New York City Water Front 
 
 LETTER FROM 
 
 TO THE 
 
 Commissioners of the Sinking Fund, 
 
 GIVING SOME ACCOUNT OF HOW NEW YORK ACQUIRED HER WATER FRONT, TWO HUNDRED YEARS 
 AGO, AND UNDER WHAT LAWS. RULES AND REGULATIONS, WHARVES, STREETS, BULKHEADS 
 AND PIERS WERE BUILT. AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE, AND HOW 
 TRADE AND COMMERCE ARE NOW CRIPPLED IN DIVERS WAYS FOR WANT OF 
 ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENTS AND FACILITIES WHICH THE DEPARTMENT 
 OF DOCKS IS AUTHORIZED AND DESIRES TO MAKE, AND FOR 
 WHICH IT HAS ASKED FOR THE ISSUE OF BONDS AS PRO- 
 VIDED FOR BY LAW, AND IS SO MUCH NEEDED. 
 
 From the "City Record," September 22, 1886. 
 
 NEW YORK : 
 Martin B. Brown, Printer and Stationer, 
 49 AND 51 Park Place. 
 
 J 8 8 6. 
 
i 
 
 Ex ICihrtB 
 
 SEYMOUR DURST 
 
 "l ' Tort nieutt/ ^rn^erdam- oj^ JAatJiatarus 
 
 FORT NEW AM-STERDAAi. 
 
 (mew York) , 1651. 
 
 When you leave, please leave this hook 
 
 Because it has heen said 
 "Sver'thing comes t' him who waits 
 
 Except a loaned hook." 
 
 Avery Architectural and Fine Arts Library 
 Gift of Seymour B. Durst Old York Library 
 
New York City Water Front. 
 
 LETTER FROM 
 
 TO THE 
 
 Commissioners of tlie Sinking Fund, 
 
 GIVING SOME ACCOUNT OF HOW NEW YORK ACQUIRED HER WATER FRONT, TWO HUNDRED YEARS 
 AGO, AND UNDER WHAT LAWS, RULES AND REGULATIONS. WHARVES, STREETS, BULKHEADS 
 AND PIERS WERE BUILT, AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE, AND HOW 
 TRADE AND COMMERCE ARE NOW CRIPPLED IN DIVERS WAYS FOR WANT OF 
 ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENTS AND FACILITIES WHICH THE DEPARTMENT 
 OF DOCKS IS AUTHORIZED AND DESIRES TO MAKE, AND FOR 
 WHICH IT HAS ASKED FOR THE ISSUE OF BONDS AS PRO- 
 VIDED FOR BY LAW, AND JS SO MUCH NEEDED. 
 
 From the "City Record," September 22, 1886. 
 
 NEW YORK : 
 Martin B. Erown, Printer and Stationer, 
 49 and 51 Park Place. 
 
 I 8 S 6. ■ 
 
■A. 
 
FROM 
 
 THE CITY RECORD 
 
 (Official Journal) 
 
 OF 
 
 SEPTEMBEI\ 22, 1886. 
 
 . 
 
 Extract from the Minutes of the Proceedings of the 
 
 COMMISSIONERS OF THE SINKING FUND, 
 
 AT THE MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 17TH, 1886. 
 
 Present — William R. Grace, Mayor ; Frederick Smyth, Recorder ; Edward V. Loew, Comp- 
 troller ; and William M. Ivins, Chamberlain. 
 
 * It * if * it A * * * it. * 
 
 The Comptroller submitted the following communication from Simon Stevens, Esq., in relation 
 to the manner New York acquired its water-tront, two hundred years ago ; and under what laws, 
 rules and regulations, wharves, streets, bulkheads and piers were built and other improvements 
 made, etc., which, on motion of the Recorder, was received and ordered printed in the minutes : 
 
 Some account of how New York acquired her water-front, two hundred years ago, 
 and under what laws, rules and regulations, wffarves, streets, bulkheads ' and 
 piers were built, and other improvements have been made, and how trade and 
 commerce are now crippled in divers ways for want of additional improvements 
 and facilities which the department of docks is authorized and desires to make, 
 and for which it has asked for the issue of bonds as provided for by law, and is 
 so much needed. 
 
 Offices of Simon Stevens, ] 
 No. 61 Broadway, New York, \ 
 August 30th, 1886. ) 
 
 To the Commissioners of the Sinking Fund : 
 
 Gentlemen — In the year 1686, the Crown of England, by the Dongan Charter, granted to the 
 City of New York, then a municipal corporation, vast political, legislative, executive and judicial 
 powers. 
 
4 
 
 The legislative power was conferred upon the Common Council, which was authorized "to 
 '* frame, constitute, ordain and establish, from time to time, all such laws, statutes, ordinances and 
 ** constitutions, which to them or a greater part of (hem shall seem to be good, useful or necessary 
 ♦* for the good government of the body corporate." 
 
 The Dongan Charter, among other things, granted to the City of New York all the land 
 between high and low water mark around the Island of Manhattan, with jurisdiction over the same, 
 with power to take in, fill and make up and lay out all and singular the land and grounds in and 
 about the said city and Island Manhattan, and the same to build upon or make use of m any other 
 manner or way as to them shall seem fit, as far into the rivers thereof, and that encompass the same, 
 as low-water mark aforesaid. 
 
 By the Montgomerie Charter, in 1730, the Crown further granted a strip of land, four hundred 
 feet in width, lying immediately outside of low-water mark, extending from Corlear's Hook (now 
 Jackson street), on the East river, around the southern extremity of the island, to Bestayer's rivulet 
 (excepting, however, the space in front of the Battery), with full power and authority at any time 
 thereafter to fill, make up, wharf and lay out all and every part thereof, and to take the wharfage 
 and cranage and dockage arising or accruing therefrom ; but it was provided in said charter that 
 nothing therein contained should empower or entitle the City to wharf out before any persons who 
 had prior wharf grants beyond low-water mark, without the actual agreement or consent of such 
 persons, and that of the wharves to be built or run out by the City, there should be left, towards the 
 East and North rivers, a street forty feet broad, for the convenience of trade and the planting of 
 batteries in case of necessity. 
 
 The grants made by the Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty of the City of New York to 
 private persons, of "the land between high and low water mark, which it had acquired by the 
 Dongan Charter, were generally uniform in their character and are fairly represented by the grant 
 to William Boyle, dated November 19th, 1686. 
 
 Grants of land under water to be filled up and made dry land, acquired by the Montgomerie 
 charter, and given by the Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty of the City of New York to private 
 parties who had pre-emptory rights to upland and land between high and low water marks are 
 fairly represented by the grants to Anthony Rutgers, May 12th, 1732, and October nth, 1734. 
 
 These grants generally embraced in their length the whole width of the four hundred feet 
 strip of " land under water " acquired by the City. 
 
 Upon, or at, the outer end of the four hundred feet "strip of land under water" thus granted 
 on the east and west side of the city a street forty feet wide was to be built by the grantees, and to 
 be known on the east side as " South street," and on the west side as "West street." 
 
 It was construed that this forty-feet street was to be built on land under water, out beyond the 
 four hundred feet specified in the Montgomerie Charter, and was subsequently so recognized by an 
 ordinance of the Common Council passed February loth, 1796. 
 
