CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN DAVID BANKS A COMMISSIONER TO REPORT A PLAN FOR THE "WEST END RIVERSIDE IMPROVEMENT" AND PETER B. SWEENY David Bank LEGAL CONSIDERATION OF THE ACT OF THE LEGISLATURE RELATING TO THE PROPOSED BRIDGE BE- TWEEN THE CITY OF NEW YORK AND THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY (Laws of 1890, Chap. 233) CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN DAVID BANKS A COMMISSIONER TO REPORT A PLAN FOR THE " WEST END RIVERSIDE IMPROVEMENT " AND PETER B. SWEENY NEW YORK BANKS & BROTHERS LAW PUBLISHERS 189I 7(7 Press of J. J. Little A Co. Astor Place, New York LEGAL CONSIDERATION OF THE ACT OF THE LEGISLATURE RELATING TO THE PROPOSED BRIDGE BETWEEN THE CITY OF NEW YORK AND THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY. , (Laws of 1890, Chapter 233.) Letter of inquiry from David Banks, Esq., one of the Commissioners appointed to consider and report upon the plan for the West End Riverside improvement. Hon. Peter B. Sweeny. Dear Sir ; — I have noticed in the public press, refer- ences to a bill passed at the late session of the Legislature, giving to certain gentlemen the privilege of constructing a bridge across the Hudson River, in connection with which they claim extensive authority affecting the city and prop- erty owners at large. For example, the right to construct viaduct roads, starting at the bridge terminus at Seventy- first Street, one hundred and fifty feet high, and running through the city in various directions. Also to cross the Harlem River, and establish a system of viaducts in that direction. The right to take large plots of land for station and depot purposes is also claimed. The recent announce- ment of proposed routes came as a great surprise to the community, that being the first intimation of the scope of the scheme. When land is marked to be taken for such 4 purposes, it cannot be sold or improved ; and the property along which a viaduct road of any kind is to be built, is deteriorated in value. This injury is increased by a disfig- uring height. I notice, besides, that one of the viaduct routes, when it reaches Seventy-ninth Street, takes a course westerly of the Central Railroad tracks. Is not this an encroachment on the property set apart by the municipal authorities for the great Terrace improvement ? You are aware I am a member of the Commission appointed to report a plan for the improvement of this practically waste land, so as to provide the most attractive place conceivable for the recre- ation and enjoyment of all classes of the community on an elevation bordering the Hudson River. This ground, orna- mented by the skill of the present perfection of landscape gardening, will have a beauty and attractiveness, aside from the practical utility, which will make it a feature of our city such as no other city in the world possesses. The site and proportions of the Hudson River contribute to give this metropolis its unexcelled advantages. This improvement is an effort to turn to the best account our magnificent natural resources. The defeat of this grand scheme would be a public misfortune. For every reason, therefore, it is important to our citizens that the precise character of the bridge scheme should be made known. This bridge business should not be a perpetual menace, and there should be no system of sudden surprises in a matter of that magnitude, involving the welfare of the city in so many ways. I have thought that from your interest in the Terrace improvement, you would be willing to undertake the task of development on public grounds — easier for you than 5 most members of your profession, because of your famil- iarity with the laws relating to the city. By doing so, you will confer a benefit on the community, and a personal favor on Yours respectfully, DAVID BANKS. New York, December 13, 1890. REPLY OF PETER B. SWEENY. New York, December 15, 1890. David Banks, Esq. Dear Sir : — I have received your note of the 13th inst., requesting me to develop the precise character of the scheme embraced in the act of the Legislature relating to a bridge across the Hudson River to the State of New Jersey (Laws of 1890, chap. 233), in its effect upon the West End Riverside improvement, to promote which you are a Commissioner — and for the general public benefit. My interest in the success of the improvement to which you refer had induced me to carefully read and consider the law in question prior to receiving your communication. I have decided convictions as to its principal features. I give you the results of my investigation very cheerfully. The act became a law on the 30th day of April, 1890, without the approval of the Governor, in accordance with the provisions of Article 4, Section 9, of the Constitution. It declares that all persons who shall become stockhold- ers, pursuant to the act, shall be, and they are thereby cre- ated a body corporate by the name of The New York and New Jersey Bridge Company, with power to associate with any other persons, company, association, or corporation in the United States, for the purpose of constructing and 6 maintaining a permanent bridge for passenger and other traffic, over the waters between New York City and the State of New Jersey, together with all necessary appurten- ances and approaches thereto, and stations, and in case of destruction to reconstruct the same. CAPITAL AND ORGANIZATION. The capital of the Company is to be ten millions of dollars in one-hundred-dollar shares. Its affairs are to be managed by a board of thirteen directors. The officers of the Company are to consist of a President, Vice-President, Secretary, Treasurer, and