The New York Herald Newspaper, February 28, 1853, Page 2

CIFY AFFAIRS, Highly Im sot Pres of the Grand | eae ot New York—Pwo of the Aldermen Indicted, dke., &e- | ons, on Saturday morning, before Re In the Court eorder Lillow and Aldermen Wesley Smith, of ihe Elevent!s ward, and James M. Bard, of the Fourteenth ward, the | Grand Jory announced, through one of the officers, that they were ready to close their business for the term, and | wished ty be beard. The Recorder seut them word the Court was ready to receive them. Grand | t appeared, and Mr, Erben, tl Dan, presented several bills cf indictment to t a his a then etated t he he quest, which he req) ment w by Grand might bo rend) le The Recorder handed the functionary po t excitement was manifested by the people pumber present, antici pat to be made. Among the indictments pr in court, there being @ lar; @ disclosures that were | ‘two bills against the very A ns! ¢ on the bench and this extraordinary coincidence teuded to increase the excitement. | ‘Me following iss copy of the document presented by ‘the Grand Jury — THE PRESYNTMENT. ‘The Grand Jury, in closing their deliberations for the February term of the Court of General Sessions, respect- fully present to the Court the result ef their labors. In | the charge of the Recorder, at the commencement of the term, the attention of the Grand Jury was called to va- rious public allegations of fraud, corruption, and mal- practices, on the part of public officers connected with the city government: and this body was officially charged with the duty of investigating the subject. Having dis- posed of the cases of persons under confinement eharged with orimes, the Grand Jury, ai the earliest possible mo ment, proceeded to the discharge of the duty devolved upon them. From that time they have been daily en- ~ gaged in the investigation; and, while they regret that the termination of the term of the court prevents a fuller confirmation of their labors, they trust that their exer- | tions, as presented in this report, have not been without | Deneficial results. | Many witnesses have been summoned, some of whom | having been regularly and personally subpaned have | neglected to obey the process of the Court; and from the | testimony had before the jury, independent of that with- held by the yoluntary absence of the witnesses re- | ferred to, ,the moral conviction bas been irresistibly | forced upon the minds of the Grand Jury, that gross and stupendous frands, andewilfal violations of their offi ial duties, have been perpetrated on the p: members of the heads of departments and the Common Council, an indictment for which, against individual mem bers has, they have reason to believe, been prevented by their wilful disobedience of theprocess of the Court, on the +t of those absent witnesses. Other witnesses who we been examined, have refused to answer: and the ‘want of a necessary power to enforce the proper answers as been fully felt, and toa certain extent has succeeded | im preventing final action in certain cases. Enough, h ever, bas been elicited from the lips, mainly of unwi witnesses, to warrant the conclusions herein embogi and to sustain the facts here presented, It is a painful and mortifying reflection that the Gran’ Inquest of the ity and county aré official obligations, and fellow citizens, elled, by n regard to their sworn duty which they owe to their Prevent before the community a state the moral and official integrity of high aries, and of star enormity, ‘They ve, however, no alternative—the evidenee warrants it, uty enjoins it, and the law commands it. | investigations of the Grand Jury were mainly dl- | reeted to charges of alleged malversation in office. First—The grant of public property, rea! and personal, | foreman of the grand jury, aud inquired of bim, first— | not a jot nor tittle of such proof bad been elicited in re- | sulted in nothing impeaching | any body in connection with that case. | was said in the presentment of the grand | witnesses failing to attend or to answer, | only witness called in reference to it, who did not attend, | THE BROADWAY RAILROAD CASE, | AKGUMEN? OF EX-CHIBF JUSTICE JONES ON BEHALF ‘of various upon them, and with the full knowledge of the c: | license,in our own wrong, by reason of the injunction pt is a meeps ghey | their aid to enforce injunctions from chancery; nor | the course of to different parties for alleged inadequate and improper | considerations. ‘Seeond—Charges of direct bribery and corruption on the part of public officers. Third—Alleged violations of the 19th and 25th see! of the City Charter. Fourth—Improper and corrupt legislation in regard to certain railroad grants. ‘Lastly—General andumyrovident waste and expenditure of public money. the first head, various witnesses were called and examined, the result of whose testimony was, that in the month of mer last, a resolution was referred to the Commissioners of the Sinking Fund, directing them to fix ons 8 price for certain property, known as the Gansevoort | street property. That, after various motions for publi- cation of the proposed sale, and for determining an ade, po price by public competition, had heen put and lost, property wad fiually determined to be +old to Reuben Lovejoy for the sum of $160,000, $40,000 to he paid in wash, and the balanee to be secured by a mortgage on yhe roperty. That Mr. Lovejoy’s prope be written communtestio: effect that if the grant he would take the deed, iy execute the mor rt, wes executed to and by Mr. Draper, the latter of which is record in the Comptroller's olfice, duly acknowledged the 28th December; that a mortgage was also executed Mr. Draper, which is on record in the Register’s ; and so far, the transaction, independent of the fact that Mr. Draper was one of the Governors of the Al Bouse, and by implication embraced within the fourteenth | section of the city charter, was closed. It, however, farther appeared t another deed of the same proper te the 27th December, and acknowledged on t 0th December, was executed to and for Mr. Vernum— the latter of which is on record in the Comptreller's ‘office—and against the deed executed by Mr. Draper was written in the margin, “Cancelled Dec. —, 1852.’ This can- | eellation was proved by Mr. Laurenee, a former elerk in the Comptrolier’s office, to be in his hanwriting, and to bave been done by direction of the former Corpora tion Counsel, Henry KE. Davies. There was no evidence to show the sanction of the Commis+ioners of the “inking Fund to this change and cancellation, aml no memoran dum on their minutes, of such proceedings. There does not appear to be any miortgage on record from Mr. Var- num; and the only apparent security to the city fund seems to be the gage from Mr. Draper, while the conveyance to himself is cancelled, and he has executed @ quit claim deed to Mr. Varnum, who would thus seem toenjoy a complete title, free from incumbrance. Byvi- was given tending to show that $225,000 would Ahave been given by another applicant, and $500,000 by an applicant who dosired the same property, and that notice to that effect was give ious to the sale, to ‘the Mayor and Comptrotl iti din, im- te any improper motives c fore of the Sinking Fund. to 8a; 1 pul Bie cancellat me gere. «It? was further. proven, that in ret: the water-right in front of the bulk: ‘the foot of mond street, ed to Arthur Quinn— titled to the preemption ‘the grant—that, tindin, to Alderman Sturtevant, 0 ed $2,000 for that purpose—that $1,000 was which was refused, upon the ground that Alde would have to divide, and that there would be nothing eft for him, and that Mr. Quinn was obliged to «ell, and did sell, his interest in the upland toa third party. It was further shown before the Grand Ju sum of $500 was paid by Mr. Thomas P. Stan derman James M. Rard, of tho Fourteenth ward, for and towards the prevention of any interference with certain existing privileges at the th side of Wall strest. It was further proved that in the yemr 1861, Dr. Cockroft made application for the Catherine street ferry, and af- ter the grant had passed Board of Alderiaen, and was sent to the Bord of A of the Eleventh ward, then esistant Alderman, = the sum of $500 towards the furthering of a fav able action in the Board of Assistantr, upon said