 Under the Dongan and Montgomerie Charters the Corporation of the City of New York 
 acquired all the title to the land granted which the Crown of England could convey, and it also 
 acquired all the rights to fill up such lands and build wharves thereon, and receive the wharfage 
 and other advantages therefrom which the sovereign authority could give it, and at an early day 
 made many grants to divers private persons, of these same lands under water, with the right to said 
 private parties to make wharves and take the wharfage, dockage, cranage, emoluments, etc., accru- 
 ing therefrom ; such grants extended out into the East and North rivers to unequal distances within 
 the ownership of the City by reason of the sinuosity of the shore lines. 
 
 At the close of the "War of the Revolution " the State of New York succeeded to the owner- 
 ship of the unceded Crown lands under water in navigable streams within its boundary and assumed 
 to legislate in relation to them. 
 
 The City's grantees took their grants in good faith, and did fill up said land under water and 
 make it dry land, and did build the streets or wharves, and for so doing they or their successors in 
 title have received, and are now receiving, the wharfage and other emoluments therefrom, and have 
 .done so for the last seventy-five to one hundred years. 
 
5 
 
 In 1793 the Common Council passed a resolution that the outer street along the East and North 
 rivers should be. seventy feet in width instead of forty feet, and in April, 1795, Passed an ordinance, 
 establishing South and West streets as the outer, extreme and permanent streets on the rivers. 
 
 In the same year it was held that the Common Council could not compel the proprietors to 
 build South street seventy feet wide, because the additional thirty feet beyond the forty feet named 
 in their respective grants would be upon land under water belonging to the State of New York, 
 to which the City then had no title. 
 
 On the loth, of February, 1796, an ordinance was passed by the Common Council, somewhat, 
 but not materially, altering the permanent line of South and West streets and extending the respect- 
 ive lots then theretofore granted, out to the new street of seventy feet in width. 
 
 On the 1 2th, of February, 1798, the Common Council presented a petition to the Legislature of 
 the State of New York, asking that power be conferred upon the Common Council to cause South 
 street to be made seventy feet wide, for the reason stated in the petition, and to give it the right to 
 extend piers, at right angles to the permanent streets, into the river, at proper distances from each 
 other, with suitable bridges, etc., etc. 
 
 In response to this petition, the Legislature, on the 3d, day of April, 1798, passed **An act 
 concerning certain streets, wharves, piers, etc., in the City of New York. " See Session Laws, 1798. 
 
 That act reciting in its several whereases, substantially, the body of the petition of the Common 
 Council, provided that the City might lawfully lay out, according to such plans as it shall or may 
 agree upon or determine, such streets or wharves as in the petition mentioned, in front of those 
 parts of the city which adjoin to the said rivers, and of such extent along these rivers, respectively, 
 as it may think proper, and authorized the City to lengthen and extend the streets and wharves, 
 according to said plan, by and at the expense of the proprietors of land adjoining or nearest 
 and opposite to the said street or wharves in proportion to the breadth of their several lots, and 
 provided penalties for those who omitted or refused to fill up and level, at their own expense, 
 according to such plan and within the time prescribed. 
 
 The same act provided that the City could direct piers to be sunk and completed at such dis- 
 tances and in such manner as it might, in its discretion, think proper, in front of the said streets or 
 wharves, at the expense of the proprietors of the lots lying opposite to the places where such piers 
 shall be directed to be sunk. 
 
 And provided, further, that every clause, covenant and condition in the several grants of the 
 City to the said proprietors, respectively, or to those under whom they claim to be kept, 
 observed or performed by the grantees, respectively, and their heirs, etc., notwithstanding this act, 
 were to and did retain their full force and validity and were in no manner to be affected by the said 
 act, or anything to be done or performed in consequence thereof ; and as to the City's rights, pow- 
 ers and privileges and as grantees they were not to be broken or to infringe any of the covenants or 
 conditions on their part. 
 
 It was enacted, that no building of any kind or description whatsoever (other than the said 
 piers and bridges) shall, at any time hereafter, be erected upon the said streets or wharves, or 
 between them respectively, and the rivers which they respectively front and adjoin. 
 
 See Session Laws, 1798. 
 
 ** An Act concerning certain Streets, Wharves and Piers and the Almshouses and Bridewell, in 
 
 "the City of New York. 
 
 Passed April 3d, 1798. 
 
 ** Whereas, It would conduce to the improvement and health of the said city, as well as to 
 *'the safety of such ships or vessels as may be employed in the trade and commerce thereof, that 
 " regular streets or wharfs, of the width of seventy feet, should be laid out and completed m front 
 ** of those parts of the said city, which adjoin to the East river or Sound, and to the North or Hud- 
 *' son's river, and that piers should be extended from the said streets into the said rivers respect- 
 ** ively, at convenient distances from each other, with suitable bridges, for the accommodation of 
 ** sea vessels, and upon such a construction as to admit of current of the said rivers at both ebb and 
 *' flood, to wash away all dirt and impurities. 
 
6 
 
 "And Whereas, the said Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty, by petition to the Legislature, 
 "under their common seal, have represented that they are disposed to make the said improvements, 
 " but that from the curving and irregularities of the shores of the said rivers in their original state, 
 " from the grants made by their predecessors, being deemed to extend to unequal distances, into 
 *' the said rivers, and from other causes difficulties have arisen as to the execution of a proper plan, 
 "and doubts have been entertained whether they could compel the proprietors of lots fronting on 
 " the said rivers, to make those streets within a reasonable period or to sink and build those piers, 
 "and whether the said petitioners could without a breach of the conditions and covenants contained 
 " in their grants to individuals, upon the refusal or neglect of such proprietors, sink, build, and 
 " make those piers, streets and wharves at their own expense, and receive wharfage as a compen- 
 "sation for the same, which doubts and difficulties can only be removed by the aid of the Legis- 
 " lature. 
 
 "And Whereas, defects have been discovered in the provisions for assessing and raising money 
 " in the said city under an act entitled 'An act for regulating the buildings, streets, wharves and 
 " slips in the City of New York ' ; therefore, 
 
 " Sec. I. Be it enacted by the People of the State of New York, represented in Senate and 
 " Assembly, That it shall and may be lawful for the Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty of the 
 " City of New York to lay out, according to such plans as they shall or may agree upon or deter- 
 " mine, such streets or wharves as hereinbefore are mentioned, in front ot those parts of the said 
 " city which adjoin to the said rivers, and of such extent along those rivers, respectively, as they 
 " may think proper, and that as the buildings of the said city shall be further extended along the 
 " said rivers, it shall and may be lawful for the said Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty, from 
 " time to time, to lengthen and extend the said streets and wharves. 
 
 " Sec. 2. And be it further enacted. That the said streets or wharves shall be made and com- 
 " pleted, according to the said plan, by and at the expense of the proprietors of land adjoining, or 
 " nearest and opposite to the said streets or wharves, in proportion to the breadth of their several 
 " lots, by certain days, to be for that purpose appointed by the said Mayor, Aldermen and Com- 
 " monalty, and that the respective proprietors of such of the said lots as may not be adjoining to 
 " the said streets or wharves shall also fill up and level, at their own expense, according to such 
 " plan, and by the said days respectively, the spaces lying between their said several lots and the said 
 " streets and wharves, and shall upon so filling up and leveling the same, be respectively entitled 
 " to and become the owner of the said intermediate spaces ot ground in fee simple. 
 