Chief-Engineer, who shall be elected by the Board of Directors at their first meeting and after each annual election. The Commissioners provided for in the 19th Section of the act are to appoint some suitable place in the city of New York to open books and receive subscriptions to the capital stock of the corporation, of which two weeks' public notice shall be given in at least one newspaper, published in the county of New York, and said Commissioners, by a majority vote, may adjourn from time to time, as they shall deem proper, and open the books for further subscriptions, until the sum of three hundred thousand dollars shall have been subscribed in capital stock, and, in case of an excess of subscribers, they may, by a majority vote, apportion the stock among the subscribers in such manner u as they may deem most likely to promote the interest of the corpora- tion thereby created." The sum of ten dollars upon each share of stock so subscribed for shall be paid to the Com- missioners. As soon as such ten dollars per share has been paid, "and the approbation of the Commissioners 7 obtained," they, or a majority of them, shall give two weeks' public notice, in two public newspapers published in the county of New York, of a meeting of the stockholders to choose directors, and the said Commissioners, or a ma- jority of them, shall attend and preside at the first election, and the said Commissioners so presiding shall under their hands certify the names of the directors so elected. It will be seen that the privilege of becoming a stockholder and the election of the first Board of Directors are con- trolled by the said Commissioners or a majority of them. One of the Commissioners has stated that the amount re- quired has been duly subscribed, and as the Company is represented by a " Secretary," Mr. Charles H. Swan, the first organization has evidently been effected. The names of the directors and other officers have not transpired. But it cannot be doubted that the selection of stock- holders, the election of directors, and the general organi- zation have followed the natural course and represent the promoters of the scheme and their associates. It is not at all probable that any alien interest has been permitted to encroach or intervene. The Company at present is repre- sented, for public communication, by Mr. Charles H. Swan, the Secretary of the Company, and I am informed it has offices on Broadway. WHAT MAY BE DONE WHEN THIRTY THOUSAND DOLLARS IS PAID IN. The selection of stockholders becomes complete, in the way I have stated, on the payment of the sum of thirty thousand dollars, and the Board of Directors elected with the approval of the Commissioners by the approbationized 8 stockholders. The Board thus elected has devolved upon it all the functions of the corporation provided by the act. The Company has then power to borrow such sums of money as may be necessary for constructing, completing, and maintaining the said bridge, appurtenances, and ap- proaches thereto, and stations, and for acquiring the neces- sary real estate for the sites thereof, the necessary stations, buildings, and appurtenances thereof, and the approaches thereto, and to mortgage its corporate property, and gener- ally to exercise the power of location and all the powers general and special of the act. There is no limit as to amount in the borrowing capacity. To exhibit the boldness of motive which lies behind the bill, I will give a specimen extract from the financial part of the scheme : " It shall be lawful for any corporation chartered by the Legislature of this State or any other State to loan its credit to the corporation hereby created, or to subscribe to become the owner of the stock thereof in like manner and with the like rights of individuals" (Sec- tion 17). THE BRIDGE. Before presenting the considerations which appear to me to be appropriate in connection with the power granted to this Company — and finally the insuperable Constitutional objections to the scheme — it will be necessary to examine what the Company propose to do under the authority of the act, as manifested in its first " location," recently pro- claimed. The principles and purposes of the Company have been thus developed, and we have the guide to the pretensions which will govern it in all the future "loca- tions" and developments. It does not appear in authentic 9 form whether the " locations " recently announced have been made by the Company or the Commissioners. As to the termini of the bridge, that on the New Jersey side is located two or three piers north of Weehawken Ferry, where a connection is formed with the natural elevation of the territory. It is at a point where there is a bluff one hundred and eighty-five feet high — cutting down being re- quired, instead of the construction of viaducts. On the New York side the landing is made where the grade is but ten feet above mean tide ; consequently the bridge is one hundred and forty feet high from the surface. This is nearly half the height of Trinity Church steeple from the ground. THE BEGINNING WITHIN THIS CITY. Now 7 , as to the general purposes of the Company this side of the river. I take this from an apparently reliable source — the verbal proclamations of Secretary Swan. First. — The viaduct starts at the North River between Seventieth and Seventy-first Streets, curving in a south- easterly direction until within a few hundred feet west of West End Avenue, just south of the southwest corner of Seventieth Street. From this point it runs in a straight line southerly, keeping about one hundred feet west of West End or Eleventh Avenue, and passing all the streets down to about Forty-second Street. Here it again curves, taking in the property in a line with the curve from about the northwest corner of Forty-first Street to the northeast corner of Thirty-eighth Street and Eleventh Avenue, where the curve ends. Thence the tracks run easterly in a straight line along the north side of Thirty-eighth Street, taking in all the block fronts between Eleventh and Eighth Avenues. 