grant; and that after the pavsage of the grant, Dr. Cockroft was eailed upon by Assistant Alderman W. ‘Smith for haste—s want of proper t of judgment—in the d sale, deserving of disapprobation;and that ion of the record was a wanton assumptioa n to the sale of 000, flor effecting the passage of the grant whic Doctor Cockroft refused to pay. Tt was clearly shown that enormous sume of money have been ex) i towards the nrement of railroad grants in the city, and that tow the decision and procurement of the Eighth avenue railroad grant, a sum eo large that would startle the most credulous, wax ded ; but in consequence of the voluntary absence of important witnesses, the Grand Jury waa left without @irect testimony of the paiticular recipieuts of tho | @ifferent amounts. In the «pring of 1852, a resolution was offered in the Common Council to reduce the fees of the Coroner. Alder- aan W. Smith called on the Coroner and agreed to sup: prew She 10 lution for the sum of $250, to be paid upon | Teceipt of his quarterly report he Coroner has paid | $200 of said atuount. To get gt Dill on the 40th September, Aide: d@erman Barr, of the Sixth ward, the bill. Mr. Thomas P. Stanton testified that be paid $500to | Alderman James M. Bard, for she «wp port of the leasing of the pier south the year 1551. Doctor Wm. Cockroft testifies that for the Catherine street ferry; and the Board of Aldermen stants for concurrence, he n Smith said that Al grant had | could not get a favorable report from the tants without pe ying $600—which he paid. Afvort nage of the noma he was calied upon. several times by Assistant Alderman Smith, who demanded $3,009, leas the | discount, for effecting the grant, which he refused to pay. Mr. George C. Byrne testified that he leased from the Corporation the south half of the pier foot of Jay street. To procure that lease, he said that he had promised to | py a metwber of the Board of Assistant Aldermen money (pepe such grant; he refused to answer to whom. | is in evidence before the Grand Inquest, that in the Bease of a part of pier foot of Jay stgeot, $1,700 was | agreed to be paid a member of the Common Council. The individual could not be reached by the refusa! of to answer tho Coe gay proponuded Having examined by commitice ‘ond theatres, wo find some of t ; the prop: asis- | public bnildings | er limited in thelr ingress and having been notified, ot joo to shake 5 aiterations as will obviate iy: oi Aone od to look _ the law regulating | wollings, stores, Ke. "We Gnd if necessary 16 call’ the the attention of Fire | ‘other public officers, to the present mode of | houses. There are in many parts of the | Sih Say wont ‘of from five to seven storice high, | = half to three feet entrances, with | one Simabiane shoghd takeg running up in ‘sr a to to six families upon cach floor; on the lower feor of the house, i theinnaies of the upper stories must. be subjected to reat lose of life, and personal i mere HENRY ERBEN, Foreman, TuwovoRre MAKIN | Sooretaries, Geo. I. br James Bugle Preston. Hitehoock, Ww . Comely, Heratio N, Wild, Je eit, Jr. John §. Hadley, Joh M. HL Understil!, J : Joba Deahatn W. D. Kennedy, Patrick Garrick | John M. Griffith, Danie! Hogencamp, C. ¥. B. Ostrander Mr. Frben, the foreman, said that the Grand Jury | wished the Recorder to have the investigation continued by himself, nat he should send for witnesses who had absented (1 s from the Grand Jury, and elicit them, | that he woald do so, and he | r labor in this matter, nity at large would also feel hiarged the Grand Jury. The Broadway Rallroad and the Grand Jury. We are requested by a gentleman connected with the Broadway Railroad Association to say :— That be called last evening on Mr. Henry Erben, the whether apy evidence iad appeared, in the investigations of that body, impeaching the honesty of the Broadway | Railroad grant, or the integrity of any of the gra of any member of the Common Council, in 1 and, secondly, whether any witne supposed to be able to give any testimony in relation to the said grant, had failed to ‘appear when called upon, or had refused ‘to answer when examined. And that Mr. Erben answered to the first inquiry, that gard (o that grant; that a bushel basketful of letters and | charges, with names or anonymous, had been sent to the grand jury, suggesting questions and witnesses to be called on, in relation to various subjects and parties, but | that, as regarded the Broadway Railroad grant, they re- | © honor or integrity of | And that to the second inquiry, he answered that what jury, respecting no applica: tion to any witnesses called in reference to that case, the | being Mr. Haight. Supreme Co OF THE GRANTBES, Before Judges Edwards, Morris and Strong. Fes. 23.—John Milhaw and others vs. Jacob Sharp and others. _ This was an action upon a promissory note; but in the course of that cause came up this’ state of acts: that a certain party had made a voluptary assign- | ment of all his effects for the benefit of creditors, and there was an injunction obtained,on a_ bill tiled against him and the assignees, restraining them from collecting or recei De any of the debts. The ques- ‘ion arose upon the validity of that payment, and the injunction cnjoined the assignees from receiving or | collecting any of the debts. They, however, re- ceived this debt after the service of that injunction | tors, ‘The opinion was given by Chief Justice Ne | son, and he says—‘“The only question in the case is, | whether the payment of the note is to be regarded as having been made by the defendant in his own wrong, by reason of the injunction restraining the | ayees from collecting or receiving the debts due.”” | recisely as here, whether we receive this grant or ar knowledge of the ex- he Judge goes on to say— courts of law will not lend against granting it, an istence of that injuncti “it is a general rule tl do they ordinarily take any notice of sach writs in | proceedings in suits at law. The case | of Burt vs. Mapes, (1 Hill, 649,) is an authority to | show, that, if the payers of the note in question had | instituted a suit in this court against the defendant, | we should not have received the facts now set up, to | avoid the effect of the payment, in bar of the action; | and I donot see, therefore, how we can consi | | tion had of last resort. : the practice of the ral Ls org | the court of which I was thena member to restrain or | | and ifthere be any it must be some one in | tionably are afterwards examinable, for whoever un- | not vote at all.” Tt is the act of voting—it is the act of | | of legislating for the community for which they act, itent- ly say that yen was not wellmade. We should | have ‘lowed t e plaintiffs to go on with the suit, and left the Court of Chancery to deal with them as | it saw fit, under the particular circuinstances of the | case. That court might have excused the act, and | | overlooked the breach of its process; at all events, we | do not assume the office of determining what shall or shall not be the effect or consequences ofsuch a breach | of its process. It is enough that the Court of | Chancery possesses ample power to punish any un- warrantable interference with a violation of its man- | dates, and does not need the aid of this court. The aggrieved party has yet an opportunity to reach the assignees, and may be remunerated for all his dam- ages, by the infliction of proper fines, if the case be | one which, in the ordinary course of proceedings, | and in the exercise of a sound disere be | regarded as demanding the interferene of Chancery. In Booth ys. Mott, (1 Salk. aside an ex " iration of ayer, t + 4 setre facias; and this, though the ptatositf’ | had been tied up by an injunction issued on the | ndant’s application. The court said they could not take notice of chancery injunctions. In Mitchell | vy. Cue, (2 Burr, 660.) the judges refused to set aside | an execution under like circumstances; not, however, | on the ground that the court was bound to notice the | | injunction, but for the reason that the party should | not be allowed to take advantage of his own act in | delaying the plaintiff. In Gorton y. Dyson, (1 Brod. | and Bing of a cause, notwithstanding an injunction in the Court of Exchequer against ail further proceedings | in the C. B. And I