General Roy Stone and The New York Times

By 

The Rambler 

In 2007, the New York Times made its archives available online from 1851 to 

1980 with the early years for free. The Highway History page immediately 

thought of The Rambler, who always prefers to do his research on the cheap. He 

agreed to research the life of General Roy Stone as revealed in the Times, 

stressing that he was agreeing to do so only because it was free and he could 

work in his pajamas. 

On October 3, 1893, General Roy Stone opened the Office of Road Inquiry (ORI) in the 

U.S. Department of Agriculture. He had a $10,000 budget and one employee, a 

stenographer. His modest agency grew into the Federal Highway Administration, while 

his work to convince America that it needed good roads led, after many a twist and turn, 

to the Eisenhower Interstate System. 

Even so, General Stone is best known today because of his important role in the Civil 

War. Many Civil War histories mention him, often in considerable detail. Visitors to 

Gettysburg National Military Park can walk along Stone Avenue, named after Major Roy 

Stone to commemorate his heroic efforts on the first day of battle, July 1, 1863, when he 

and his new Pennsylvania Bucktails held off the oncoming Confederates while Union 

reinforcements rushed to the battlefield. 

After the war, General Stone lived in western New York with his wife Mary and two 

children before moving to New York City. He became a prominent New Yorker who 

often was called on for challenging assignments and big projects. As a result, his name 

appeared often in The New York Times. These references provide a unique look at 

General Stone’s life, particularly his life between the Civil War and the ORI, to 

supplement the biographical information in the Highway History page’s “Portrait of a 

General” at: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/stone.cfm

During the Civil War 

As best the Rambler can determine, Roy Stone first appeared in the Times on August 5, 

1862. In a list of wounded and killed from General Truman Seymour’s Division, Major 

Roy Stone of the First Pennsylvania Rifles is listed as wounded. This apparently is a 

reference to his actions on June 30 at New Market, Virginia. Under attack from forces 

led by General Robert E. Lee, Major Stone’s Bucktail Brigade fired volley after volley 

before retreating to a position where the Union forces could reunite. He moved his forces 

along Long Bridge Road to join General George A. McCall. Moving ahead to locate the 

enemy, General McCall and Major Stone ran into a column of Confederate soldiers who 

captured the General. Major Stone turned his horse around and escaped, but a bullet 

struck his hand as his horse reversed course. 
General Stone’s Civil War activities would be referenced in the Times on December 10, 

1893, in an article about the work of the War Department’s War Records Office. To that 

date, the office had published 49 volumes, each nearly 1,000 pages long, of documents 

from the war. The occasion of the article was the pending publication of “an exhaustive 

compilation from official records of the casualties on both sides of the war.” Based on 

facts rather than opinions, the volume would show beyond controversy, “that much of the 

hardest fighting of the war was between the Army of the Potomac and the Army of 

Northern Virginia”: 

One thing clearly shown is the overshadowing importance of the battles of 

Gettysburg and Chickamauga, the greatest battles the Confederate and Union 

Armies, east and west, ever fought. 

Stating that the Pennsylvania reserves “was the only division in the Union armies 

composed entirely of troops from one State,” the article listed the Pennsylvania 

regiments, including “the One Hundred and Forty-ninth (Col. Roy Stone).” At 

Gettysburg, the article continued, the Pennsylvania regiments that suffered the greatest 

losses were the 101st (335) and Colonel Stone’s 149th (336). 

For more information on General Stone’s Civil War activities, see the footnotes 

accompanying “Portrait of a General” for references to books and articles recounting his 

exploits. 

 [“Brig.-Gen. Seymour’s Division,” August 5, 1862 

“A Book of War Revelations,” December 10, 1893] 

Staunch Grant Man 

General Stone next appeared in the Times on May 14, 1872, if the Rambler’s search skills 

can be trusted. [Editor’s note: They can’t.] He was listed as the second district delegate 

from Cattaraugus County to the Republican State Convention that was to be held in 

Elmira the following day. The convention would decide whether to support reelection of 

President Ulysses S. Grant, who had taken office in March 1869, or the liberal 

Republican Horace Greeley, editor of the New York Tribune. 