 " Sec. 3. And be it further enacted. That if any of the said proprietors shall neglect or refuse 
 " to fill up and level such intermediate spaces of ground by the said days to be so as aforesaid 
 " appointed, it shall and may be lawful for the said Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty to cause 
 " the same to be done for and on behalf of the said proprietors, and to charge them with the 
 " expense, and if the said proprietors, respectively, shall not repay the said expense, with lawful 
 " interest from the times of the expenditure, within one year and six months after demand for that 
 " purpose made by the said Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty, or any person on their behalf, it 
 " shall and may be lawful for the said Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty to levy the same, to- 
 " gether with the interest thereof, and all reasonable costs and expenses attending such proceedings, 
 " by distress and sale of the goods and chattels of such proprietors, or the occupants of the said lots, 
 " respectively, or to recover the same from the said proprietors, respectively, by action of debt in 
 " the Supreme Court of this State, wherein it shall be sufficient to allege generally that the defend- 
 " ants respectively are indebted to the Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty in a certain sum for 
 " money expended on their account, by virtue of this act, and in such action any less sum than the 
 " one declared for may be recovered, and full costs shall be taxed for the plaintiffs, if judgment 
 " shall be given in their favor. 
 
 " Sec. 4. And be it further enacted. That the said sums to be expended as aforesaid on behalf 
 " of the said proprietors respectively, and all and every sum and sums of money which may have 
 " been, or shall at any time or times hereafter be assessed among the owners or occupants of any 
 " houses and lots by virtue of the said act, entitled ' An act for regulating the buildings, streets, 
 " wharves and slips in the City of New York,' shall be a real encumbrance and charge upon the 
 " houses and lots in respect to which such assessments shall have been made, and shall bear lawful 
 " interest until paid, and shall be entitled to a preference above all other incumbrances upon the 
 " same ; and that the same sums and interest money may be sued for and recovered, with costs, in 
 " like manner as if the said houses and lots were mortgaged to the said Mayor, Aldermen and 
 " Commonalty for the payment thereof ; provided always, that nothing herein contained shall 
 " extend to charge any such houses or lots which may have been bona fide sold and disposed of 
 " after the making of such assessment thereon, and before the passing of this act. 
 
 " Sec. 5. And be it further enacted, That it shall and maybe lawful for the said Mayor, Alder- 
 " men and Commonalty to direct piers to be sunk and completed, at such distances, and in such 
 " manner, as they in their discretion shall think proper, in front of the said streets or wharves to be 
 " so made as aforesaid, and to be connected with the same by bridges, at the expense of the pro- 
 " prietors of the lots lying opposite to the places which such piers shall be directed to be sunk, and 
 
7 
 
 ** by such days and times as the said Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty may for that purpose 
 " limit and appoint ; and if the said proprietors shall neglect or refuse to sink or make the said 
 " piers and bridges, according to the directions of the said Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty, it 
 " shall and may be lawful for the said Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty to sink and make the 
 *' same piers and bridges at their own expense, and to receive to their own use, wharfage for all 
 *' vessels that may at any time or times lie at, or be fastened to the said piers or bridges, which they 
 ** shall so make as aforesaid. 
 
 "Sec. 6. And be it further enacted. That every clause, covenant and condition in the several 
 '* grants of the Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty of the said city, to the said proprietors respect- 
 " ively, or those under whom they claim to be kept, observed or performed by the grantees 
 " respectively, and their respective heirs, executors, administrators and assigns, shall, notwithstand- 
 " ing thfs act, retain their full force and validity and shall be in no manner affecred by the same, 
 " or by anything to be done or performed in consequence thereof, and the said Mayor, Aldermen 
 " and Commonalty shall have, possess and be entitled unto the like payments, rights and remedies, 
 " by virtue of the said grants, as they might or could have had, or would have been entitled to, if 
 " this act had never been passed, and shall not, by the performance of anything herem contained, 
 " be deemed to have broken, or infringed any of the covenants or conditions on their parts, con- 
 " tained in the said grants. 
 
 " Sec. 7. And be it further enacted, That no building of any kind or description whatsoever 
 " (other than the said piers and bridges) shall at any time hereafter be erected upon the said 
 *' streets or wharves or between them respectively, and the rivers to which they respectively shall 
 *' front and adjoin." 
 
 Note. — Sections 8, 9 and 10 following, which comprise the rest of this act, relate exclusively to the Almshouse 
 and Bridewell. 
 
 By the act of the Legislature passed April 3d, 1798, as well as under acts passed prior thereto, 
 general authority was conferred upon the City to lay out and construct wharves, and the general 
 system seems to have been for the City to convey the lands under water to individuals, requiring 
 them to fill up the land and construct streets or wharves, with the right to receive the wharfage and 
 other emoluments and advantages arising therefrom, which system has repeatedly been recognized 
 by the legislature. 
 
 South and West streets were finally laid out under the ordinances passed by the Common 
 Council in pursuance of the law of 1798. South street extended northward on the East river to 
 Corlear's Hook, 
 
 On the 2d, day of June, 1800, James Remsen and others petitioned the Common Council for 
 one or more piers to be run out into the rivers between Whitehall Slip and Broad street. 
 
 This petition was referred to the Street Commissioner and Mr. Alderman Coles as a committee, 
 who on January 12th, 1801, reported that, after reflection they were of the opinion that the erection, 
 of piers between Whitehall Slip and Fly Market (now Maiden Lane) was of the highest importance, 
 more especially since the Corporation has caused the permanent line within that space to be com- 
 pleted and thus deprived shipping of the use of old piers, and they recommended the passing of an 
 ordinance directing the proprietors of lots on South street within the boundary above mentioned 
 to commence the building of fifteen piers according to the plan to be thereafter mentioned, and in 
 case of their neglect or refusal to do so the delinquents were to be deprived of the benefits of their 
 grants. 
 
 On the 23d, of February, 1801, the whole subject was again under consideration by the Com- 
 mon Council, and was referred to a special committee, consisting of the Aldermen of the Second, 
 Third, Fourth and Fifth Wards. 
 
 By an act of the Legislature, passed April 3d, 1801, authority was given to the Common 
 Council to grant to the owners of lots fronting on South and West streets, upon certain terms and 
 conditions, " a community of interests in the piers to be sunk in front of such streets, within such 
 limits as the Corporation should deem just." 
 
 On May i8th, 1801, the question of erection of piers being again under consideration by the 
 Common Council, the question was referred to the Recorder to examine the law in regard to grants 
 of land under water, acquired by the Montgomerie Charter, etc., etc." 
 
 The Recorder subsequently reported to the Common Council that neither the act of 1798 nor 
 any other act vested in the Corporation any title to land under water, outside of the four hundred 
 
8 
 
 feet granted by the Montgomerie Charter, nor had the City any right to impose any quit rent on 
 such land. 
 
 On February 28th, 1803, the Comptroller submitted to the Common Council a statement in 
 relation to the water-grants theretofore made, also some recommendations which were adopted. 
 
 In 1803, sundry citizens, owners of water lots on East river, petitioned for authority to build 
 piers under the act of 1798, and the ordinances of the Common Council. Their petition was 
 granted, and piers were built accordingly, and the wharfage and other emoluments thereof are 
 enjoyed by their successors in title to this day without dispute. 
 