observe, also, that in Franklin | y. Thomas, (3 Meriy., 234,) it was said to have been | the opinion of Lord Thurlow that where an injuac- tion is obtained, even after execution levied, though it is a breach of ié (orthe party to call upon the she- riff to pay oyer the money, yet, if he voluntarily pay, it is no breach of the injunction to receive it. Lord El- don thought that in such a case the person receiving the money could be ordered to pay it into conrt. In the case before us, the defendant was not made a par- ty, nor was he enjoined; and it would seem, from the doctrine of Lord Thurlow, that the payment by the defendant would, even in the Court of Chancery, be a discharge of the debt. Unless we are bound by some settled principle of law to take notice of this | injunction, (and [ think we are not,) it will certainly lead to amore just and equitable arrangement, in respect to all parties concerned, for the plaintiffs to appeal to the tribunal whose process has heen disre- garded. It seems that the money has been, in fact, ap- plied in payment ofa debt due from Hempsted to K er, to whose estate the note belonged, and if the defend- ant should now be held accountable for the money, this consideration might go to mitigate his loss, Again, possibly the Court of Chancery would be dis. posed to follow out the idea of Lord Fldon, and call upon the Clinton Bank for the whole or a part of the money. The powers of thut court over all the parties | concerned in the payment and receipt of the money, upon the note in question, are much more ample atid extensive than those possessed by courts at law. In the exercise of those powers, the former court would be enabled to bring out ore full developement of the circumstances connected with the whole matter than can possibly be done here. It raight, perhaps, regard the trifling sum for which the note was held . Those considerations should induce estion of a breach of the injunction, and its effect, to the exclusive cognizance of the Court of Chancery. | am of opinion, therefore, as well upon the fitness and propriety of the thing as upon authority, that we cannot take notice of the in- junction, and, conse: , that a valid payment of the note wus established. The report of the reference must be set aside, costa to abide the event.” | But I was proceeding to observe, that in this case we apprehend thet this injunction, if it was intended to operate, and could by the terms of it operate, if valid, upon the two Bourds of the Common Council, if their action upon this resolution was unauthorized, that that court bad no jurisdiction to issue it, this proposition rests npon these grounds: that this rezo- | intion, then pending before that Common Council, | was a legislative act, and that no jndici: i h jurisdiction to interfere with the pas gislative act before a legislative body. Th ever, another view of that part of it which y be proper to submit to the Conrt before particularly con | sidering the one that I have just suggested. The ort on the Coroner's | for any pu ated £100 to report | tiog from a court of equit | mandamus, in case they re , | court which has the supe: | all inferior jurisdictions, except itself, within that nate application | State? Is it not, if they transcend their power, ‘he | Camus from this court of Common Council is a public organized body, inveat- ed with particular powers for public purposes. Jf, in the exercise of those powers, for those purposes, or use, they exceed their jactohioon, how restrained? Js it by writ of injune- Or is it not by writ of going on, or writ of to go on, from the intendence in the State of are they to prohibition, in case they ar or if they act in contravention to their autho- rity, and refuse to do the act which the court May suppose they ought to do, is it not by man- 5 1 eneral superintend- ent jurisdiction to command them to do that act? if, for abuse of power, I ask, can it be possible that ;@ court—that a body invested with legislative pow- itnesses | their legist | he affected, by injunction from a court of equity; but | discretion, does er and general disctetion—can be called to account by a court of equity, by a writ of injanctien, in- quiring into their motives and conduct, and impeach- ing them as guilty of a ch of trust? T believe that you may search the whole records of the Eng- | lish courts of justice, and you will never find such a case. Acts are. thercfore, done under the authority | of this legislative or discretionary power. Their agents or servants are those who attempt to carry tion into effect, and are affected, and may the passage of the act itself—the exercise of the le- gislative ag ag 2 or the proper exercise of the legal ot belong to a court of equity to correct or to inquire into; and that subject, so far as it relates to discretion-the Court will remember, em- braces ers of all descrtptions, whether legislative, jndicial, or executive. It embraced the case of Pre- sident Madison, who was authorized to call out the militia in a certain case; it embraced the case of | that very Superior Court assuming to issue its writ | ns of mandamns to the Supreme who had granted | & new trial ina certain case, them to re- verse that new trial pad give jad, The quer | Jersey claiming that the considered, and it went to the court It had been said that this has been Supreme Court, under their gene. its been rintending ponera over jurisdiction, from tion, aud their constant practice to inter in cases of new trial, and to say to the court bew e judged wrong, gentlemen; this is not a Hud no right to grant i it: “You ha case for a new trial, and you But upon an examination of the whole tacts, and an ex- | ac hibition of aut before the court,they came to the conclusion that that Supreme Court, invested with ail | the supreme and superintending powers that it cer- tainly does possess, yet had not that power vested in them. You can send to such a court—say the court f last resort—commanding them to give a judgment, ey refuse to do so, but you cannot direct them what judgment they are to give. That is entirely in | their own diseretion. Thatisa thing we are to judge of and not you. Mr. Van Buren—Will you please produce sou authorities upon this point ? Ex-Chief Justice Jones—With regard to the ques | tion put to me by the learned counsel on the opposite | side, I can only ‘say, that I have not instituted an ex- | amination fully upon the facts, but I have no doubt | that such cases do exis, and may readily be found. | I recollect perfectly having occasion once to examine that mibject somewhat, upon an application made to | prohibit that court from admitting a certain alder- man, who was alleged to have been unduly elected; and upon that occasion counsel of the first eminence | at the bar did maintain the Vay eeoged and did offer some pretty strong reasons in favor of the issuin, of such writ, when @ proper case was made, to such a body of men. I speak now of a corporation exceed- ing its jurisdiction—going out of its Jurisdiction; and the prohibition arose, beyond all doubt, froma higher court to a subordinate judicial tribunal keeping them within their jurisdiction; but whether the writ could be applicable to the case Iam not now contending. I contend that an injunction is not a proper remedy, the nature of a prohibition by a court having general superintendence of ‘all inferior jurisdiction. My argument is, that no such right exists in any Seas Beary a body which acts legislatively from their action in -cislation—that ' that course of le; they are not to be controlled. Their acts unques- dertakes to execute and carry out the ordin§nce must see that they had the power, and that they executed that power properly. Even there, how fur the mere general averment t] the law which they should pass was an abuse of their authority or not, simply when going strictly within the jurisdiction they possessed, would be another and a very Bake question. But, beyond all doubt, this Court a right to look into these acts now before them, and, if they should see proper and sufficient legal grounds to exercise the power, with them rests the power to | arrest this proceeding which has been thus licensed | by the corporation. Neither this nor the other | court has any power to interfere with the legislation of the Common