2 TO At this point they strike the proposed Union Depot, which will occupy the entire territory bounded by Thirty-seventh and Thirty-ninth Streets, Eighth Avenue, and Broadway. The viaducts are to have two stories for tracks. The upper story will have six tracks and the lower story two tracks. The former is "for South and Southwestern and the latter for New England connections." Second. — It will connect with the Manhattan Elevated by means of a branch running diagonally from the station at Sixth Avenue and Thirty-third Street to the Union Depot, connecting at a point on Thirty-seventh Street, a little east of Seventh Avenue, running through the blocks between Thirty-fourth and Thirty-seventh Streets and Broadway and Seventh Avenue. That is, unless it should be changed to run directly downBroadway. Third. — The proclaiming Secretary goes on to say : Trains will run from the Union Depot aboved described, thence along the tracks as outlined, till they reach a point about Sixty-first Street and Eleventh Avenue. At this point a new line of tracks will branch out from the line de- scribed, and will curve in a northwesterly direction across and through the blocks bounded by Eleventh Avenue and the North River. The tracks will cross those of the Hud- son River Road at the height of some twenty feet at Six- tieth Street, thence descending to a level with that road at or near Seventy-ninth Street. At this point the tracks will be level with those of the Hudson River Road, and will run just outside of them to the west, and parallel with them along the water front, eight feet above high-water mark, all the distance between Seventy-ninth and One Hun- dred and Fifty-second Streets. Here they will run again across the Hudson River Railroad tracks and branch off 1 1 easterly in a curve through a tunnel between One Hundred and Fifty-second and One Hundred and Fifty-fifth Streets, to a point about midway between Eleventh Avenue and the North River; thence along and under One Hundred and Fifty-fifth Street, emerging from the tunnel at the east side of the hill, and crossing the Manhattan Road's West Side terminus at One Hundred and Fifty-fifth Street, some eighteen feet in the clear overhead ; thence crossing the Harlem River by a bridge in a northeasterly direction to a point at or near One Hundred and Sixty-second Street to a connection with the New York and Northern and New York Central Railroads ; thence running easterly in a straight line on about a line with One Hundred and Sixty- second Street to the Hudson River Road ; thence to the Spuyten Duyvil and Port Morris Railroad, paralleling that road easterly, and following the same lines to its terminus at Port Morris on the Long Island Sound ; connecting on the route with the Harlem River and Portchester Road, leased by the New Haven Road. Fourth. — Mr. Secretary Swan adds : " Other stations will be established if necessary." Such are the routes of this, the opening " location." It involves in its southern course a viaduct for six tracks, of two stories, starting at the elevation of one hundred and forty feet ; the establishment of a depot embracing four blocks of land fronting on Broadway and extending to Eighth Avenue ; the probable closing of one street, Thirty- eighth Street, from Broadway to Eighth Avenue ; the like closing of Seventh Avenue from Thirty-seventh Street to Thirty-ninth Street, and the connection with the Manhat- tan Elevated Railroad ; and in its northern courses along the entire river front, the building of a tunnel at one part, a I 2 bridge over the Harlem River at another, and the easterly progress of the viaduct to Long Island Sound, crossing in its way the several railroads mentioned, all of which are to have their routes changed and extended so as to brincr them down on the Company's viaduct to the bridge and to the Union Depot at Thirty-seventh Street and Broadway by the permission of the corporators. There must be a mis- take in the statement that these viaducts are to be laid with railroad tracks, because the 7th Section, I have mentioned, declares that " nothing in this act contained shall author- ize the Company to lay down railroad tracks." The real plan would appear to be to give the authority of the Com- pany to any railroad company it may connect with to extend its route southerly, or in any other direction in the city of New York that the Bridge Company may choose, on such railroads laying their own railroad tracks and paying for the right to use the Company's viaducts. The act in question does not contain' any provision nam- ing any of these things assumed to be done. They are claimed to be included in the words " appurtenances, con- nections, approaches, and stations." It is needless to say that if the authority asserted exists — in principle — there is no limit as to what may be done of the like character. WHAT MAY HE DONE. The property of a citizen, under this act, may be con- demned for an 44 approach," a 4< connection," a " station " or an " appurtenance," by drawing a black mark around his name, or a diagram of his property, in the private parlor of one of the Commissioners. There is nothing in the act requiring the Commissioners to give any notice or hearing 13 