apparently brought
TO hamper and hinder rapid transit. lie as
serts no damages. His property does not front
on the proposed line. 1t is in side street, and
is used for business not dwelling purposes.
He alleges only breach of covenant on the
part of the city to maintain the Battery for
ever for public uses only. The reply of the
Company sets forth that the use of the Battery
by them is only license, not transfer,


revocable at will by the city, and claims that
! theirs is a public, not n private use of the
| Park.


! These do not seem to us to be sufficient
| grounds on which the courts ought to permit
| the obstruction of such important public i'm


provements as the rapid transit roads. This
! Greenwich-st. road especially has served


to solve the problem of quick travel from the


business quarters to the resident parts of the
| city. 1t is the pioneer project, which has


made superior ones now possible. The Company


has invested large sums of money in the con-


struction of the line. It's route was fixed by law,
| and its franchise, though at issue in this con-
| test, is believed to be good. The location Of


the projected siding in front of Mr.. Patterns
! hotel was Fixed by the Commissioners duly
! appoEted The authority to cross the Battery


proceeds from the Park Commissioners, in


whom the title Of all the public parks is


vested. and canROt seriously be brought in


issue by an individual but must be done, if
I at all, by action of the public authorities.
! With these facts admitted or proved the courts


wi hardly, if due consideration be given to


the public rights and demands, permit the


further obstruction of the improvements by
| these or similar ycXatiOus proceedings.


| of like character with these suits is that
! of A. B. Miller to restrain the completion of


the East River bridge Mr.. Miller is a ware


houscman doing business above the location


of the bridge, and he thinks it probable that


his special interest may be injured by the fact


that some of the larger vessels entering this


port cannot pass the bridge and discharge at


his stores without lowering their topmastS.
! He backs up his complaint by aildayits of


owners of dry docks and sbip-yards in his


nechborhood. All of these share his fears of


loss of trade. Each of them is thereupon


moved to swear, to the best of his knowledge


and belief, that, in his opinion the commerce


and navigation of Ncw-York will be greatly
| injured, ETC., etc 1t is amazing that enter
| pIises of such moment TO the future of the


metropolis should be delayed by such trivial


suits. Tho good faith of all these litigants


would have been better shown by a present