On May 15, the Times carried an item datelined May 11 in Cattaraugus County indicating 

that Greeley “receives but little sympathy in this county.” General Stone is among the six 

“stanch [sic] Grant men” the county had chosen as delegates. The brief article added that 

the second district convention unanimously supported President Grant, “instructing its 

delegates to use every effort to secure his renomination, and unqualifiedly condemning 

all attempts to break up the Republican Party by the nomination of so-called Liberal 

Republicans.” 

With Grant representing the Radical Republicans, the Democratic Party joined with the 

Liberal Republicans to choose Greeley as their nominee. Grant, despite concerns about 
corruption among the men he appointed to government positions, won reelection by a 

popular vote of 56 percent to 44 percent. 

In October 1874, General Stone was a rival, at least briefly, for the seat in the U.S. House 

of Representatives held by Congressman Walter L. Sessions. The Republican 

Convention for the 33rd District, meeting in Salamanca, gave Sessions 66 votes out of 

100, with General Stone receiving 17 and a third candidate, 13. According to a brief 

article in the Times on October 3, 1874, “The nomination was then made unanimous.” 

General Stone was among those addressing the convention, but the Times did not quote 

his remarks. Sessions, who had won his seat in November 1870, lost his reelection bid in 

1874, and returned to private life as a lawyer, with a brief return to the House (1885-

1887). 

 [“Additional Delegates to the Republican State Convention,” May 14, 1872 

“Cincinnati Candidates at a Discount—Gen. Grant Sustained by the Masses,” May 15, 

1872 

“Republican Nominations,” October 3, 1874] 

Polar Hayes 

Later that year, the Times reported on November 23, 1874, that General Stone was one of 

the speakers at a reception for Dr. Isaac I. Hayes, the Arctic explorer, at the Arcadian 

Club. Nicknamed “Polar Hayes,” Dr. Hayes was a young surgeon from Pennsylvania 

when he participated in his first polar exploration via Greenland, known as the Second 

Grinnell Expedition under Dr. Elisha Kent Kane (1853-1855). In 1861, Dr. Hayes led an 

expedition in search of the Open Polar Sea—an ice free zone across the North Pole that 

ships would be able to navigate between Europe and Asia. He claimed to have seen it, 

but could not prove his sighting of a navigation route that, as we now know, did not exist. 

He was an author, a surgeon during the Civil War, a lecturer, and from 1875 to his death 

of heart disease on December 19, 1881, at the age of 49, a member of the State Assembly 

representing New York City. 

[“Reception to Dr. Hayes by the Arcadian Club,” November 23, 1874] 

The Saddle Back Plan

In the years before the New York Subway, New York City’s growing population required 

more than the street-cars and omnibuses providing transit service. The idea of a subway, 

similar to London’s subway, was considered, but proved controversial. While the 

subway concept was under debate in the State legislature, an entrepreneur named Charles 

T. Harvey convinced the 1866 legislature to pass an amendment allowing him to build a 

railroad to be operated “by means of a propelling rope or cable attached to stationary 

power.” 

Harvey’s West Side & Yonkers Patent Railway Company built an experimental elevated 

railway line using Harvey’s invention for cable operation. It was one-half mile long, 
along Greenwich Street from Battery Place to Cortlandt Street. The advantage of an 

elevated rail line was that it provided public transit service with minimal disturbance to 

existing buildings, sidewalks, and streets, while freeing the vehicles from ground traffic 

that was limited by the speed of horses moving in a heavily congested environment. 