to any party in interest in advance, or at any stage of their proceedings, and the first intimation an owner of property in any part of the city may have that his property is con- demned or injured by a " location," may be by reading a description of the ground appropriated, in the newspapers, as in the recent instance, or by more summary intimation under the following provision of the act (Sec. 7) : " Said corporation may, by its surveyors, engineers, agents, or offi- cers, enter upon such real estate, sites, and locations and take possession of the same." It provides that all such property entered upon as aforesaid shall be purchased at a price to be mutually agreed on, or by compulsory proceed- ings — which may be protracted by litigation and prove long and dilator}'. The company takes possession first and pays afterward. Possession of property is the essential element of ownership. Taking private property, without compen sation, in this manner is in conflict with Section 6 of Article I of the Constitution of this State. But that is a little matter to these gentlemen. There is no provision in the act requiring any map to be filed or record made of a " lo- cation " in any public office or other accessible place. No allusion whatever is made in the act to the municipal authorities of the city of New York — except the permission to the Mayor to name one Commissioner out of five, with a provision that the majority shall control in all respects — or to any executive officer thereof; and no provision is made for any compensation for the franchises proposed to be operated and enjoyed. The city is treated as if it were vacant or desert land to be taken possession of at the dis- cretion of the Company. This act is a marked exception to the general rule of leg- islation in like cases. Invariably where a grant of legisla- 14 tive authority to take private property for public use is given, provision is made for the protection of the owner by ample notice of what is proposed to be done and for redress against improper locations. The General Railroad Act re- quires that every company, before constructing any part of its road, shall make a map and profile of the route intended to be adopted by such company, which shall be certified by the President and Engineer of the company and filed in the County Clerk's or Register's office, as the case may be. The company shall give written notice to all actual occupants of the land over which the route runs of the time and place, when and where, such maps and pro- file were filed, that the route passes over such land. Any occupant or owner of such land feeling aggrieved by the proposed location may, within fifteen days after receiving written notice as aforesaid, give ten days' notice to such company, and to the owner or occupant of lands to be affected by any proposed alteration of the route, of the time and place of an application to a Justice of the Su- preme Court for the appointment of Commissioners to examine said route. The matter is thus brought before the Court and finally decided after a full hearing, in a man- ner just to every one concerned ; and in all cases, except this act, the streets of cities are protected in the interest of the municipality and of the owners occupying land along which a route is to proceed. If the authority which has been practically asserted thus far under this act can be carried into complete effect, with incontestable warrant of law, the mere despotic will of these corporators, or the Commissioners of location, those named by the Legislature being a majority and being given abso- lute control, usurping dominion over the city in every dircc- 15 tion, including the viaduct use of the streets and avenues, as I shall show presently — having no regard for public or private right — a power sheltered in ambuscade, moving mysteriously without any previous notice of its purpose, ignoring every established rule for the conservative protec- tion of property, acting without responsibility or means of adequate redress — what becomes of the boasted rights of the municipality and the citizen ? of all the high-toned senti- ments of which we hear so much from our public men — about taxation and representation, home rights and home rule ? This is no mere freshet in which a fragment of protection is carried away, nor any overflow of pent-up waters which may spend their force and the injury be eventually over- come ; it is simply the deluge ; the superstructure, pillars, and foundations of the municipal edifice are swept away and lost. Not an essential right is left over the broad sweep of this bill. Thus the owners and occupants of property in this city who may from time to time be unjustly affected by these locations are without any remedy, unless, indeed, an action against the Company or the personal responsibility of the Commissioners be accepted as furnishing the promise of reparation. There is a well-established principle of law which may give measurable indemnity — to the effect that he who will- fully does an unwarrantable act under the color of an office is responsible, personally, for the consequences to the injured party. It has been held, recently, in an adjoining State, that where Commissioners of location exceed the reasonable limitations of their powers by including land not fairly embraced within their jurisdiction, they are per- sonally responsible in damages to the owner or owners for 1 6 the injury inflicted by such wrongful inclusion. The per- sonal responsibility of these Commissioners of location can thus be invoked in the courts by any aggrieved citizen. NULLIFYING CONFLICT OF AUTHORITY There are two