ND BUILDERS' GUIDE
NEYv^ YOlilv, SATUIIDAY, JULY 27, LS72.
Published Weekly by
THE HEAL ESTATE RECORD ASSOCIATION.
One j'oar, in advance......................§G 00
All cominuiiications should be addressed to
C. "VvT. SWjEEIT.
•7 AND 9 WAIIHEX Stiikict.
No receipt for money duo the RE.VTi Est.VTK Record
will be aoknowlcdged unless signed by one of onr regular
collectors, Hk.n'RV D. S.MiTil or TnoJlAS P. Gujni[NGS.
All bills for collection will be .sent from the office on a regu¬
larly printed form.
Mit. Conrad Boller has just moved into the spacious
building recently erected on We.st Twonfcy-third street, be¬
tween Sixth and Soventli avenues. His larire, elegant and
varied stock of furniture has been increased commensur-
alel3' with his greater space and additional facilities.
THE RIVESSIDE PAESS,
The Eiverside Parks question, whicli has agi¬
tated the minds of property-holders for four
years, was again, on Tuesday last, before the Su¬
preme Court on a motion to confirm the report
of the Commissioners of Assessment. Mr.
O'Gorman, on behalf of the Corporation, called
attention to' the fact that great delay had al¬
ready taken ""place in this important matter, in
consequence of which great pecuniary loss had
resulted both to the Corporation and to proper¬
ty-holders whose interests were at stake. Out
of 30j000 lots affected by the assessment, not
two per cent, of the owners had appeared to
oppose the confirmauion of this report.
Mr. JohnE. DevlLa, on behalf of fif by proper¬
ty-holders, presented objections, stating that
the proceedings were irregular in relation to
the whole matter from the very beginning, that
the act of 1867, giving the Commissioners title
was uncon.stitutional aud void ; that the Legis¬
lature cannot delegate the power of domain
unless it is clearly .and unmistakably declared
in the law authorizing the proceedings;" that
the park is to be for public use ; that the
park being public is not evidence that it is
for public use, c. g., Bowling Green, Beach
stxeet triangle, and the Canal street park;
that the arc of assessment was" unreasonably
extended to property a mile distant from the
northern and southern extremities; that there
were four parks, as stated by the Commission¬
ers themselves, though some were not separated
by a greater space than the width of an av¬
enue, as in the case of the Central Park and
Manhattan, square, and it was unlawful and
unprecedented to consider more than one public
park ia the same proceeding ; that these parks,
being so near to the Central Park, were unne¬
cessary, and that, as the Central Park occupied
ground oh which 100,000 people could live, and
these parks would exclude about 30,000 people,
and the extent of the.island was so limited that
the city could not spare the space; that the
Commissioners had not complied with the law
appointing them, as they had not evidently
used their judgment in the consideration of the
matter of assessment as required, but had
adopted the area of assessment that was fixed
upon by the former Commission, and they had i
failed to acquire that part of the park now oc¬
cupied by the Hudson River Railroad Company
— a strip nearly three miles long and sixty-six
feet wide—nor had they assessed that part of
the same road which was within the present
area of assessment; that they erred in exclud¬
ing in their estimate of expense the costs and
proceedings of tho first Board of Commissioners.
The appointment of Commissioners by the
General Term, when deciding the appeal from
"the order of the Special Term, confirming the
first rejjort, Mr, Devlin claimed to be unauthor¬
ized and void.
The gentlemen presenting a report were
therefore without authority, and their so-called
report was worthless. Since the adoption of
the Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution
of the "United States, it was illegal to take pri¬
vate property for public purposes upon the ap¬
praisal of commissioners ; the value of property
so taken must be ascertained by a jury.
In conclusion, Mr. Devlin contended that it
was illegal to take private property for public
purposes without due process of law. He
therefore asked that the report be not confirmed,
but sent back to the Commissioners.
H. H. Anderson presented one objection to
the report on behalf of the estate of Jacob Har-
seno, which he claimed was assessed erroneous¬
ly. The lots fronting on the Park in Seventy-
second street, and those in the rear having no
connection with it, were assessed in the same
amount, although by no means benefited to the
same extent. He asked that the report be sent
back for correction in this respect.
Mr. Delafield appeared for Mc. Sutphen,
who owned property west of Twelfth avenue,
between Seventy-second and Seventy-third
streets, assessed $1,94^5, being the only piece
which had been assessed at all on that luae.