The official demonstration on July 3, 1868, was successful, and the company planned to 

extend the line from the Battery to Kingsbridge in Yonkers. However, financial and legal 

difficulties halted expansion of the “Patent Railway.” The difficulties led to Harvey’s 

departure from the company, a switch to steam locomotives, and reorganization of 

Harvey’s company, which became the New York Elevated Railway. A rival company 

founded by Dr. Rufus H. Gilbert obtained a franchise for his design. John Anderson 

Miller described the concept in his book Fares, Please! A Popular History of Trolleys, 

Horsecars, Streetcars, Buses, Elevateds, and Subways” (Dover Publications, 1960): 

His plan provided for tubular iron roadways suspended above the streets by 

Gothic arches springing from the curb lines. Cars were to be propelled through 

the tubular passageways by atmospheric or other power. [Miller, p. 74-75] 

The financial panic of 1873 halted the Gilbert proposal. 

With progress limited on the new elevated service, the city’s Common Council approved 

Section 606 of the Laws of 1875 to establish a Rapid-Transit Commission to select the 

routes of additional lines beyond those chartered to the two existing companies, the 

Gilbert Elevated Railway Company and the New York Elevated Railroad Company. On 

September 18, 1875, the Times reported on the commission’s meeting the day before, 

during which the commissioners heard from advocates of several plans. The article 

mentioned that Roy Stone appeared on behalf of his Saddle Back proposal. 

Stone had invented the system for use on elevated tracks. As explained in “Portrait of the 

General,” Stone built a temporary line for the Philadelphia Centennial Exposition in 

1876, linking Agricultural Hall and Horticultural Hall: 

The track was supported by a single row of iron columns, resting on foundations 

of timber. The length of the road was 500 feet, and the greatest height above the 

bottom of ravine thirty feet. The car ran on three rails. One of these occupied the 

centre of the track, and was laid along the top of a triangular truss. At the base of 

this truss, and on either side of it, were laid two rails. The car thus moved on 

three rails—one in the centre and two on the sides. The bottom of the car was 

concave, and fitted over the central rail, while the sides extended several feet 

below the line of the centre of the car, and had wheels attached to them, which ran 

on the side tracks horizontally, instead of perpendicularly, as is the case on 

ordinary rails. Thus the wheels on the central rail were the bearing wheels, while 

those on the sides were the guiding wheels. The wheels had rubber tires, which 

caused them to run smoothly, and deep flanges, which prevented them from 

running off the track. The locomotive was also constructed in a curious manner. 

The engine was placed above the tender, and was fed with water and fuel from 
below. The arrangement of the tender was the same as that of the car, so far as the 

running gear was concerned. [Ingram, J. S., The Centennial Exposition, 

Described and Illustrated, Hubbard Bros., 1876, p. 692-693.] 

(No, the Rambler can’t understand that description, either! If you are so inclined, feel 

free to consult the Rambler’s transit history counterpart, the Rumbler, for an explanation.)

[Editor’s note: The Rumbler is part of the Rambler’s “evil twin” fantasy. Don’t waste 

your time searching for the Rumbler archive.] 

The Rapid-Transit Commission completed its initial work in October. The 

commissioners passed on General Stone’s Saddle Back plan, instead favoring the rights 

of the two existing company and establishing new lines for elevated public transit. The 

Times summarized the commission’s specifications on October 7, 1875: 

In streets not over thirty-six feet wide, the one-legged plan of single tracks 

following the line of the curb may be adopted. In streets of more than that width, 

the tracks must be taken over the middle of the roadway on transverse girders 

carried from columns placed along the curbs, or, in certain exceptional cases, 

placed in part along the middle of the thoroughfare. By way of stimulating these 

companies to occupy the field before any competitor has time to construct a road 

along a route parallel with theirs, the Commissioners propose to invite the 

subscription of stock toward the formation of a corporation to be known as the 

Manhattan Railway Company. As the two existing companies have been given 

the only routes worth having, it is hardly probable that capitalists will contend 

very warmly for the honor of organizing a rival concern, chiefly designed to 

stimulate the others to keep their promises to the public. 

As near as can be determined, General Stone’s demonstration of his Saddle Back Plan in 

Philadelphia did not lead to a commercial application of his invention. 