Council—to direct them, “ you shall vote or shall not vote in a particular way, or shall | passing the resolution—that I say is beyond the reach | of an injunction—and that when the Superior Conrt, | or the judge of that court, issued that injunction, | that if it was to have any effect, and to be of any | force, it was to act upon the agents of the corpora- | tion in prohibiting them from carrying into effect this order, if it were an improper order that that | corporation had passed, and not to prevent the cor- poration from passing it at all. The corporation | of the city of New York Ss corporate powers, | as I understand it, in two capacities, namely: as a public municipal body, and as a private corporation, possessing private property. In one | of the opinions delivered in the other court, the eneral proposition seems to be maintained to | this effect : that there is no distinction between cor- | porations, whether they are municipal or whether they are private—whether it is a corporation passing | by-laws and resolutions which are to have the effect or whether it is a corporation making a grant of land to me, or any one, or a corporation mal ing regula- tions for the conduct of a particular branch of busi- | ness which they are pursuing for their own private | emolument. But everywhere, in all- cases to which | we have referred, (in the language of the counsel | and of the judges in cases that have been before this | Supreme Court,) in e instance that distinction has been taken, and has been acted upon and fol- and municipal corporation and a mere private corpo- ration for the regulation of private property—the | the corporation act as a public municipal body they | act legislatively, and then no act that the one Com- mon Council can do can bind their successors in re- | gard to any of those public matters or public con- | In other words, their acts are all revokable, an act of the Legislature of the State, e day and repealable the next. ‘The Court | laid down, in yarions casts, that the Com- | mon Council of the city of New Yotk, in regard to local legislation, possess all the power and su- premacy that the legislation of the State possesses in Sharp and his associates be authorized and allowed,” &c.t Are they not equivalent expressions, giving tothe pay thus applying a license which the party giving had‘a right to give ¢ What is permission but authorizing? What is license but permission? Now, this bedy, this Common Council, which is the only body'who could do that act within the jarisdictios of this ci passing upon it,! ask,do not they act legis ly, and do not they act in the exercixe of a diseretionary pomet Indeed, is not every law, to the extent to which that law goes, the exercise of a discretion? Now, while the learned Judge admit- ted that you could not interfere with a part, who had discretionary power to act or not ‘ to act,” he said: “and this must be taken under restrictions and with exceptions.” Why, if the Court please, let me ask, does not this destroy the discretion wholly ? Who is to judge whether these exceptions apply or not? Who is to prescribe the limits of this discre- tion, or the due end proper exercise of it? Is it not in the very nature of a discretionary Peg that the party who is to exercise it must be the judge of its expediency, its necessity, and its propriety? ‘I can interfere,” says the Judge, ‘if you have Saeeean 3 ary power, if you go out of that discretion.” so? If it be, then it is the judging power that is to | regulate this discretion, that discretion is with im. He exercises that discretion, and not the party to whom it is ostensibly given. So with the case of abuse. If another party is authorized to say when, and where, and how that discretion is abused, it is not that party who has this al pre e wer, this judgment upon the discretion of the other, that is vested with discretion; and the man to whom it is fren is nothing more than a mere agent, to exercise that discretion, or that power, just as far as his supe- rior tells him he must do, and lop as far as his supe- rior directs him,and to avoid just whatever that superior should adjudge to be abuse. But, it is said, that this act of the corporation, giving this license, is making a grant. Now, what isa grant? As far as we have used the expression, the use of it explains it. Itis the grant of a license. Itis the grant of a permission. Well, if the Court please, the word “grant”? there has the same qeaslngecrit the worg “give.” A person applies to me for liberty to use room in my house for a particular to enter- tain a friend, if you please, or cod ee eater { give him permission, and in giving t Isay “ grant you leave ’—is that any more than permis sion for him to use that room in my house Now, if I should choose to tell him that I repent of having given him the room, and say ‘‘ you shall no use it,”’ cannot I revoke it just as well by using th word ‘“ grant,” as the word “give?” If l understand the word “grant,” in the sense these gentlemen would apply it, it must be the passing of some right qr interest in the ty to whom itis given fora consideration, and which will benefit the grantors and be irrevocable. Is there any such feature in this act of the Corporation? Have they conferred upon these parties a grant which they cannot revoke? lave they given them a lease for a term of years of Broadway for the purpose of running a railroad? Why, that corporation perfectly well understood that they had no such power. They perfectly well under- stood that ey, had no such intention. They were vested, not witha fee simple of that street which they could dispose of Crane but they were trustees, as we say, vested with the ait estate for the pur- poses that trust, but still trustees, without any power over it than that of regulating, ordering, and prescribing the uses which should be made of it, and thus to be in conformity with the purposes for which this street was originally seized or purchased. Now, then, in connection, Reuerallys it will be to be consi- dered, first, whether resolution which was passed, conferred, or attempted to confer, any such rights, and, secondly, what the powers of the corporation were in respect to them, and in regard to the con- tinuance or discontinuance of whateverthey may have granted to these individuals. Certainly the termsof the resolution donot import a grant of any right or interest - that ce it is sim ly a lay down rails upon it for specific purposes. those purposes were not in conformity with the te for which that street was originally designed, and to which it has been uniformly used, why, then, will it be admitted that it is a void 2? They could not make it, and nobody would bound by it; but if the purposes for which these rails were to be laid down are in pursuance of the pu to which that street was originally devoted, then they are strictly legal, and no one can complain of them, or attempt to revoke them. Now, in the first place, we say that here thas been no grant of anything save this | lowed, namely: the distinction between a public _ license, and that it confers upon the grantee of the license nothing more than the privilege, the consent of the corporation, to lay down these rails in Broad- | distinction between them is an obvious one. When way, provided that in other respects the laying down tent with Th of those rails in that street would be con: the use of the street for the pr that respect, and to the extent joses of travel. uses and purposes of the street, the license is a valid one, and so long as they like to continue it no one can interfere with the party to whom that license is riven; but it remains in the breast of the corporation to revoke it whenever they please, and for any fu- ture corporation to do the like. The very object for which the license was given on the face of it shows regard to the State at large; and that, consequently, | that it is for the purpose of travel. It is for the any covenant that they,as a private corporation, purpose of introducing and bringing into use a new may have made, when they come to act ina public | mode of using this street for the purposes for which capacity as a municipal a right to pass an act which shall repeal legislature they have | 1 that | it was originally laid out. Now, one objection which