 By chapter 126 of the Laws of 1806, the Legislature authorized the City to construct additional 
 slips and basms and to take to itself the wharfage therefrom. 
 
 The first section of that act contains the following proviso : Provided always, that 'nothing 
 herein contained shall be construed to deprive any person who may have made piers by the direction 
 of the said Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty, in pursuance of an act entitled, *An act for regu- 
 lating the building of streets, wharves and slips in the City of New York,' of any legal right which 
 they may have thereby acquired, or to interfere with any private property or right or privilege held 
 under grants of the said Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty, or otherwise " ; and in the third section 
 it was provided "in case any of the persons who, according to the said above-mentioned act, shall 
 have been directed to sink or complete piers and bridges in the said city, have neglected or shall 
 neglect to comply with such directions, it shall be lawful for the said Mayor, Aldermen and Com- 
 monalty to grant the right of making such piers and bridges, and the right of receiving the profits 
 thereof to any person or persons in fee or otherwise, upon such terms as they shall think 
 proper." 
 
 On the 3d, of April, 1807, an act was passed by the Legislature relating to the map or plan of 
 the city, wherein the XV section provided for duly regulating and constructing slips and basins, 
 and for running out wharves and piers, and declaring that it was essential that the right to the land 
 under water, below low-water mark, should be vested in the Corporation of the City of New York ; 
 but it was ** provided always " therein also " that the proprietors of the lands adjacent shall have 
 pre-emptive right in all grants made by the Corporation of the said City of any lands under water 
 granted to the said Corporation under this act." 
 
 In December, 1807, the Commissioners of the Land Office, by letters patent duly issued by 
 them, granted to the City of New York all the right and title of the people of the State- to the lands 
 covered by water along the East and North rivers, as designated and described in and authorized 
 by the act last referred to. 
 
 Under the two charters and the course of the legislation referred to, the City acquired the title 
 to the land granted which the Crown of England or the State could convey, and it also acquired all 
 the rights to fill up such lands, and build wharves thereon and receive the wharfage and other 
 advantages therefor, which the sovereign authority could give it. 
 
 Taking the language of the charters and grants, the course of legislation, and all the statutes 
 in pari materia, the situation of the lands granted, and the use to which many portions of them 
 had, with the knowledge and consent of the Legislature, been from time to time devoted, it is clear 
 that the lands under water around the city were conveyed to it in fee to enable it to fill them up as 
 the interest of the City might require, and to regulate and control the wharf and wharfage. 
 
 Whatever title and property rights the City thus obtained it could transfer and convey to 
 individuals. Having the power to extend the ripa around the city, and thus make dry land, it 
 could authorize any individual to do it. Whatever wharves and docks it could build it could author- 
 ize individuals to build, and whatever wharfage it could tal<e it could authorize individuals to take. 
 Its dominion over the lands under water, for the purpose indicated in the preamble contained in 
 section 15, above cited, was complete. 
 
 It has always been admitted that the grants made by the City to private individuals vested in 
 them severally the absolute fee of the land granted ; and that they could fill up the land under 
 water, and thus become the owners of the dry land ; and it has also been admitted that said 
 grantees or their successors in title did fill up the said land under water so as to make it dry land 
 
9 
 
 and built the streets, wharves and piers, as provided or covenanted for in said grants or prescribed 
 by city ordinances, and have, at their own proper cost as required, "forever thereafter upheld, 
 maintained, sustained and kept them in good and sufficient manner and condition " ; and that 
 South and West streets have always been for the free and common use of the inhabitants of the City 
 of New York. The grantees or their successors in title, having observed, performed, fulfilled and kept 
 according to the true meaning and purport, the covenants reserved in said grants, the said several 
 acts of the Legislature and the ordmances of the Common Council in relation thereto from time to 
 time, loecarne entitled to and did take and do now hold, to their own proper use, all and all 
 manner of wharfage, dockage, cranage, average profits, benefits and advantages arising therefrom, 
 forever. ' ' 
 
 The administration of the City's affairs, so far as relates to the water-front, about the year 
 seventeen hundred and ninety-eight, assumed an even tenor, and the same was substantially fol- 
 lowed up to the time when the Legislature passed the act known as chapter 574 of the Laws of 
 1 87 1, to which you are referred for specific details. 
 
 In summarizing that act, however, I may say that the Department of Docks was organized in 
 1870, and by subdivision 2 of section 6 of chapter 574 of the Laws of 187 1, to it was given exclu- 
 sive charge and control, subject, in certain particulars, to the approval of the "Commissioners of 
 the Sinking Fund," of all wharf property belonging to the Corporation of the City of New York, 
 including all the wharves, piers, bulkheads and structures thereon, and waters adjacent thereto, and 
 all the slips, basins, docks, water-front and land under water and structures thereon, and the appurte- 
 nances, easements, uses, reversions and rights belonging thereto, to which said Corporation is or 
 may become entitled, or which said Corporation may acquire under the provisions of this law or 
 otherwise, and said Department was placed in exclusive charge and control of the repairing, build- 
 ing, rebuilding, maintaining, altering, strengthening, leasing and protecting said property, and 
 every part thereof, and of all the cleaning, dredging and deepening necessary in and about the 
 same, and the said Department was also invested with the exclusive government and regulation of 
 all wharves, piers, bulkheads and structures thereon, and waters adjacent thereon, and all the basins, 
 slips and docks with the land under water in said city, not owned by said Corporation. 
 
 By subdivision 4 of said section 6 of chapter 574 of Laws of 1871, the Department of Docks 
 was authorized to acquire, in the name and for the benefit of the Corporation of the City of New 
 York, any and all wharf property in said city to which the Corporation then had no right or title, 
 and any rights, terms, easements and privileges pertaining to any wharf property in said city and 
 not owned by said Corporation. It is authorized to acquire the same either by purchase or by pro- 
 cess of law. Said Board may agree with the owners of any such property, rights, terms, easements 
 and privilages, upon a price for the same, and certify such agreement to the Commissioners of the 
 Sinking Fund, and if said Commissioners approve of such agreement said Board shall take from 
 such owners, at such price, the necessary conveyances and covenants for vesting such property, 
 rights, terms, easements or privileges in, and assuring the same to the Mayor, Aldermen and Com- 
 monalty of the City of New York forever, and said owners shall be paid from the City Treasury as 
 hereinafter provided. If the said Board shall deem it proper that the said Corporation should 
 acquire possession of any such wharf property, rights, terms, easements and privileges, for which no 
 price can be agreed upon between the owners thereof and the said Board, the said Board may 
 direct the Counsel to the Corporation of said city to take legal proceedings to acquire the same for 
 the Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty of said city, and the said Counsel to the Corporation shall 
 take the same proceedings to acquire the same as are by law provided for the taking of private 
 property in said city for public streets or places, and the provisions of law relating to the taking of 
 private property for public streets or places in said city are hereby made applicable, as far as may 
 be necessary, to the acquiring of the said property, rights, terms, easements and privileges, and 
 said Board is also empowered to acquire in like manner the title to lands under water and uplands 
 as shall seem to said Board necessary to be taken for the improvement of the water-front. 
 