According to Miller, the New York Elevated Railway Company moved quickly on its 

line: 

By 1876 the company was proudly advertising that it ran forty trains a day from 

the Battery to 59th Street. The regular fare was ten cents, but a special rate of five 

cents was in effect between 5:30 and 7:30 in the morning, and between 5 and 7 

o’clock in the evening. As the hour approached when the lower rate went into 

effect long lines of waiting people used to gather on the stairs leading up to the 

elevated stations. Then, when the price card was turned around at the ticket 

window, they surged forward with great pushing and shoving. [Miller, p. 75-76] 

Although “The El” was popular with riders, it was unpopular with adjacent property 

owners. Miller explained why: 

Whenever a new line was proposed, or an extension to an old one, strenuous 

opposition arose. The “horrors” of elevated railroad operation were eloquently 
described by the “antis.” Horses would be frightened and run away. Fire would 

be started by sparks from the locomotives. People in the streets would be burned 

by hot ashes dropped down upon their heads. [Miller, p. 76] 

In addition, the tracks were ugly and the trains were noisy. These and other problems led 

the city to reconsider the controversial idea of building a subway. 

(The Rambler will note that highway builders who have faced objections for decades 

from pro-transit forces can take some grim comfort in knowing that transit, whether 

below ground or above it, once had its opponents.) 

[“The Rapid-Transit Commission,” September 18, 1875 

“Rapid Transit,” September 25, 1875 

“The Report,” September 7, 1895 

“Plans of Rapid Transit,” September 26, 1875 

“The Rapid Transit Commission,” October 6, 1875 

“The Manhattan Railway” and “The Report,” October 7, 1875”] 

Steam Explosions

By the 1880’s, entrepreneurs were installing a steam heating system for homes and 

buildings in New York City. In 1880, two of the competing companies combined under 

the name New York Steam Heating Company. While steam heating was in its infancy, 

the company had to deal with street explosions, such as a series of explosions that 

occurred in mid-June 1890. The explosions damaged the steam heating company’s pipes, 

the pipes of other companies, and adjacent properties and bystanders. 

An article in the Times on June 13, 1890, stated that the day before, a worker with the 

heating company had caused an explosion of a gas pipeline at the corner of Broadway 

and Fulton Street. The company had completed placing its pipe about 14 feet below the 

surface, and workers began filling the hole. As the hole filled to 3 feet from the surface, 

where intersecting gas lines were placed, a worker slipped and his lantern fell into the 

hole. Leaking gas took fire, creating a blaze that was difficult to control because of the 

smoke and extreme heat. 

While the New York Steam Heating Company and the gas companies exchanged claims 

that the other was responsible, Commissioner of Public Works Thomas F. Gilroy 

dispatched a team to investigate. (Gilroy served as Commissioner (1889-1893) before 

becoming Mayor (1893-1894).) The team consisted of Chief Engineer George W. 

Birdsall, Engineer Horace Loomis of the Bureau of Sewers, and General Roy Stone, 

Inspector of Street Openings for the Bureau of Water Purveyor. 

They reported to the Commissioner of Public Works on June 18: 

After sifting all the statements the commission expresses the opinion that the 

cause of the accident can be traced directly to the New York Steam Heating 
Company, whose excavations had been open so long that it had caused the joints 

of the gas mains to open allowing the escape of gas in large quantities and the 

failure to properly support the drip attached to the gas main in the first instance 

and the final breaking of the same by dumping a cart load of dirt upon it. 

The steam company’s pipes, according to the report, had been “a constant source of 

inconvenience and danger to the public.” Further, Birdsall, Loomis, and Stone found that 

“the system of jointing is imperfect, and that leaks and explosions are frequent; that the 

high temperature and pressure affects everything within range; that there is a discharge of 

noxious gases from the manholes, and that the water in the distributing mains is heated.” 

The danger was highlighted by an article on the same page of the Times about another 

explosion at Broadway and Fulton Street the day the report was released. It was the third 

such explosion in a week at an intersection “which seems fated to be the scene of such 

exhibitions.” Although the explosion did not damage the pavement, it did send steam 

into the buildings on one side of Fulton Street, causing the evacuation of all occupants 

and damage to everything inside. 