has been made on the part of our opponents is, that private covenant, if the necessities of the city | this is a new use of the street, and for that reason require that that act should be passed, and 219,) the court entertained the argument | the Legislature has antharized them te pars I. | In their private capacity they were bound by this act; but the Legislature bave interfered, and the peer of this by-low by the corporation, under the authority of the Legislature, is just as perem and binding | upon you as if the law bad been passed by the Legis- lature directly, in iteelf. It must be so. “These local legislative bodies, if they do not possess this power, amount to nothing. If they are constantly to be under the revision of the courts of justice, whenever any disappointed or disaffected citizen shall choose | | to'a pply for relicf against imaginary injaries inflicted by the by-laws. passed by that Board, it will be so oration h: ‘ight to grant it. The egaren read to the Court upon that subject are, Lam convinced, conclusive. It is a new mode of | travel—it is a new mode of using the street—still it is a mode of using it for those purposes, and for none other. Shall we be told that these proprietors, whatever righta they may have, are entitled to have this street continued precisely as it was when it was first laid out, and to be used by car- riages, and in the modes in which streets were then used, and no other? Are all improve- ments in the mode of travel to be excluded? But originally the streets were pitched and paved, and having but one single gutter in the centre of the fruitful a source of controversy as will alone occupy | street. Will it be contended for a moment that that the Supreme Court in this cirenit and in this State. | mode of using the street should be forever continued? 1 know it has been said that this supremacy of the | | local legislature cannot be made available to the Common Council because they are sueable, Well, if the Court please, the corporation of this city, like all other corporations acting in their private capacity, as the owners of land, as the owners of real estate, having franchises which vest in them property, they must be sueable in respect to those properties, and | to all their Le aed or contracts made in regard to them. But does it follow, then, if the Court please, that they ,can be made parties to suits of any kind for the performance of their legislative duties? Can they be sued—the Mayor, Aldermen, and Assistant Aldermen—for passing an act which a person fected by it should choose to say invades his rights ? Can you bring an action against the corporation for passing thatact? You can undoubtedly sue any per- son who attempts to enforce that act against you; but cun you sue the body who passed it? Iga corpora- | tion sueable in that respect? Why, certainly not. | They stand upon the same footing as ell legislative | bodies. They are irresponsible to individuals, be- | cause the legislative power was vested in them, and they had this broad legal d tion. A question was asked by the parties who oppose this power “Could you sue the Legislature—could you restrain the legislature?” The answer! give to it | is “No,” because they cannot be sued. Is that the reason, and does it stand upon that ground, that the | State, or the Legislature of the State, is not sueable, because it is a supreme or sovereign body? Tn one the State is not an independent sovereign for jurisdiction is given to the courts of the d States which reaches the action of the State itself. If such an action is brought, will an injune- tion lie against the Legislature of the State upon that articular subject to which that action relates ¢ Look at the case which has been referred to by my asso- ciate of the caer boundary between this State | and the State of New Jersey, with reavect to the right of fishery upon its borders, the State of New | ir have exclusive rights to certain fisheries which the State of New York has | no right to interfere with. If an axtion vas brought | in the Supreme Court of the United States for the | purpose of trying this right, and the Lagislatare of | the State of New York choose to pass s law autho- | rizing any of its citizens to go and take >ysters, not- withstanding this prohibition, would hey be re- strained by an injunction from the Suprene Court of | the United States? No, certainly not. The servant | that they send there would be liable to mit, but the | act of the Legislature that sends him thee could not, as I apprehend, be suspended by injunction from a court of equity. If, then, we are right n this view, | that the Common Council, when exerising their | legislative power or their legal discretion either the | one or the other cannot be enjoined anc prevented | from acting, the question will be whethe: this reso- | lution is one of those legislative acta wiich comes | within that protection? Along with this branch of the subject, and as it seems to me in sone measure inseparable from it, because partaking of the same character, is the question of discretion. Now, it is admitted by the learned judge vho gave an opinion in the other court, that discretiorary power, let it be vested where it will, whether in a fegisin: ture, in a judge, or in a commissioner cannot be either controlled or interfered with. He put some exceptions, it is true; but the general yroposition was admitted. Now, is not the grant of this license to Iay rails in Broadway emphatically an act within the discretion of the Common Council? Is not the very act that they do in respect to the regulation management, and use of the streets, not as vesting in their discretion? Application is made to the Com- mon Council to erect a re a pole in a street. None but the Common Council can grant it. Every citi zen concurring would not confer that right upon a person. They may grant this or they may not. They inquire into the reasons for or against ft, and in the exercise of that discretion they make the grant, Now, is not this, in every sense of the word, a dix cretionary power. Ina recent case the corporation granted the permission to a person to erect tele; ph poles upon his application. Now what, if the Court please, is the divterence between this resolution, per- mitting a certain person to crect telegraph poles in | the Ninth avenne, ang the resolution that "Jacob | { | from ‘ sation would be an In the first introduction of vehicles into the streets of the city, probably carriages of a different description ose that were afterwards introduced were em- ployed. Suppose a coach ora carriage upon a new principle or anew plan, having broader wheels, if pha! please, and moved bya different power, should p introduced into the street, would that be a reason why a license should not be given to those carriages to be ured in that street? Where is the difference, except in a single circumstance, that the present use of the cars require that there should be some modifi- cations in the surface of the street, to admit of the laying down of the rails upon'which they are to move? And as to that it bas been proved over and over again, that this change in the surface of the street, an does not prevent the exercise of the power of the Corporation to admit the use of the street in that way. My associate counsel refers me to several acts that nse of them | is thus justified, and thus in conformity with the | | the corporation? Were they to | it was an attempt to bind their successors by these acts of legislation, It was an attempt to make a contract for the cleansing of the streets under those various powers, to which I have referred, in the charter, vesting them with the entire power and con- trol over the streets, and to direct and order them. they could not, under such a power, grant the right to Cleanse these streets for a specific sum, or make a binding contract upon them that should endure for three or four years; and, therefore, it was held, that that was a Void act, and consequently that the grantee under it had no power to enforce it against the corporation. So here, if this Common Council had attempted to contract with these parties, that they should have a right to continue that railroad theie for five’or ten Vy the next Common Counei could have rescinded the act altogether, and revoked their