distinct authorities in the act to make " locations," covering the same ground. By the 7th Section of the act, the corporation is authorized to purchase, acquire, receive, hold, and use such real estate or interest therein as may be necessary and convenient in accomplish- ing the object for which the charter is granted, and shall have the power to " locate " the necessary connections to and for railroads to connect therewith. The act then authorizes the company to enter upon and take possession of such real estate, sites, and locations. It provides that '* all such real estate, sites, and locations as shall be entered on as aforesaid shall, except donations, be purchased of the owner or owners at a price to be mutually agreed upon." In case any such corporation cannot agree with the owner or owners of such real estate, or of any interest therein within the boundaries of the State of New York, " it shall have the right to acquire title to the same in the manner and by special proceeding prescribed in this act." The act goes on to say (Sec. 8): " For the purpose of acquiring such title," the said corporation may present a petition, etc., to the Supreme Court. Thereupon follow nine elaborate sec- tions, copied from the General Railroad Act, defining the manner in which, by compulsory proceedings, under the d legated authority of eminent domain of the State, the title to such u located " land and connections shall be finally secured. Nothing is said in this part of the act 17 about a location by or through any other authority. Yet by the 19th Section of the act, it is declared that the Governor of the State of New York, and the Mayor of the city of New York shall, within thirty days after this act shall have been passed and become a law, each appoint a person, who, together with Andrew H. Green, Frank K. Hain, and Charles M. Vail, of the city of New York and State of New York, or the successors of any of them, appointed as hereinafter provided, shall be Commissioners, who, or a majority of them, all being present and acting, shall have power to locate said bridge, appurtenances, and approaches thereto, and stations, which location shall not be changed except by and with the consent of a majority of the five Commissioners so appointed, and so forth* Now this location by Commissioners is not related to or con- nected with the special proceedings provided to earn- into effect the " locations " by the corporation itself by any language of the act. There is absolutely no authority in the act to carry into effect the " locations " of these Com- missioners, except through voluntary sales by the owners of property on their own terms. I think I understand how this condition of the act was brought about. The act was considered complete in itself, with the provisions relating to " locations " by the Com- pany, when to overcome some scruples of a controlling character, the feature of locations by Commissioners was settled on and the section crudely added without adapting the existing sections of the act to the change. But which " location " is to have sway over the ground covered by both? Does not one nullify the other? If one is pro- ceeded with, why not the other? They cannot go together. There is no attempt to graft them. As to the 3 1 8 Commissioners of " location " — as we have seen — they are five in number: one is given to the State, to be named by the Governor ; one more is given to the city, to be appointed by the Mayor ; the remaining three, or a majority, are designated by the Legislature in the bill itself, and then it declares that a majority shall control in all directions. The " locating " power is in perpetuity, so far as the Commis- sioners are concerned, and there is no end or limit in the act as to the power of the corporation itself in this respect. The jurisdiction to " locate " for the purposes of the act extends to " the boundaries of the State." The act is evidently a hotch potch — the work of many hands — some of them very hurried, unskilful, and careless. Parts of the act look as if they had been thrown together by a legislative pitchfork. By way of illustration, I will mention one peculiarity of the act — that is, that there is no express authority in it to construct a bridge. Its title is, An Act to incorporate The New York and New Jersey Bridge Company for the pur- pose of constructing and maintaining a bridge for passengers and other traffic over the waters between New York City and the State of New Jersey, together with all necessary connections, appurtenances, and approaches thereto, and stations. The first section of the act provides that all persons who shall become stockholders pursuant to the act shall be and are thereby incorporated and created a body corporate by the name mentioned in the title of the act, with power to associate with any other person, company, association, or corporation in the United States " for the purpose " of con- structing and maintaining a permanent bridge for pas- sengers and traffic — following the title. Now this language 19 is very clear as to " the purpose " for which the corporation is organized, but it is not followed by authority to do the thing purposed. Looking only to the act itself, it may have been that the Legislature was of the belief, that by the association with the other companies in the United States, as proposed, the authority was to be obtained. That it was a corporation designed to avail itself thus of an existing franchise. It is one matter to have the purpose to do a thing and another to have the right to do it. The purpose and power must go together to make the way clear. It is the invariable