The article quoted a report by William Webb, the general foreman on sewer repairs, who 

found that the company’s pipes were “utterly defective, that they should be taken out of 

Broadway and other streets now crowded with other pipes, and that other locations for 

steam pipes be designated, and that a more perfect system of jointing be put in place.” 

Unless these problems could be corrected, the company’s charter should be revoked 

because as then constituted, the company’s work was “a common nuisance, prejudicial to 

public health, destructive of property, and actually dangerous to life.” 

As for the report on the explosion the previous week, the Times quoted Mr. Prentiss, the 

superintendent of the New York Steam Heating Company, as saying that the report was 

unfair and contrary to the facts. 

(In 1932, Consolidated Gas acquired approximately 75 percent of New York Steam's 

common stock, and on March 8, 1954, the New York Steam Company fully merged with 

Consolidated Edison.) 

[“A Broadway Gas Geyser,” June 13, 1890 

“The Broadway Explosion,” June 14, 1890 

“Last Thursday’s Accident,” June 19, 1890] 

A New Shoal

The steamship Vincenzo Florio of the Florio-Rubattino Line left the Wall Street ferry 

dock on the morning of July 9, 1884, bound for the Mediteranean. As it passed between 

the foot of Whitehall Street and Governor’s Island, the ship struck an underwater obstacle 

near Diamond Reef and began leaking from compartment No. 2. It anchored at the site 

overnight, then put into Erie Basin for repairs. 
At first, steamship, harbor, and United States Coast Survey officials were confused about 

the obstacle the Vincenzo Florio had struck. An initial examination confirmed a depth of 

only 22 feet instead of the 26 feet expected at nearby Diamond Reef in the ship channel. 

Finally, officials realized the shoal had been discovered in 1881 and carefully 

investigated. The Times reported on August 3, 1884, that in 1881, General John Newton, 

Chief of Engineers of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, had Assistant Engineer, 

General Roy Stone, to conduct the review. Using divers, General Stone located the 

barrier, as described in his report dated April 4, 1881: 

The shoal extends on the 26-foot curve about 250 by 100 feet. Its greatest length 

is across the river in a line from Trinity Church, New-York, to Atlantic Mills, 

Brooklyn. 

The Times also quoted his description of the shoal as consisting of “loose, unnatural 

small stones, brickbats, cinders, &c., in ridges and heaps and was undoubtedly formed by 

dumpage of ballast and refuse, though not apparently at a recent date.” 

The Times had covered General Stone’s report shortly after he completed it. On April 13, 

1881, the Times reported that General Newton had transmitted General Stone’s report to 

the Board of Pilot Commissioners the day before. The article, which summarized “Gen. 

Ray [sic] Stone’s” report, concluded: “The Pilot Commissioners placed the 

communication on file.” Based on General Stone’s report, a buoy marking the position 

of the shoal had been placed. 

Following the plight of the Vincenzo Florio in 1884, the Times explained that the buoy 

had “frequently been carried away by the ferry and other river boats.” However, the 

shoal was well known to all pilots and masters navigating the stream. The Times article 

added that officials planned to ask Congress for funds to remove the debris. 

[“A New Shoal in the Harbor,” April 13, 1881 

“Sprung a Leak,” July 11, 1884 

“Rocks in the Harbor,” July 22, 1884 

“No Sign of the Rocks,” July 23, 1884] 

“The Shoal Near Diamond Reef,” August 3, 1884] 

Fifth Avenue Fraud (or Not)

Contractor waste, fraud, and abuse have been part of the construction industry for 

millennia. (The Rambler hastens to add that he is referring only to the rotten apples that 

the good contractors have been trying for centuries, unsuccessfully, to eliminate from the 

profession so they would stop spoiling the “barrel.”) 

