Слике страница
PDF
ePub
[ocr errors]

power to report complete, reported the same complete, which report was agreed to and said bill ordered to a third reading.

Mr. Andrews, fromthe committee on municipal affairs, to which was referred the bill entitled "An act to incorporate the Niagara Gas Light Company," with power to report complete, reported the same complete with amendments, which report was agreed to and said bill ordered engrossed for, a third reading.

Mr. Andrews, from the committee on municipal affairs, to which was referred the bill entitled "An act in relation to the offices of recorder, assessor, chamberlain, and city attorney of the city of Troy," with power to report complete, reported the same complete, which report was agreed to and said bill ordered engrossed for a third reading. • Mr. Andrews, from the committee on municipal affairs, to which was was referred the bill entitled "An act authorizing the common council of the city of Buffalo, to expend a certain amount for publication of the proceedings of the common council and city notices in a German newspaper," with power to report complete, reported the same complete, which report was agreed to and said bill ordered engrossed for a third reading.

Mr. Andrews, from the committee on municipal affairs, to which was referred the bill entitled "An act to provide for the sale of the poorhouse property belonging to the city of Syracuse," with power to report complete, reported the same complete, which report was agreed to and said bill ordered engrossed for a third reading.

Mr. Andrews, from the committee on municipal affairs, to which was referred the Assembly bill entitled “An act to incorporate the village of Holley,” with power to report complete, reported the same complete, which report was agreed to and said bill ordered to a tbird reading.

Mr. Andrews, from the committee on municipal affairs, to which was referred the Assembly bill entitled "An act to amend an act entitled 'An act to incorporate the village of Moravia, in the county of Cayuga, and to repeal existing laws incorporating said village,' passed March 15, 1859,'' with power to report complete, reported the same complete, which report was agreed to and said bill ordered to a third reading.

Mr. Andrews, from the committee on municipal affairs, to which was referred the Assembly bill entitled "An act to incorporate the village of Coxsackie,” with power to report complete, reported the same complete, which report was agreed to and said bill ordered to a third reading:

Mr. Andrews, from the committee on municipal affairs, to which was referred the Assembly bill entitled "An act to amend the charter of the village of New Rochelle," with power to report complete, reported the same complete, which report was agreed to and said bill ordered to a third reading.

A message from His Excellency the Governor, was received by the hands of his Private Secretary and read, in the words following:

State of New YORK—EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT,
ALBANY, March 26, 1867.

} To the Senate: I herewith return without my approval the bill entitled “An act to authorize the construction of a railroad in Christopher street and other streets and avenues in the city of New York.”

It is propused by this bill to create a railroad corporation by the name of the Crosstown Railroad Company," and to give it authority to construct and operate a railroad with a double or single track, commencing at the North river at the foot of Christopher street and thence along that street to Ninth street; along Niuth street to First avenue; along First [SENATE JOURNAL.)

63

[ocr errors]

avenue to East Tenth street; along East Tenth street to the East river, and thence returning through East Tenth street to West Tenth street, and along West Tenth street to Washington street, and along Washington street to Christopher street; thence to the place of beginning.

It also anthorizes the corporation created to construct another road commencing at the foot of Duane street, North river, and running through West street to Chambers street; along Chambers street to James Slip; along James Slip to Sonth street; along South street to the ferry at the foot of Catharine street; thence returning through South street to James Slip; along James Slip to Chambers street; along Chambers to Duane street, and thence along Duane street to the North river.

The bill also provides for the construction of a third railroad come mencing at the foot of Twenty-eighth street, North river, and along Twenty-eighth street to Second avenue; along Second avenne to Thirtyfourth street; along Thirty-fourth street to First avenue; thence returuing through Thirty-fourth street to Second avenne; along Second avenue to Twenty-ninth street; along Twenty-ninth street to Ninth avenue; along Ninth avenue to Twenty-eighth strect, and along Twenty-eighth street to the North river.

I have been thus particular in referring to the scope of the bill in respect to the territory which the corporation is empowered to appropriate to its own use, in order to call attention to the fact that the franchise granted is of very great magnitude, and that grave considerations are involved in the question whether such a bill should become a law.

Without considering the important interests to be affected by the proposed enactment, or the objections that are orged against legislation of this character, I should feel constrained to withhold my assent from the bill upon the ground that it is in conflict with article three, section sixteen of the Constitution, which provides that “no private or local bill which may be passed by the Legislature shall embrace more than one subject, and shall be expressed in the title."