cousent. Suppose, now, that the Legislature passed an act not within their jurisdiction, which would violate private rights, it is void; but you can- not forbid that Legislature from passing it. You act upon the agents who attempt to avail themselves of it or carry it into effect. In that view every benefit 1s derived to the party, without the inconvenient power, if it didexist, of the courts inter! ring with | the legislation of the city, or with the discretionary | wer of the parties intrusted with the power to act. it would seem to be a pores answer to the objec- tion that this license has been granted by the porn ration itself, without any reference whatever to the | Street Department; but, if the court please, by look. ing at the provisions upon that matter, 1 think it will be most apparent that this was a case which did not come within that provision of the charter. The pro- visions of the charter, in this respect, I will for a mo- ment direct the attention of the court to. There are | two parts of the amended charter to which the court have been referred. It will be observed that one great object of this amended charter, wasto prevent what had been considered up to that time an impro- r exercise of power, or authority, or jurisdic- ion by the different Aldermen of the city, in making contracts each within his own jurisdiction, and the disposing of them, or having the patronage of different contracts at his own disposal, and many evils were apprehended to, and probably did arise from that circumstance. Therefore, in this amended charter there was a distribution made of the execu- | tive and legislative functions. The Legislature vested the whole legislation in the Common Council of the | city. and it then went on to create departments for | the administration of the executive powers, and | among others it conferred upon the Street Commis- sioner particularly, the power of making all contracts of a certain description. Now, we will presently show what these contrasts were. And first as to the executive power :—‘‘ The executive power of the cor- oration shall be vested in the Mayor, the heads of Reverand and such other executive officers as shall | be from time to time created hy law, and neither the | Common Council, nor any committee or member | thereof, shall perform any executive business what- ever, except such as is or shall be specially im | pen them by the laws of the State, and except that | je Board of Aldermen.may approve or reject the | nominations made to them, as hereinafter provided.” | They shall not exercise executive power. And the | other clause in the amended charter is, that “all , contracts to be made or let by authority of the Com- | mon Council, for work to be done or supplies to be | furnished, and all sales of personal property in the | custody of the several departments or bureaux, shall \ be made by the appropriate heads of departments, under such regulations as shall be established by or- dinances of the Common Council. Every person | elected or appointed to any office under the city go- | vernment, shall take and subscribe an oath or affir- mation before the Mayor, faithfully to perform the duties of his office, which oath or mn shall be | filed in the Mayor's office.” Now, then, in the first place, the Common Council, as such, or any member | of it, is precluded from the exercise of these executive | powers which are indicated by these charters. All | the powers given to the different officers they are re- strained fromexercising. They haveexerted nosuch | wer here. ‘They have passed a resolution in their legislative capacity, permitting a railroad to be laid in Broadway, but they refer most especially in the erson undergwhose direction the execu- | tive part of the matter is to be performed, the laying down the rails, the men doing it, and so forth. It is to be done under his superintendence, and the gene- ral orders which they give upon the subject, and they | refer especially to the Mayor as the person who is to | give the license which these parties are to have by | the laws of the State. The only question that re- | mains upon that branch of the subject is, was this a | contract within the twenty-third section of this amended act? The terms of that section are: “All | contracts to be made or let by authority of the Common Council, for work to be done, or sup- ies to be furnished.” What work was to be | Tone here that comes within the ae oe | this section? This—rails were to be id. Was that work to be done, or mies furnished, by | remunerated for that work? It seems to me that the meaning of the | ection is too plain possibly to be mistaken. It re- | ferred to all that numerous classes of contracts which | are made by the corporation for the performance of the various work which they have to transact throughout this immense city, among which are all | the operations upon the streets which are made at ihe public expense—all the supplies to be furnished | cor their use in all directions. Those are the con- racts that come within, the meaning of that resolu- | ion. Here is a mere license to a company to lay a | ailroad in a public street, at their own expense, and | without any reference to the corporation, or any con- ract with them upon the subject whatever. It nei- | ther comes within the letter or spirit of that act, which was to restrain the corporation as such, from participating in any way, in benefit or protit, from those contracts which were made for the public and the public use. Could this matter be referred to the Street Commissioner? Had he any right to make a license or give a grant? None at all. It was no power in the corporation tat could authorize, or could allow, or license the ing down of that rail- | roar Broadway, but the corporation itself, by its , legislative act. ‘They could not refer it to the Street Commissioner. ‘It was not a subject of contract, or of grant, which could come under the provisions of that charter. They could not advertise for proposals for doing this, because they could not by possibility re- | ceive remuneration. It could not be set up at auc- | tion; it could not be disposed of by saying who were the highest bidders for this property. It was neces- | sarily to be done by the corporation itself, in the ex- | ercise of its sound discretion, and by its legislative | act. In the case of Christopher against the Corpora- tion, there the work to be done, and about which the | contract was made, was on the private account | the | mode of propelling the cars, makes no difference, and | of the Legislature, Eee in exercising their | legislative powers they are in the constant habit of making grants, lezislatively, of different privileges to | different persons, as they shall deem proper and ex- pedient, and right, consistent with the interests of | the State. There is one, for instance, authorizin, certain persons to carry out vaults in the Seventh ward of the city of Brooklyn; and, besides this, there are many of @ similar character. But, if the Court please, it is hardly necessary to refer to that species of legislation, hecause the statute books are fali of them. Legislative acts granting property and an- thorizing certain acts to be done are perpetual occur- rences. It was said, however, as another objection to this resolution, that if it was competent for the Cor- poration to pass it, it was a subject of proper refer- ence to one of the departments. It was a contract, and therefore came under the provisions of the amended charter, which refers the powers of making contracts, or rather the act of making contracts, to the Street Department. Now, if the Court please, the same answer which has been given to several of the propositions upon the other side, apply to this. This resolution is not a contract. It has no form or feature of 2 contract about it. The corporation ac- quires no rights by this contract, as a body, for their rivate benefit. This license fee isa fee authorized ef the statute of the State, and not by the corpora- tion of the city. They give no fee in the resolution that eh 8. That is regulated by the Legislature of the State, and intended merely for the purpose of defraying any expense that the city might be put to, or any inconvenience that the city, as such, might | suffer from the use of