To anyone who challenges the assertion that contractor abuse is an age-old phenomenon, 

the Rambler will cite Mark Twain’s travel book The Innocents Abroad, published in 

1869. While describing his tour of Greece, Twain recounted an incident involving 

Xerxes, the King of Persia (picture Iran on today’s map) who lived from 519 to 465 B.C. 
Xerxes is best known today for his supporting role in the hit film The 300 (released in 

2006). The film depicts how [SPOILER ALERT FROM THE RAMBLER: THE 

FOLLOWING SUMMARY CONTAINS SPOILERS SO SKIP TO THE NEXT 

PARAGRAPH IF YOU DON’T WANT TO KNOW HOW THE BATTLE OF 

THERMOPYLAE TURNED OUT] an extremely muscular force of 300 computer 

generated motion-capture Spartans blocked Xerxes’ computer generated motion-capture 

army in the narrow pass at Thermopylae in 480 B.C. Although the Spartans were 

overcome after 7 days of off-and-on battles, the delay helped the Greek forces build up 

their strength and confidence to defeat Xerxes (portrayed by computer generated Rodrigo 

Santoro) the following year. 

The incident described by Mark Twain took place in 482 B.C. in the Hellespont, a narrow 

strait that is known today as the Dardenelles in northwestern Turkey. (As an aid to 

today’s readers, the Rambler will point out that 482 was BEFORE 480 in those days, so 

Xerxes still thought his mighty army, not yet computer generated, was going to defeat the 

Greeks.) With that background, here is Twain’s account: 

Within the Hellespont we saw where the original first shoddy contract mentioned 

in history was carried out, and the “parties of the second part” gently rebuked by 

Xerxes. I speak of the famous bridge of boats which Xerxes ordered to be built 

over the narrowest part of the Hellespont (where it is only two or three miles 

wide). A moderate gale destroyed the flimsy structure, and the King, thinking 

that to publicly rebuke the contractors might have a good effect on the next set, 

called them out before the army and had them beheaded. In the next ten minutes 

he let a new contract for the bridge. It has been observed by ancient writers that 

the second bridge was a very good bridge. Xerxes crossed his host of five 

millions of men on it, and if it had not been purposely destroyed, it would 

probably have been there yet. If our government would rebuke some of our 

shoddy contractors occasionally, it might work much good. 

(Today, the Federal Highway Administration employs the somewhat less fearsome tactic 

of debarment for rotten apple contractors.) 

Rotten apples have been part of highway construction in the United States from the start, 

including construction of the National Road authorized in 1806 as a portage route from 

the Potomac River at Cumberland, Maryland, to the Ohio River at Wheeling, Virginia 

(now West Virginia). This paragraph by historian Billy Joe Peyton raises themes that 

feel familiar, rotten-apple-wise, even today: 

Contractors were expected to follow specifications, but the quality of work varied 

from contract to contract . . . . Many [contractors] had outstanding reputations 

and performed admirably, while others took shortcuts, scrimped on materials, or 

showed little pride in workmanship. Potential problems might be attributed to 

any number of things, such as inexperience, mismanagement, shortage of funds, 

or an overriding desire to open the Road at all cost. [Peyton, Billy Joe, 
“Surveying and Building the Road,” in Raitz, Karl, editor, The National Road, 

The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996, p. 142] 

The subject of contractor abuse arises because of the repaving of Fifth Avenue in New 

York City in 1886. “For 150 years,” wrote Mosette Broderick in The Grand American 

Avenue: 1850-1920, “people the world over have equated success in the United States 

with an address on Fifth Avenue.” Lined with luxurious homes built by Astors and 

Vanderbilts and the shops to serve them, Fifth Avenue was a destination for tourists who 

came to stroll along “the most expensive street in the world.” [Broderick, Mosette, 

“Grand Avenue” in Cigliano, Jan and Landau, Sarah Bradford, editors, The Grand 

American Avenue: 1859-1920, Pomegranate Artbooks, 1994, p. 3] 

The State Legislature approved the Fifth-Avenue Repavement Bill in May 1885. It called 

for repaving the avenue from 9th to 90th Street, with the exception of the section between 

32nd and 37th Streets, which already had been repaved. To avoid problems, the legislation 

included “every possible safeguard,” as the Times put it in an article on June 25, 1886. 