 Subdivision 5 of section 6 of the same law prOjVides that when the plans mentioned in sub- 
 division 3 of the same section shall have been adopted by the Commissioners of the Sinking Fund, 
 
lO 
 
 the Board of the Department of Docks shall proceed, according to said plans, to lay out, establish 
 and construct wharves, piers, bulkheads, docks or slips, in the territory or district embraced in such 
 plan or plans, and in and upon or about the property owned by the Mayor, Aldermen and Com- 
 monalty of the City of New York, "without interfering with the property or rights of any other 
 *' person, except so far as may be necessary to insure the safety and stability of the wharves, piers, 
 *' bulkheads, basins or slips so to be constructed, and said Board may commence such construction, 
 "in sections of said territory or district, from time to time, so as not to seriously incommode the 
 ** commerce of the City." 
 
 Subdivision lo of section 6 of the same law authorizes the Commissioners of the Land Office to 
 convey by proper instruments in writing necessary for the purpose, all the property, right, title and 
 interest of the people of the State of New York in and to the land under water " used and taken " 
 by the said Board for the construction of wharves, docks, piers, bulkheads, basins and slips, under 
 this act, whenever it may be required by said Board to make such conveyance to the Mayor, 
 Aldermen and Commonalty of the City of New York. 
 
 By the same act the Department of Docks was authorized to expend a sum not exceeding 
 $3,000,000 per annum, in accomplishing the purposes contemplated by the Legislature. 
 
 Pursuant to these provisions of law, elaborate surveys were made and plans prepared after 
 much study and at a great expense, and were approved by the Commissioners of the Sinking Fund» 
 The works of improvement were commenced, but have progressed slowly for the reason that private 
 rights and property were neither acknowledged nor respected. The plans adopted by the Depart- 
 ment of Docks contemplated, in brief, the widening of West and South streets on the outer side, by 
 piling or filling out into the rivers, so that their total width should be two hundred and fifty feet on 
 West street, and two hundred feet on South street, and the building of substantial bulkheads of 
 granite masonry as recommended by Committee No. 5 of the Chamber of Commerce, and adopted, 
 unanimously by the Chamber on the 28th, day of September, 1870, and the building of new piers 
 generally of greater width and length than those now existing. It will, of course, be seen that ta 
 carry out this plan practically involves the demolition of all the old existing piers and bulkheads 
 within the limits, whether public or private. 
 
 The. piers and bulkheads along the water-front of the City of New York, although they are,.- 
 with few exceptions, like the streets of the city, public structures in their nature and in their uses, yet 
 they have one characteristic ot private property, which constitutes their whole value as such — that 
 is, that the " wharfage " arising from them belongs to their respective owners. 
 
 These private rights all arose under one system and in substantially the same manner. 
 
 I have shown that shortly before the beginning of the present century, about the year 1798, a 
 system of piers and bulkheads came into existence, resulting from the concurrent action of the City 
 Government and the Legislature, and, that, that system prevailed up to the time of the adoption of the 
 plans of 1 87 1. It contemplated the establishment of seventy-foot exterior streets (the present West 
 and South streets), and the extension of piers thereffom. The title to the water lots extending to 
 these streets was generally in the City, and sometimes also the land beyond them on which the 
 piers were built. The act of the Legislature gave permission for the establishment of the street 
 where it should rest on public ungranted land under water belonging the State, and provided for 
 the building of the piers by private owners of water lots extending from the exterior streets, with 
 the permission ot the City Government, and for the retention of wharfage by the grantees as a 
 recompense for doing so. The City, by its grants of these water lots, required that the grantees- 
 should build the exterior streets, and should have the wharfage and cranage forever that should 
 arise from them, or from the bulkheads built along their outer edge, and enforced or permitted the 
 building of said bulkheads and piers by resolution of the Common Council. 
 
 Under this system nearly all the water-front, including the exterior streets, bulkheads and 
 piers, was built up. In some cases, however, the City authorities did not make private grants of 
 the right, but built the structures themselves with public money, and so retained the whole wharf- 
 age, or else joined with private owners, and retained, a part, so that many of the piers and bulkheads, 
 in whole or in part, became and still are City property. 
 
II 
 
 But all the private wharfage rights along the water-front were the result of water grants," to 
 aid the building of the exterior streets or wharves and piers by private owners, by the authority 
 of the Legislature, and of the City Government, under the provisions of their acts. It 
 cannot be doubted, that these rights were the "property " which the law makers had in view, and 
 for the acquisition of which, by purchase or condemnation, they made provision by the act of 
 1871. 
 
 Within a short time after the adoption of the new plans, under the laws of 1871, the Depart- 
 ment of Docks commenced to put them into execution on West street, between Canal and Eleventh 
 streets, by destroying the old wharves and piers, widening the street one hundred and eighty feet, 
 and building and filling up the old slips. In this work no recognition was made in any instance of 
 the rights of private owners whose wharves and piers were demolished or made useless. On the 
 contrary, the position was taken by the Department, under advise of the then Counsel to the 
 Corporation, that its powers, under the law, were so extended ihat all private rights thus inter- 
 fered with were not "perpetual " in their nature, but were subject to be terminated at the City's 
 will and pleasure. It was insisted that the grantees' private rights were not meant to be perma- 
 nent when they were created ; that neither the City nor the State had power to grant permanent 
 rights, and that, therefore, these grants contained necessarily an implied reservation of power by 
 the City to terminate the rights under them at any time, by filling up in front of them whenever it 
 should be the judgment (whim or caprice, whatever it may be called) of the authorities, that it was 
 necessary or advisable to do so, notwithstanding the provision in subdivision 5 of section 6 of the 
 act of 187 1 that " private rights or property should not be interfered with." 
 
 In support of this contention, it was urged that the "grants " did not contain the word " for- 
 ever " or any equivalent expression, but generally were for the wharfage arising from the structure 
 to be erected, and that thereby it was the intention of the grantor to leave the rights of the private 
 owners to the mercy of the City authorities whenever it chose to demolish these structures. 
 
 It may readily be supposed that when the City authorities began to put these ideas into practi- 
 cal execution on West street, between Canal and West Eleventh streets, the property-owners did not 
 delay in taking measures for the protection of their rights. Some few permitted this invasion of 
 their rights and brought suits or made claims against the City for the resulting damage. In the 
 majority of cases, however, a preventive remedy was availed of, so that after a time, it became the 
 regular course for the Department of Docks to commence to fill the slip or drive piles in front of it, 
 and for the wharf owner to obtain a preliminary injunction from the Court against its action. After 
 a while, the Department, seeing that its operations were constantly restrained, ceased to prosecute 
 the work of improvement in that manner. Of the various suits that have been brought several have 
 come before the courts. One, involving the rights in the water-front on the North river, between 
 Twenty-sixth and Twenty-seventh streets, has been argued in the United States Circuit Court and 
 decided adversely to the City. The same result has been reached in the same court in a suit 
 involving a slightly different state of facts on the East river, between Forty-ninth and Fifty-first 
 streets. The only one of all the suits brought that has ever reached the court of last resort in this 
 State, is that of Langdon against The Mayor, etc., decided early in October, 1883. This litigation 
 involved the rights of the successors to the title of John Jacob Astor, under grant to him in 1810, of 
 a water lot at the northeast corner of West and King streets. This suit, after a decision favorable 
 to the City by the single judge who first heard it, and a reversal of that decision on appeal to the 
 General Term, was carried to the Court of Appeals by the City, and the judgment of the General 
 Term was affirmed by a unanimous Court and the position of the private owners was fully sus- 
 tained. 
 