this license. The corporation, asa private corporation, gain nothing by the con- struction of this railroad. Asa public body, in their public capacity, they could make no contract that was not revocable by their successors and by them- selves, because they could do nothing but pass a pub- lic resolution and a se law. It is in reference to their private prope: ‘deers they enter into and make those contracts which are binding upon them, and there they stand upon the same footing with any in- dividual. In that case they contract. There they ive a benefit fur which they receive a compensation; ut in their public acts they pass them for the encral good of the public, upon public considera- ions, and they can receive no benefit from them. To this point it was that the corporation coun- rel gave his opinion that this local legislature could receive no benefit, that they conld make no sale—they could make no binding contract to receive | a hundred thousand dollars, for which this privilege of laying down the rails was to be continued to them for one entire year. And further, he bee’ g rightfully advised the corportion that hon 8 no power to receive such a consideration, because they had no to make any grant for which that compen- juivalent. They could do nothing but pass legislative acts, and it was upon that ground, as I understand, that the market case was decided, as well as the street ing case. In the street cleaning case, corporation undertook, mistaking their , to make a contract with a certain individual for coat the streets, for which they were to pay that mdividaal a specific sum of money, to continue for five or seven years, or, at all events, for some considerable time; and the moment that contract was impeached it was declared by the courts berore whow it cawe to be utterly void—that Now, there the work was to be done for the corpora- | tion, and the Court will perceive, by looking at the | case, that the corporation did in that case attempt to proceed under that section. The Board of Aider- men first passed a resolution that the market should be built, and then ordered that some advertisement | should be made, All these acts were under that twenty-third section of the charter; but they were not | carried out, and when the question came before the court, the court said, ‘‘ you have not done what that section requires,” and tliey put it expressly upon the | ground that this was a contract tor public work | which the corporation had no power to make, and | which no ene could make under that charter but the Street Commissioner, and it was upon that ground that that case was decided. And, as it appears to me, in that view of it, it was correctly decided. There | the act to be done was the taking down of the Wash- | ington Market, and the erection of a new market, [ believe, upon a larger scale, in its place. The con- tract was made by the Common Council themselves, directly, and not in pursuance of this section of the charter, and the court said, “When you made that contract, it was one that came directly within ihe sc0}.€ of this twenty-first section, and you were hound 1o apply the directions given by that section of the charter, have not done so, and consequently your act is void, and the contractor cannot succeed | in his action upon that contract.” But, it is said that the eee cannot authorize this railroad without making compensation to the owners of the | land for the portion of the street that it was to oc- cupy. Well, it seems to me, if the Court please, that the answer to be given to that is one that was given in one of the cases to which I have referred the court, namely, that here was no land taken. | The corporation did no more than authorize the use | of this street for one of the purposes for which it | was originally designed. They did no more than to | authorize the use of the railroad in that street forthe | purpose of conveying passengers. They did not take | any part of the street. They vested no right in the | title of that strect in the grantees of this license. If, | therefore, the parties proved to thia court, in the most extensive terms, that the fee of this street vested in | them for public purposes, they would have made no | advance whatever in the proposition they now set | ont with, that they were entitled to compensation | for taking that ground for the use of this railroad, for the reason that the street is used for no other pur- pe upon their own admission, than to which they emselyes dedicate it. That then offers the propo- | sition before the court, upon the authority of these | cases, that this isa legitimate use of that street. And that the laying down of this railroad in that | street appropriated it, or applied it, to any new use | to which it was not applicable by the terms of the cession or dedication of it. Upon that question courts have passed over and over again, and it ap- | pears to me that nothing can he P lainer, or, where no case in which the application of the principles of | the constitution, that no man’s property shall be taken withont just compensation,conld be applied to this case. The property liad already been dedicated | for this penis use, and it was attempted to | be used for no other purpose. But it is further | said that this railroad is a nuisance, and that | upon that gronnd this court ought to inter- | fere, even although all other reasons fail. Now, if the Court please, as to that question, there is certainly not suftlcient information before the Court | for them to pronounce judgment uponit. It ia admit- ted, because the courts fave expressly 0 decided, that a railroad, per se, is not a nuisance. traneous 5 matters in connection | with the railroad, are pot before this Coust to stow | What ex: | | ayenne? railronds, both of them, from the termi. | of her people into a of this of the corporation for the building ot a new market. | }, | them. that tis particular railroad is a nuisance? ‘The parties Lave .aid, in reference to this particular charge—and, as far as J could see, it could refer to uo other—first, that Broadway is too narrow for a railroad; gry that the busiusss occupied in it and for which it destined to be occupied for years, if not forever here- tence of arailroad incompatible per pursuits of those en- hese ure all the reasons, all the suggestions, t e made in this bill that tend even to show that railroad could, by any ee. iJity be denominated a nuisance. Now, if the Court please, what have they shown upon the subject of the dimensions of this street, in the first place? Broad- y i tobe of the average width of abont forty t in some places, and a little under and a little over in other places. Now, take this proposition by itself, Is a carriageway of forty feet too narrow ta goged in that b admit of a railroad in'the centre of it occupying twelve and a half feet?—for that is the whole extent that will be occupied. Now, upon this question there are cenflicting statements as to the | effect of a railroad in a street of that width; but let me ask this question of the Court, whether the railroads the corporation have authorized in other streets do not pass through streets narrow- er than that of Broadway. The Bixth and Eighth nation of those avenues to Canal street, througlt streets much narrower than Broadwa; 7 The railroad in Broadway leaves you, upon each of this ce in the centre occupied by these rails, a of. thirteen to fourteen feet. Now, if the Court please, before the widening of some of the streets In the lower part of the Cin eee! many of the entire streets were of less dimensions, inclading the y between the sidewalk upon each side, arenas of business, » is care and street in particular—yet all the pt and it aly always a business pat of the oippase ried on in these'strects; and by the calcula estimates that these partics have made upon the mubtecelt is fully shown that there is an entire practi- cability of carrying on all the business of that street, even sup] z that carts and carriages using it should not occupy any part of this surface occupied by these rails. But if is perfectly clear, and seen every day in the streets in which railroads are > that other carriages that travel these constantly oc- cupy the middle of the streets, as well as otlier parts | of it, and are constantly in the habit