rule of legislation, when a " purpose " is stated in the crea- tion of a corporation and it is intended to grant legislative power to carry that purpose into effect, to do so according to the established legal form, by express grant. The rule is without exception. I will cite a prominent example — that of the General Railroad Act. The first section of that act provides that any number of persons, not less than twenty-five, may form a company for " the purpose " of constructing, maintaining, and operating a railroad for public use, and may make articles of associa- tion for that purpose, specifying, in detail, the objects intended, the name of the company, the number of years it is to continue, the places from and to which the road is to be constructed, the capital stock, and the number of shares. But the act is very careful to specifically grant the authority to do the thing for which the company has " the purpose " to be organized. The power of the State is dis- tinctly and definitely conferred. Section 28 of this General Act, subdivision 4, declares that every corporation formed under it, "shall have power " " to lay out its road not exceed- ing six rods in width, and to construct the same." Title 3, 20 Chapter 18, Section 3, of the first part of the Revised Statutes, provides, that 110 corporation shall possess or exercise any corporate powers except the general powers enumerated in that title and "those expressly given" in its charter, or as shall be necessary to the exercise of the powers so enumerated and given. I do not rely on this point — I allude to it by way of example — the other objec- tions being so numerous and conclusive. AS TO THE USE OF THE STREETS AND AVENUES FOR THE COMPANY'S VIADUCTS. I will here notice a point which has excited some in- quiry — that is, assuming that the Company has the power it claims, has it the authority to use the streets and avenues of the city for its viaduct purposes? The 7th Section, after declaring that the Company shall have the power to locate and construct the necessary connections to and for rail- roads to connect therewith, and to take possession of the same, specifies certain exceptions, and among others that the Company shall not take possession of "any Public Park or the surface of any street or avenue." u Possession " is a broad word. The limitation to taking " possession " of any street or avenue, it will be seen, is confined to the " surface" of such street or avenue. As the Company pro- poses to use viaducts which do not require ** possession " of the "surface," the limitation is no obstruction to the use of the street above and beyond the surface in the viaduct mode proposed. It must be concluded that the exception has been made in this limited way, for its obvious object — industriously — to give all else to the Company, of streets and avenues, but the surface. If an act should say, for ex- 4 21 ample, that a railroad company, in laying its tracks, should not take possession of ten feet on the westerly side of the streets and avenues along its route, I think the remaining part of the street would be plainly at its disposal. Claim- ing the right, therefore, to build its viaducts in any direc- tion it may think proper and to make a railroad connection or establish a station or depot — if its contention is sound — it may build its elevated roads over and above any street or avenue in the city, not excluding Broadway or Fifth Avenue. The fact that the Commissioners have not used the streets and avenues, except in crossing, for their initial "location," does not prove anything; we must look to what follows in due order of time. If the act is valid, it is an inexhaustible mine of power. FIRST OBJECTION. The first point I make is that a bridge cannot be con- structed over the Hudson River, from shore to shore, under the operation of this or any similar act. Its permis- sion to the Company named in the act, to associate with any other persons, company, association, or corporation in the United States for the purpose of building such a bridge, even if the full power of the State were given by our Legislature to the corporators — is based on a fallacy. These corporators appear to be of the belief that by uniting with a charter from the New Jersey Legislature, the char- ter of each State will have the authority of both. This plainly is not the case. The authority of an act of the Legislature of this State cannot extend beyond the boun- daries of the State. The same is the case with an act of Legislature of New Jersey. They cannot be joined to- gether. In fact, the act in question, of our State, does not 22 pretend to go to the other shore, and could not get there if it did. It provides for a bridge over the waters of the Hudson between this city and "the State of New Jersey." The boundary line between the two States is the limitation. That line is equally the limit on the other side. Where is that line? The boundary between New York and New Jersey was originally established by Commissioners ap- pointed by the two colonies in 1772, and again in 1833 Dv Commissioners likewise appointed by the two States for that purpose. The same agreement was adopted by the Legislature of each State. The Commissioners on the last- named occasion were Benjamin F. Butler, Peter Augustus Jay, and Henry Seymour on behalf of the State of New York, and Theodore Frelinghuysen, James Parker, and Lucius Q. Elmer on behalf of the State of New Jersey. An agreement of seven articles was entered into between these parties on the 16th day of September, 1833. The 7th Article of this agreement will be instructive for this case. It provided as follows :