 Several points were settled by the opinion of the Court in this case, written by Mr. Justice Earl. 
 
 1. That grants of wharfage to accrue from wharves built by private parties, made under the 
 water-front system in question, whether made by the Legislature or by the City, are perpetual 
 in their duration and not revokable by the action of the public authorities. 
 
 2. The private rights created by these acts are in their nature " property," and are protected 
 by the Constitution. 
 
I 2 
 
 3. Not only, therefore, was it not the intention of the Legislature that these rights should be 
 overridden by the powers conferred by the acts of 1870 and 1871, but they are constitutionally 
 protected from such a result ; and, moreover, it was the design of the Legislature that compensa- 
 tion should be made for them when they were interfered with. 
 
 In the case in question the only thing involved was a "bulkhead grant" along West street. 
 The decision is, of course, an authority so far as the facts go. There was no pier right in question, 
 so that if there were any substantial differences between the character of the grants under which 
 piers were built, the question as to the piers would not have been decided. 
 
 But all these grants, both of piers and bulkheads, are essentially similar, and the only difference 
 being that the grants of bulkheads are evidenced by a sealed instrument, and those of piers by act of 
 the legislature and a resolution of the Common Council. And the application of the decision is 
 equally forcible whether the land under water in front of the bulkheads belongs to the State or the 
 City. The Court expressly says in the Langdon case that grants of this character, if made by the 
 State, are as permanent and as bindmg as if made by the City. And all the piers that were author- 
 ized or that the City had granted were authorized or directed to be built under its direction as the 
 agent of the State. Hence, the error of supposing an intention on the part of the authorities to 
 give the character of permanency and a status of " property " to the private rights in some of the 
 wharf structures, and denying it to others erected under the same system, is manifest at once. It is 
 property which the grantee could lease and sell to individuals, and the custom has always been to 
 lease or sell, and their rights to do so is provided for or recognized in various acts of the Legis- 
 lature. 
 
 Mr. Justice Earl says, in his opinion, that "a wharf is a structure on the margin of navigable 
 * ' waters, alongside of which vessels can be brought for the sake of being conveniently loaded or 
 ** unloaded, and wharfage is the fee paid for tying vessels to a wharf, or for loading goods cn a 
 *' wharf or shipping them therefrom. Hence, water of sufficient depth to float vessels is an essential 
 *' part of every wharf, a necessary incident thereof or appurtenance thereto, without which there 
 *' can be no wharf and no wharfage. Indeed, a wharf cannot be defined or conceived except in 
 *' connection with adjacent navigable water. Hence, it is claimed that by the legal effect of the 
 ** grants, the land under water, outside of the wharf. South and West streets, became subservient 
 *' to the right of wharfage granted ; that the land under water was, by force of the grant, devoted 
 *' to the purpose of floating vessels which might resort to the wharf, and could not lawfully put the 
 *' land under water in front of the wharf to any use which would prevent access to the wharf, or 
 *' destroy the right of wharfage, without making compensation for the injury thus inflicted. 
 
 "The legal proposition that the grant of the right of wharfage at a wharf, adjoining land 
 *' under water belonging to the grantor, carries with it as a necessary incident and appurtenance, 
 ** and in legal effect as part of the grant a right of way or access to the wharf for vessels over the 
 ** grantor's adjacent land under water, has the support of legal principles, which, it is believed. 
 *' have never been disputed. In 3 Kent's Comm., 421, it is laid down as a general rule * that when 
 the use of a thing is granted, everything is granted by which the grantee may have and enjoy 
 "such use.' In the Charles River Bridge case. Judge Story, at page 592, said that * It is a 
 ** principle of common sense, as well as of law, that where a thing is granted, whatever is neces- 
 ** sary to its enjoyment is granted also.' In Co. Litt., 56a, it is said : 'He who grants a thing, 
 *' grants impliedly all that is necessary to the enjoyment of that thing, and this principle extends 
 to grants made by the law.' In 2 Wash, on Real Prop. (3d ed.), 278, it is said: *An ease- 
 ment may be created or reserved by an implied grant when its existence is necessary to the 
 " enjoyment of that which is expressly granted or reserved, upon the principle that when one 
 *' grants anything to another, he thereby grants him the means of enjoying it, whether expressed or 
 *' not.' 
 
 '* An easement for acccess to the wharf over the adjacent land of the City under water, passed 
 ** by necessary implication. Without the easement the wharf would be of no use, there could be 
 " no wharfage, and the grant as to the wharf and wharfage would be futile. The grant was made 
 *' for an adequate valuable consideration. It was not made solely or primarily for the benefit of 
 
13 
 
 ** the grantee, but primarily for the benefit of the City in pursuance of a policy for improving its 
 *' harbor and furnishing its treasury. Under such circumstances there is no rule of construction 
 which can confine the grant to the metes and bounds mentioned in the deed. If the City had 
 owned this wharf and granted it, the right to wharfage and an easement for access to the wharf 
 ** over the adjacent land of the City under water would have passed by necessary implication as 
 " incidents and appurtenances of the thing granted." 
 
 Acting under the decision in the Langdon case the Department of Docks has only purchased 
 from private owners about four hundred and fifty feet of bulkhead or wharf rights on North river 
 below Canal street and one hundred feet above Canal street. The private owners who have 
 obtained injunctions are well satisfied with the condition of affairs and do not care to take any 
 affirmative steps. It would take years to bring any other existing litigation involving these 
 questions to a final hearing either in the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court of the United 
 States, except by an agreed case, which seems improbable. 
 
 The Department of Docks has, since its organization in 1870 to May ist, 1886, sixteen years, 
 had a total gross revenue of $12,780,584.63 from leases and wharfages, and has in that time made 
 a total expenditure of $12,176,361.16, including payments of $203,530 purchase money for the 
 Inman Pier, now renting for $30,000 per annum ; purchasing bulkheads between Harrison and 
 Hubert streets, $2^60,562.50 ; bulkheads above Canal street, $52,387.50, and bulkheads near Mur- 
 ray street of $14,250 ; and now has on hand a floating plant valued at $176,900. 
 
 The revenue collected by the Department of Docks does not include the ferry rentals received 
 by the Comptroller for several years past. But the Dock Department should be credited with the 
 revenue derived from ferries as being derived from that part of the water-front which it has improved 
 and cared for. 
 
 In the year ending May 1st, 1886, the Department of Docks collected, from leases 
 
 and wharfages $1,228,151 50 
 
 During the same period the Comptroller collected for ferry rentals, for wharves and 
 
 franchises 328,000 00 
 
 Total revenue collected from wharf property Si»556,i5i 50 
 
 The Dock Department has expended in the same tune only 376,789 72 
 
 Net revenue over expenditures ior the year ending May i, 1886, of. . $1,179,361 7S 
 
 The engineering plans and the system of work of the Department were thoroughly examined 
 and approved by a board of distinguished engineers in 1876, and again in 1881. The Board con- 
 sisted of General John Newton, late Chief of Engineers, U. S. A., now Commissioner of Public 
 Works of the City of New York ; General Q. A. Gillmore, U. S. Engineers, President of the Missis 
 sippi River Commission, and Mr. William E. Worthen, C. E., of New York. 
 
 It goes without saying that the permanent improvements of the New York water-front that have 
 been made by the Department of Docks, have not been made with that economy that would have 
 resulted had the private owners been first settled with by the City, amicably or by condemnation 
 proceedings, as provided for by chapter 574 of the Laws of 1871. 
 