He thought the Commissioners had made a mis¬
take, and desired to caU the attention of the
court to the fact.
S. E. Church, a large property owner, asked
that the report be confirmed immediately. He
said that he was assessed on twenty-one lots
$1,000 more than any one else ; and if another
year passed by he would be assessed $1,000
more. The property owners lost $5,000,000 by
the delay in confirmation of the rexsort, and he
had been out of pocket a large amount, being
unable to build or sell, or do anything with his
J. M. Davis appeared for property-owners in
One Hundred and Fifteenth street and Twelfth
avenue, which was not used as a street. He
claiined that he should be allowed for the land
taken as far as the middle of what would have
been Twelfth avenue, if laid out, but he was
only allowed to the line of the sidewalk.
Mr. O'Gorman in reply said he thought it a
fair subject of congratulation to the court, the
legal representatives of the city and certainly
to the Commissioners in this case, that in a
pubHc work of so great magnitude, affecting
so many and so important interests, so few objec¬
tions have been made. Not two per cent, of all
those who have been assessed or affected by this
proceeding were represented as objecting to the
Thh'ty thousand lots and more had been taken
for this imi^rovement; and yet the court saw
that the number of objections were exceeding¬
ly small. Mr. O'Gorman proceeded to notice
the several objections made by Mr. Devlin and
those who followed him, claiming that they
were entirely invalid, as to the statement that
the area of assessment of the two sets of Com¬
missioners were identical.
Mr. O'Gorman denied that this was the case.
As to the road-bed of the railroad not having
been taken, he said that the judges of the Gen¬
eral Term, who had set aside the first report,
expressed the con\dction that it could not legal¬
ly be done, though the report wc^s set a.side on
other grounds. The railway should not be as¬
sessed, because it received no benefit. It held
its lands for a specific-use.
As to the objection that the expenses of the
former Commissioners were included iu the
present assessment, Mr. O'Gorman said that
the second Commissioners made use, as a mat¬
ter of necessity, of the labors of the former
Commissioners, and had all the advantage of
it. Under these circumstances the Commis¬
sioners proi)erly decided that the expenses in¬
curred, by which they benefited, should be
Mr. O'Gorman scouted the idea that the Fif¬
teenth Amendment had any applicability to
questions arising in this case. The "due pro¬
cess of laviT" words in the Amendment could
not be construed to mean trial by jury.
In conclusion he requested the court to take
into consideration the impoii;ance of a speedy
decision. Every day's delay was of great con¬
sequence. The taxes were about being settled
for the year. Much delay would render an
entirely new proceeding almcst necessary, and
therefore he followed the gentleman who rep¬
resented the three clients in asking on the part
of the citizens of New York, that the court
give this matter its earliest attention, and let
the public know what was the result of this
Ex-Judge Strong spoke in favor of the ac¬
tion of the Commissioners in reference to tho
roadway of the Hudson River Railroad.
The court then adjourned to the 3d of Au¬
gust, at 13 o'clock.
NElSr TO UK.
20 JBkoad ST., AV. s. (Nos. 10 & 18).
James Mulry agt. N. Y. Stock Ex¬
23 BnoADWAY, E. s. (N'o. SIO). Wooii-
ward Steam Pump Mfg. Co. agt.
Edward T. Pviley........,........ 1 ,.513 18
23 Chambers st., s. *s. (No. 32). Hkn-
ry V. Mandeville and Hii'ani Sigler
agt. John Doe.................... 2,77.5 09
22 Eighth st., n. s. (No. 27). John
H. Keyser agt. Anna C. Sherlock. 9.v5 .59
24 East Bkoapwat, s. s. (No. 183).
Edward Hall agt. S. Barnetfc...... 77 25
IS PlETY-THIUD ST., S. S. (NO. 44G W.).
G. & W. Crawford agt. Patrick
Corcoran......................... 280 93
Fifty-fourth st., s. s., 5 houses")
H J, running w. 4th av..............j
Fourth av., w. s., 2 houses kun- C
ning-s. .54th st..................;
John Sullivan agt. Nicholas L. De-
marest............................ 5G0 00
20 First av. and UOth st., n. w. cok.,
. 2.5x100. Samuel P. Westervelt agt.
. Charles Tritclien......;.......... 803 00
20 First av., w. s., extending from
109th to 110th St., and 150 ft. on
each street. Thain & Buchanan
agt. iffiram Moore.,.............. 3,000 00