As I understand the provisions of the bill under consideration, it provides for the construction of three distinct lines of railroad, in no way connected with each other; and, therefore, would seem to embrace three subjects instead of one, as enjoined by the Constitution; for it can hardly be claimed that three distinct railroads are one and the same thing, even if owned by one Corporation,

In addition to this, the sixth section of the act authorizes the proprietors of the Tenth street, Broadway and Eighth street line of stages

, to change their route, so as to allow them to run up Avenue C, two blocks to Twelfth street; through Twelfth street to Broadway, and through Broadway to connect with the old line of Eighth street. This provision is obviously a different subject than the construction of a railroad, and for this reason the bill is obnoxious to the section of the Constitution to which I have referred.

Doubtless, the policy in confining the contents of a local or private bill to one subject, was to prevent combination of diverse interests; also, that the title of the bill must express the object, was obviously to attract the attention of all parties interested to the proposed measure, to the end that any objections which might be deemed tenable, could be made known to the Legislature, and thus prevent the infliction of an injury to the rights of any private party, or to the interest of any locality.

It is entirely clear that the title of this bill does not, in any essential degree, disclose or indicate the character of its provisions. It purports to be "An act to authorize the construction of a railroad in Christopher

street and other streets and avenues of the city of New York," and it confers authority to construct at least three railroads, and for the transfer of a line of stages from the streets they now pass over, to others in which they have hitherto possessed no rights. If this bill can be sustained, it would be equally valid if it authorized the construction of a railroad in every street and avenue in the city of New York. It is hardly possible to see what objections may exist to the transfer of a line of stages from Tenth street to avenue C, Twelfth street and Broadway, and it is quite probable that no person immediately interested in those streets had notice of this intended enactment. Certainly the title of the bill does not convey the slightest intimation that it was the purpose to interfere with any of the established stage routes in the city. "Nor from the title would any of the residents or owners of property on Ninth street, Tenth street, Washington street, Duane street, Chambers street, Twenty-eighth, Twenty-ninth, and the other streets and avenues named in the bill,—not including Christopher street-have any definite understanding that it was the purpose to construct a railroad over those particular thoroughfares. I am clearly of the opinion that, regarding my constitutional duty, I should not approve of this bill for the reasons already assigned.

I cannot, however, omit to mention some other features of this bill, which in my judgment are open to grave objections.

There is no provision fixing the amount of the capital stock to be issued; for the payment in of any capital stock, nor for the duration of the corporation. The company is not required before commencing operations to raise one dollar of money, or give any evidence whatever that it is intended in good faith to construct and operate the road. There is, therefore, no provision affording any security for the creditors of the company, or to those who may sustain any injury by its operations; and there is no personal liability upon its corporators or stockholders. It would seem to be reasonable that an act conferring a franchise so important and extensive, and granting power to exercise the right of eminent domain, should contain some provision for the security and protection of creditors, even if it did not seem practicable to so provide in respect to those who may sustain injury by reason of the construction of the road.

It will not be inferred that I question the great pecuniary value of the franchise proposed to be granted. Its value, however, does not obviate the importance of guarding enactments of this character with all the restrictions and conditions which are usually deemed essential to the protection of the public interests and the rights of the individual citizen. In a former message relating to New York city railroad grants, I referred to their admitted value, and suggested that the public treasury should therefore be benefited by the gains accruing from these gifts. If this object is sought to be carried out in the bill under consideration, I must think the provision very indefinite, and possibly wholly inadequate.

“And said company shall pay five per cent of the net receipts of the company to the city for each car run thereon," is the language of the second section. If the purpose and scope of this requirement should be understood by anybody, the time for payment, the manner, and under what form of accounting or statement, will still remain unexplained by anything contained in the bill.

The various provisions confer very extensive powers upon the corporation in respect to entering upon streets and taking property for the purposes of the company, and the restrictions in the bill are very few. It is true that the second section directs that the running of roads shall be subject to such reasonable rules and regulations as the common council of the city of New York may from time to time prescribe; but the fourth section perpetually enjoins the corporation of the city from allow. ing any other railroad to be constructed upon the streets and avenues named, " or from doing any other act to hinder, delay or obstruct the construction or operation of said railroads.” Furthermore, the city corporation is commanded to give its aid to the railroad company; to promote the construction and protect the operation of said railroads, and any act or thing done in violation thereof shall be void. I cannot doubt that the provisions of this section confer upon the railroad company the entire control of the streets and avenues named, at least, during the construction of the road, and the corporation of the city is forbidden to do anything that shall interfere with or impede their operations. In fact, the corporation of the city is excluded from all police government over the streets, if it shall interfere with or in any way impede the operations of the company.

The owners of property on the streets, or those having peculiar interests in them, and the citizens generally, are left, as it appears to without adequate protection against the possible annoyances of the acts and conduct of those who, it may be, are stimulated to an equal or greater degree by the hope of private gain, than the discharge of a public duty, and who may not at all times be entirely careful to respect and protect interests which may come in collision with their own.