 And yet it is claimed substantially by the Counsel to the Corporation that the City, by the 
 Department of Docks, has the right to build bulkheads, on land under water in East river, directly 
 in front of bulkheads that have been built by private owners, under grants from the City of New 
 York, with right to collect wharfage " forever," and to cut off the private owners from their rights and 
 privileges of wharfage, without compensation, notwithstanding the grantees and their successors in 
 title have built and maintained the bulkheads and piers, and collected wharfage from them for over 
 seventy-five years. The Counsel to the Corporation has admitted, however, that as long as the 
 bulkheads and piers belonging to private owners remain as they do to-day, the private owners' 
 right to enjoy the wharfage and other emoluments cannot be interfered with. 
 
14 
 
 After an extensive research with considerable care, I made an approximate estimate from 
 reliable data of the probable cost of improving the water-front, between the Battery and West 
 Eleventh street, and from Whitehall street to the Brooklyn Bridge, including the purchase of private 
 property, and the private property which has been seized and improved by the City of New York, 
 but not paid for : 
 
 NORTH RIVER. 
 
 From the Battery, Pier i, to West Eleventh street, length of the bulkhead-line is.. 10,800 feet. 
 
 Of which approximately there is — • 
 
 City property, say 4,600 feet. 
 
 Private property, say 6,200 '* 
 
 10,800 " 
 
 The ascertained average cost of widening West street, 180 feet so as to make it 250 
 feet wide when finished, building bulkheads with granite masonry, filling in 
 
 behind and paving 10,800 feet, is less than $350 per lineal foot, but say $3,780,000 00 
 
 To reimburse private owners for 6,200 feet of bulkhead, valued at $650 per lineal foot 
 
 front, say 4,030,000 00 
 
 For 4,600 feet of City's property, between the Battery and West Eleventh street, at 
 
 same value, $650 per lineal foot front, say 3,390,000 00 
 
 To pay private owners for twenty-five piers at $150,000 each, exclusive of bulk- 
 heads, say 3,750,00000 
 
 To build forty-seven piers, at an average cost of $55,000 each, say 2,585,000 00 
 
 Total estimated value of property and cost of widening and improving 
 
 West street, from the Battery to West Eleventh street $17,535,000 00 
 
 IMPROVEMENTS ALREADY MADE. 
 
 The Dock Department has already completed the proposed improvements between 
 Canal and West Eleventh streets, according to the approved plans, a distance of 
 
 3,318 feet, wich granite masonry bulkheads and filling in behind and paving 
 180 feet of the street, at an average of something less than $350 per lineal foot 
 
 front, or say for $1,161,300 00 
 
 Value of 2,100 feet of private bulkhead property between streets or piers, at the rate 
 of $650 per lineal foot, which the City seized by the advice of the then Corpo- 
 ration Counsel, without compensation to the owners, say 1,365,000 00 
 
 Value of City's 1,218 feet of bulkhead property interlying with private property, at 
 
 the same valuation of $650 per foot, say 791,700 00 
 
 *l'he City has built fifteen extensive long and wide piers, at an average cost of 
 
 say $55,000 each, or a total, say, of 825,000 00 
 
 Total present value or cost of 3,318 feet of wharf property, including 
 
 improvements between Canal and West Eleventh streets $4,143,000 00 
 
 This improved district brings to the City a revenue of about §400,000 per annum, equal to 10 
 per cent, on the above valuation of the entire district between Canal and West Eleventh streets, for 
 which the City has or will have to issue, say, 4 per cent, bonds, thus making a clear 6 per cent, on 
 it improvements. The City has only paid for 100 feet of the 2,100 feet of the bulkhead which it 
 unlawfully seized and appropriated to its own use, but its draws the revenue from it punctually. 
 
15 
 
 RECAPITULATION. 
 
 Total estimated value of property and cost of improvements betw^een the Battery 
 
 and West Eleventh street, North river, say $i7.S35>ocx) oo 
 
 Deduct improvements already made and cost of property betvv^een Canal street and 
 
 West Eleventh street, 3,318 feet, as estimated, say 4,143,000 00 
 
 Amount required to complete improvements, covering the value of the City prop- 
 erty and purchasing private property between the Battery and Canal street, as 
 show^n $13,392,000 00 
 
 If, then, additional improvements are made, it is reasonable to be supposed that the 
 investment will readily return the same revenue of 10 per cent, per annum, or 
 
 say a net income of $1,339,200 00 
 
 For which the City will issue 3^ or 4 per cent, bonds, or say at 4 per cent., the 
 
 interest on which would be 535 > 680 00 
 
 A net profit in revenue for this district of $856,000 00 
 
 To which add the district between Canal and West Eleventh streets already com- 
 pleted 400,000 00 
 
 You will have a total net Vevenue per annum on value of property and cost of 
 
 improvements of over $1,250,00000 
 
 EAST RIVER. 
 
 From Whitehall street to Brooklyn Bridge 6,411 feet. 
 
 Approximately City property 3>753 feet. 
 
 Approximately private property 2,658 " 
 
 6,411 
 
 Cost of widening South street 130 feet to make the street 200 feet wide, building 
 bulkheads of granite masonry, filling-in and paving same, say 6,411 feet, at 
 
 $300 per lineal foot is $1,923,300 00 
 
 Building twenty-four piers, averaging $50,000 per pier each 1,200,000 00 
 
 To reimburse private owners for 2,658 lineal feet of bulkheads, including piers at, 
 
 say, $1,000 per foot 2,658,000 00 
 
 Total for improvement on East river, between Brooklyn Bridge and 
 
 Wlutehall street $5,781,30000 
 
 With the bulkheads these piers will readily rent for $25,000 each, besides the ferries; adding 
 these together will bring an income to the City of over 10^ per cent, on the cost or value of the 
 property and improvements. 
 
 These high rentals are exorbitant and with other causes have tended to drive commerce from 
 New York — $30,000,000 in value has already gone to Hoboken, Jersey City, Communipaw, 
 Gowanus Bay and to Brooklyn. Now Staten Island and Greenville are looming up as competitors, 
 and want as much more. 
 
 It is a serious question whether or not we should use 1,000,000 cart-loads of ashes per annum to 
 fill the widenings of West and South streets, or dump it into the bay or off the mouth of the harbor. 
 
 The Law Department insists that the Dock Department shall refuse permission for the 
 improvement of private property which the City wants to purchase. What must the private prop- 
 erty-holder do, if he cannot improve his holdings ? What must shippers do for want of dock 
 facilities ? 
 
 The trade and commerce of the whole country, as well as that of the City of New York, has 
 been made to suffer from this peculiar policy. 
 
i6 
 
 The policy heretofore pursued has prevented the acquisition of all but about six hundred feet 
 of private property in the fourteen years since the organization of the Department of Docks. 
 
 Private individuals are, and have been, willing to improve property or to sell their holdings on 
 the water-front at reasonable prices. I have shown that ten years have been spent in litigations 
 and the City has only acquired about six hundred feet of private bulkheads between the Battery 
 and West Eleventh street, out of ownerships of over six thousand two hundred feet, and has accom- 
 plished nothing on the East river, notwithstanding several attempts haVe been made to come to an 
 amicable understanding and agreement. As I have said, the private owners are willing to " sell all 
 the bulkheads, wharves and pier rights, not already owned by the Corporation of the City of New 
 York," for a specific sum or price of which the Dock Department is to be the judge of its adequacy, 
 subject to the approval of the Commissioners of the Sinking Fund. 
 