of crossing and paising upon LA Fare samapenpe yes is no ob+ straction creat ie passage other carriages, either along the street or across it. But, if the Court please, if this be an objection, I ask, when and how are you to have a railroad in the city at all? Broad- way, with the exception of the avenues and Broad street, is the widest street in the city. If you cannot have a railroad in that street because itis too narrow you cannot have a railroad at all. {To be concluded to-morrow.) ‘The New York University. A meeting of gentlemen interested in the cause of liberal education in this city, was held in the chapel of the University, last Friday evening, pursuant to a cail of the Rey. Dr. Ferris, Chancellor of the institu. tion. The immediate object of the reverend gentle. man was to submit some facts and results concern- ing its progress since the foundation, and to disa- buse the mind of the public, and particularly the | minds of our /terati and younger stadents, of the idea that its affairs were clouded in inextricable dif- ficulty. At half-past 7 o'clock there were a number of clergymen and members of the learned and mer- cantile professions present, amongst whom we no- ticed the Rev. Drs. Bethune, Cheever, Phillips, Asa D. Smith, Hutton, Van Arsdale and Krebbs, Pro+ fessora Webster, Dougherty and Greene, Myndert Van Schaick, William Curtis Noyes and George Griswold, Esqrs., with a great number of students. Upon motion of the Rev. Dr. Ferris, George Gris wold, Esq., was called to the Chair, and the Rev, conditions which follow that resolution—and I be- | Mr. Macauly acted as Secretary to the meeting. lieve in os resolution itself—to the Street Commis- The Rey. Dr. Phillips made a prayer prior to the sioner as the commencement of the proceedings The Rey. Dr. Ferris said :—Sir, this meet has been called together by a circular letter, which I will take the liberty of reading. The Chancellor here read the letter to which he referred—and continued, This circular is signed by myself, and, in compliance with the promise contained ‘in it, I beg to occupy the at- tention of the meeting with some remarks uy the working of this institution, its difficulties, its exer- tions in the cause of education, and its present pros- ects. It gives me pleasure, sir, to see such a meet- ing as this, as it evinces that an interest is felt for the welfare of an University which is, emphatically, the institution of New York, as far as the intellectual developement, and the training of the moral feeling roper course, are concerned. The accomplishment of this has ever been the aiu and object of its Professors, convinced as they were, and are, that if pane teachers giveall their attention tothe formerand neglect the latter result they putinta the hands of frail humanity a dreadful weapon. The city of New York has done many noble things in the carrying out of literary objects. The foun of this’ University was one of her greatest and efforts. It was chartered for the ple, and has continued devoted to their inte: the present day. Its foundation was urged by the most excellent en, among whom I may mention the name of ‘the Reverend Dr. Milner, who watched over its rise with an anxiety which I hope to see renewed among us. The University waa Wa bret yy. charter in the year of 1831, and opened at Clinton Hall, in 1832. The first class assembled in 1833, and the foundation building was laid in July of same year. Thehalls were opened for the purposes of public instruction in the of 1836. Since then it has had a checkered hii , and has been encom- pat with many and frowning difficulties. It hay been sadly peer with debt, and this indebtedness has left an impression eo ey sad with re- gard to its prospects upon the public mind. It is viewed through the dark clouds of difficulty, and the question now is, if they were dispelled could it falfl its ie ¢ In speaking of the interior working of the University,in a scholastic point of view, I may be rmnitted to say, with truth, that its course of teach- ing is practical, liberal, and elevated: and if you com- pare it strictly with that of kindred institations which enjoy a high reputation, you will find that none stand uyon a better footing in that respect than the Univer- sity of New York. The humanities are attended to in the fullest sense; and we do not confine our instrac- tion to the imparting a knowledge of the dead lan- guages alone. We teach so as to fully fit the rising youth for the professional, mercantile, engineers ing, or mathematical departments of life; and our Faculty of Professors are men of ability, men of «cholar-like attainments, men who kept this foundation open, by large pecuniary sacri- fices, when it groaned beneath the ba of crush- ing difliculties. I need only mention names of Professors Draper, Jobnston, and Loomis—the latter in our mathematical department, and the author of a series of works which have taken the highest place | amongst books of that character. Mr. Crosby, who has recently come amongst us, has already won gald- en opinions for himself. Under the guidance of suck men, the University has already done a precious work for the people, for it is an error to Ld fd it an aris- tocratic institution. If thesons of rich men are here, so also are the sons of the poor man, and no youth has been ever turned away because he was penniléss, If he had patience, talent, and a holy desire for in- struction, money has been to us a secondary object, and our scholarships have been ever occupied by mem who had merit and were struggling with difficulty. The lad who, some years since, sut upon a shoemaker's bench in Williamsburg, entered here with the fire of educational zeal in his heart, mastered Latin aud Greek, under Professor Owen, obtained a ee and was sent forth a glorious minister of God. Amidst the mountains and rocks of Schoharie county he now draws many sonls to Christ. We have had a delightful succession of such cases, for, out of four | hundred and fifty graduates of the pao ieee one-half have been educated gratuitously. hong! I freely bear my testimony to the merit of that noble institation in Twenty-third street—the Free Avadem: —I must say that we have an advantage in thix respect. They’are limited to a certain class of stu- dents, taken from the public or ward schools—our doors are open toall. If] turn to our evangelical work- ing, I may aseert that we stand upon a basis of reli- ae equal to that of the most che: d of the New ‘ngland institations. We have a large infusion of religious instruction and perce piety, without be- ing sectarian or polemical. What contributions have we made to the Vhurch of Christ?’ The ministry-hag received a remarkable addition to its numbers front this University. Comparing the number of alwmnz with other graduates, | find that one in every three and seven-tenths have devoted themselves to the gospel ministry. This places us by the side of the most fayored inatitutions ia this respect. The pro- rtion of clergymen to alumni is—at Yale, one im ree and eight-tenths; at Dartmouth, one in three and nine-tenths; and at the college in New Jersey, one in five and three-tenths. ‘The number of eminent medical men who have graduated hore and gone forth trom our walls have attracted universal atten+ tion to us from every quarter. The Faculties of Law and of Arts and Design bave not been carried out, | Owing to our pecuniary difficulties, Remove these, and the way is open to accomplish the best wished of the founders of the institution. I have now, sir, pointed attention to our objects, embarrassments, and works, a8 I intended, und the meeting wil! be a dressed by some gentlemen who will express public opinion perhaps more correctly than T can. The Carman called upon the Rey. Dr. Bernunn. The Reverend Doctor said:—I should not attempt to present myself to the meeting were it not for the Nae cail made upon mefrom the Chair. Not that do not feel a deep interest in the affairs of the Uni- versity, but it is meeteely my place to speak upow h In the ee , Lam not a resident of New York, but live in that place which Bishop Haghes bs are tone A designates a suburban village. Ga r.) In the next, although born and bred @ New portion of my life haa beer Tam not familiar with the his Tory ot the ety, muob fess with that of this instia-