The important interests involved in every such extensive grant of a railroad franchise, require the most careful and attentive consideration.

The city of New York bas grown to such magnitude, its interests are do various and complicated, that in respect to its streets and avenues, it is not easy to see what policy is the best adapted to subserve the convenience of the public, and at the same time protect the rights of private individuals, when stern public wants demand innovation. It follows, of course, that mere private interests must yield. Yet, they are nevertheJess to be respected, and it is perhaps not too much to say, that as a general rule, the views of the owners of property upon streets and avepues should have great weight in determining whether a given street should be converted into a railroad track for the use of a private corporation, or preserved open and free to all clases of vehicles, in accordance with the theory of its original dedication to public use. . As before remarked, private interests must, give away to the public necessities, but it rarely happens that a community thus situated and thus interested, array themselves in unbroken opposition to a just and needed public undertaking. In the case under consideration, no petition has been presented in its favor, while large numbers of remonstrances have been made by the owners of property along the proposed routes, and by other citizens residing in the city of New York. 'In fact, from my information, the opposition along the streets and avenues designated in the bill, is almost unanimous.

It has been held by the court of last resort that the running of a railroad upon the 'streets of a city is not a use of it contemplated when originally dedicated as a public highway. It is probable that this rule is not altogether applicable to the city of New York; but I regard it as just in cases where a public thoroughfare is, by a special act, to be converted to purposes not originally contemplated; that provision shall be

made as far as practicable, for the protection of rights which may be . directly invaded by any operation deemed essential to public convenience. At least, it has seemned to me that some general law could be safely and judiciously enacted, with proper safeguards to protect the public, placing this subject it may be, in the hands of proper local authorities, to bestow

[ocr errors]

grants and franchises of this description, in such manner as would canse the least injury to individual rights and a fair return to the treasury for the privilege enjoyed.

I always regret to be obliged to differ with the Legislature, but upon careful examination I do not find that the bill before me is framed upon the general principles I have indicated, or indeed, that particular attention has been paid to interests that may be largely affected by it. I, therefore, respectfully return the bill for your further consideration.

R. E. FENTON. Mr. H. C. Murphy moved that the message do lie upon the table.

The President put the question whether the Senate would agree to said motion to lay on the table, and it was decided in the affirmative.

Mr. Andrews, from the committee on municipal affairs, to which was referred the Assembly bill entitled "An act to enlarge the powers of the trustees of the village of Wellsville, relative to fire limits and obstructions in the streets," with power to report complete, reported the same complete, which report was agreed to, and said bill ordered to a third reading

Mr. Andrews, from the committee on municipal affairs, to which was referred the Assembly bill entitled "An act to incorporate the Alert Hose Company of the city of Rochester," with power to report complete, reported the same complete, which report was agreed to and said bill ordered to a third reading.

Mr. Barnett, from the committee on charitable and religious societies, to which was referred the Assembly bill entitled “An act to authorize the trustees of the Watervliet Cemetery Association to tax the lots in said cemetery," with power to report complete, reported the same complete, which report was agreed to and said bill ordered to a third reading.

Mr. Barnett, from the committee on charitable and religious societies, to which was referred the Assembly bill entitled “An act to authorize George H. Brinkerhoff, David Tompkins and Cornelius D. Dewitt, to sell and convey as trustees, the church property of the True Reformed Dutch Church of Owasco, in the county of Cayuga," with power to report complete, reported the same complete, which report was agreed to and said bill ordered to a third reading.

Mr. Humphrey, from the committee on roads and bridges, to which was referred the Assembly bill entitled "An act to amend an act entitled ‘An act to incorporate the International Bridge Company,' passed April 14, 1857, and the acts amendatory thereof," reported in favor of the passage of the same.

On motion of Mr. Bennett and by unanimous consent, the rule was suspended, and said bill recommitted to the committee to report complete.

Mr. Humphrey, from the committee on roads and bridges, to which was referred the Assembly bill entitled "Au act to authorize the construction of a bridge over Mill creek, in the town of Dix,” with power to report complete, reported the same complete, which report was agreed to and said bill ordered to a third reading.

Mr. Humphrey, from the committee on roads and bridges, to which was referred the Assembly bill entitled "An act to extend the powers of the commissioners appointed by an act entitled 'An act to authorize the town of Yonkers to improve Riverdale avenue from Yonkers to Kingsbridge,' passed April 6, 1865," reported in favor of the passage of the same, and said bill was committed to the committee of the whole.

Mr. Gibson, froin the committee on the judiciary, to which was referred the bill entitled "An act for the relief of Alfred M. Wood, late collector

« ПретходнаНастави »