 The Dock Department has been completely paralyzed for want of funds to go on with the per- 
 manent improvement of the water-front. 
 
 Permit me to suggest that after the purchase of private bulkheads or pier property on North or 
 East river, in contemplation of the permanent improvements, the first money expended should be in 
 building fifteen or twenty piers on the new plan, with cheap tempor9,ry approaches, and later to build 
 the permanent bulkhead of granite masonry — as has already been done in several instances. 
 This course would incommode the pier lessees in the least possible manner and keep most 
 of the water-front in use while the work was going on. Then, at the same time, the 
 existing marginal structures between the piers can be widened by temporary platforms, to 
 remain until the permanent wall is built, and the area behind is filled in with coal ashes — the debris 
 of old buildings, and cellar dirt, now dumped into the bay or off the mouth of the harbor of New 
 York. Over 10,000,000 cubic yards of such valuable material has already been taken seaward 
 since the Dock Department commenced its improvement of the water-front. Had the private 
 property specified been purchased instead of some of it seized, this amount would have been suf- 
 ficient to have filled in behind the bulkheads of the widened streets from the Brooklyn Bridge clear 
 around to West Eleventh street. These marginal platforms of very efficient construction, it is esti- 
 mated, will not cost more than fifty cents per square foot, or, say $90 per running foot front, and 
 the bulkheads, when thus temporarily built, will readily lease for $20 per running foot, or at over 
 tw^enty per cent, per annum, for four or five years, on their cost, while the granite bulkhead is 
 gradually being built. I may say here too, that contractors who have the debris of old buildings 
 and cellar dirt to remove would gladly pay the Dock Department twenty-five cents per cart-load for 
 permission to dump their materials in as filling, instead of sending it seaward by scows at a much 
 greater cost and loss to the City. 
 
 It is estimated that 500,000 cart-loads per annum are wasted and the City loses even this income 
 of $125,000, but the harbor is also damaged by having it taken seaward. 
 
 I find upon inquiry that several old piers belonging to the City are leased at an annual rental of 
 $15,000 under stipulations, that when the City chooses to rebuild them, say at a cost of $50,000 to 
 $55,000 each, the lessees will have to shed the same at their own cost, and will have to pay $30,000 
 per annum rent, or in other words, will have to pay the City $15,000 additional rent per annum on 
 an expenditure of say $55,000, a profit of over twenty-six per cent, on the investment for rebuilding 
 the piers, and the same parties will also pay $20 per running foot for a lease of the bulkhead 
 between the piers, or say twenty per cent, per annum on the cost of the temporary bulkheads. 
 
 As a financial investment for the City, where could there be a safer one ? How could commerce 
 be so improved or New York so benefited as by thus improving and making the water-front the 
 most copimodious and the harbor the most inviting in this hemisphere ? 
 
 I have the honor to be, gentlemen, 
 
 . Your obedient servant, 
 
 SIMON STEVENS. 
 
 The Comptroller submitted the following report in relation to issuing Dock Bonds for the uses 
 and purposes of the Department of Docks, viz. : 
 
17 
 
 City of New York — F'inaNCe Department, \ 
 Comptroller's Office, v 
 September 17th, 18S6. ) 
 
 To the Commissioners of the Sinking Fund : 
 
 Gentlemen — On the 27th of July, last, a preamble and resolution, adopted by the Commis- 
 sioners of Docks on July 15th, relative to the issue of Dock Bonds tor two million dollars, authorized 
 by a resolution of the Commissioners of the Sinking Fund, adopted on the 9th, day of July, 1885, 
 was referred to the Comptroller, together with a communication from the Commissioners of Docks, 
 containing estnnates of the amount required for the purchase of bulkheads and piers from private 
 owners, and the cost of the improvement of the water-front within certain limits, according to the 
 plans of 1871, amounting to $5,219,000. 
 
 The issue of the Dock Bonds authorized by the Commissioners of the Sinking Fund on July 
 9th, 1885, was prevented by an i-^junction order granted by the Court of Common Pleas at the suit 
 of the Bank for Savings in the City of New York against The Mayor, etc., restraining the Comp- 
 troller and Mayor of said city from issuing said bonds. This action v/as carried to the Court of 
 Appeals, and the injunction order was reversed by a decision made April 30ih, 1886. 
 
 Under the decision of the Court of Appeals, Dock Bonds may now hi issued without violation 
 of the provision of the State Constitution as amended in 1884, which restricted the issue of stocks 
 and bonds of the city. 
 
 I submit a resolution ratifying the resolution of the Commissioners of the Sinking Fund, adopted 
 July 9ih, 1885, authorizing the issue of said bonds for the sum of two million dollars, and directing 
 the issue thereof to be made according to the resolution of the Commissioners of Docks. 
 
 Respectfully, 
 
 EDWARD V. LOEW, Comptroller. 
 
 Whereas, The Commissioners of the Sinking Fund on July 9th, 1885, adopted a resolution to 
 authorize the issue of Dock Bonds to the amount of two million dollars ($2,000,000), as follows : 
 
 " Resolved, That pursuant to the provisions of subdivision 11 of section 6 of chapter 574 of the 
 " Liws of 1871, re-enacted by section 143 of the New York City Consolidation Act of 18S2, the 
 " Comptroller be and is hereby authorized and directed to prepare and issue from time to time, to 
 " meet the requirements of the Department of Docks, ' Dock Bonds of the City of New York,' bear- 
 " ing interest not exceeding three and one-half per cent, per annum, to the amount of two million 
 dollars (S2,ooo,ooo), to raise the moneys required for the uses and purposes of that Department, 
 " under a resolution adopted by the Commissioners of the Department of Docks at a meeting held 
 " by themjune 25th, 1885." 
 
 And Whereas, The Comptroller was restrained and enjoined from issuing said bonds by an 
 injunction order of the Court of Common Pleas ; and 
 
 Whereas, Said injunction order has been reversed by the Court of Appeals, and the Commis 
 sioners of Docks have applied by a resolution adopted by them on July 15th for the issue of said 
 bonds for the improvement of the water-front of the city ; and 
 
 Whereas, The Commissioners of Docks adopted a resolution on July 15th, 1886. requesting the 
 execution of said resolution of the Commissioners of the Sinking Fund, adopted July 9th, 1885, 
 authorizing the issue of Dock Bonds as above recited ; therefore 
 
 Resolved, That said resolution adopted on July 9lh, 1885, author zing the issue of Dock Bonds 
 to the amount of two million dollars ($2,000,000), be and is hereby confirmed and ratified, and the 
 Comptroller is hereby authorized and directed to issue said bonds as therein provided. 
 
 The report was accepted, and it was moved that the resolution be adopted. 
 
 Mr. Henry N, Beers, representing "the Counsel of Municipal Reform," requested to be lieard 
 and proceeded at some length to address the Commissioners on the subject under consideration. 
 
 On motion of the Chamberlain, seconded by the Recorder, the previous question was ordered ; 
 and, on motion, the resolution submitted with the report was unanimously adopted, all the Com- 
 missioners present voting in the affirmative.