466 



in the widening and opening of several streets and avenues 

 adjacent to the park, placed under their charge in cases where 

 the land taken for the widening constituted a portion of the 

 park. Objection was made by persons owning property along 

 the line of the improvement liable to be assessed for a portion 

 of the expenses, who insisted that the land taken from the 

 park, and required to be used for the widening, should be 

 thrown out into the said streets and avenues without compen- 

 sation ; that such land was, in fact, already public property, 

 since it could only be used for park purposes ; and that it was 

 of no more value to the city as a park, than it would be if 

 devoted to publie uses as a street. The Commissioners, how- 

 ever, could not see the for3e of such an argument, and knew 

 no reason why the city should not receive the same compensa- 

 tion which any owner of property was entitled to receive, 

 whose land was required for the widening of a street or avenue. 

 The importance of the position assumed by them will appear, 

 when it is stated that the awards made and yet to be made to the 

 city for various strips of land taken from Prospect Park for 

 sundry street widenings around the park, amounts to $251,194. 

 The Commissioners, therefore, concluded to submit the ques- 

 tion to the final arbitrament of the Court of Appeals, and they 

 are now pleased to be able to state that the result of their decis- 

 ion will place this large amount to the credit of the city, which 

 otherwise would have been entirely lost. 



The point was made in the matter of the widening of Ninth 

 avenue, where it was held, upon the basis of the decision in the 

 Armstrong case, that land taken from the park for the widen- 

 ing of streets was owned by the city in fee, to the same extent 

 that all other park lands were held ; and that, although it was 

 held for the purposes of a public park, yet that when subse- 

 quently required for the purposes of a street, under an act of 

 the Legislature providing for the assessment and payment of 

 damages to be sustained by the owners of land taken for such 

 improvement, the city was entitled to a fair compensation for 

 the land so taken. That it could not be said, as matter of 

 law, that the lands embraced in a park are of no more value 

 to the city than the same lands devoted to public use as streets. 

 And that the award of damages sustained by the city in this 

 case, by reason of a conversion of park land into a street, bay- 