The article added that the law called for “the best obtainable kind of pavement, requiring 

the use of granite blocks of the most approved pattern.” (Known as “Belgian blocks” 

because they were first used in Brussels, the blocks for New York City were quarried in 

New England. They were favored in the second half of the 19th century for their ability 

to withstand impacts from metal wheels and reduce residual dust and mud.) The contract 

was awarded to Mathew Baird in September 1885 for $429,559.50. 

By June 1886, concerns were being raised about the quality of Baird’s work. Although 

the project was under the supervision of Commissioner of Public Works Rollin Squire, 

the Commissioners of Accounts reported to Mayor William R. Grace on the results of an 

investigation by Engineer George T. Balch and Assistant Engineer E. E. Coryell. They 

had identified numerous frauds in Baird’s performance of the contract, including failure 

to roll the roadbed as required in the contract and not meeting the specifications for the 

concrete base and granite blocks. The investigation also concluded that the inspectors 

employed by Commissioner Squire had not performed their tasks properly. Balch and 

Coryell estimated that Baird had saved about $75,000 on his contract. 

In August, Mayor Grace had removed Squire from office and appointed General Newton 

to take his place. He replaced the inspectors Squire had appointed and added Coryell to 

the inspection team. 

In September, General Newton ordered Baird to suspend his work to allow for a team of 

impartial engineers to examine the charges made by Balch and Coryell. The Times

summarized the results on October 23, 1886, stating that the experts determined that 

“while there are some variations from the terms of the contract, the differences are not 

such as are substantial in their nature and extent.” The article concluded: 

Gen. Newton yesterday removed Engineer Coryell, from the position of 

Supervising Engineer over the repavement of Fifth-avenue, and appointed Roy 

Stone in his place. 
To the extent that the Times search engine can be relied on, the project faded from the 

pages of the newspaper after this article. The Rambler, who may be biased in this matter, 

speculates that the project was completed successfully and that General Stone did his 

work efficiently. 

[“Right Under His Eyes,” June 25, 1886 

“Squire Changes His Mind,” June 30, 1886 

“Charges Sent to Albany,” August 18, 1886 

“Critics and Constructors,” September 14, 1886 

“The Fifth-Avenue Pavement,” September 15, 1886 

“Contractor Baird’s Savings,” September 15, 1886 

“Suspending the Work,” September 17, 1886 

“Contractor Baird Sustained,” October 23, 1886] 

Gedney’s Channel

In 1834, a Coast Guard vessel under the command of Thomas R. Gedney discovered a 

channel leading into New York Harbor that would greatly improve ship movements. The 

channel was named after Gedney. 

By the 1880’s, the increasing use of steel for ship’s hulls resulted in bigger ships that 

required deeper harbors. The need to deepen Gedney’s Channel was clear from the 

number of ships that ran aground while passing through Lower New York Bay. The need 

was clear, but the best method of deepening the channel was not. The annual report of 

the Chief of Engineers, United States Army, to the Secretary of War for 1886 stated that: 

The exposed position and frequent storms on the bar, the great depth of water, and 

other unfavorable conditions, made it a difficult matter to decide upon the best 

mode of deepening Gedney’s Channel. 

It was not expected that ordinary clam-shell and dipper-dredges could be used 

there to advantage and therefore in drawing up the specifications for the work[,] 

provisos were inserted requiring bidders to furnish plans and descriptions of the 

plant they proposed to use, and also a proviso that, if after the plan had been in 

use a reasonable time, and had not obtained good results, the contract should be 

annulled, and the contractor should be reimbursed a fair amount for his outlay. 

The Times reported on December 10, 1884, that the three-man committee (Daniel Barnes, 

S. W. Carey, and E. S. Whitman) appointed by the New York Produce Exchange to urge 

Congress to fund channel dredging did not believe that the $200,000 appropriated for 

Gedney’s Channel would be adequate. (The Produce Exchange was established in 1860 

to provide a single location for the buyers and sellers of produce to meet and conduct 

business.) The committee’s report concluded: 
There is a narrow cut in Gedney’s Channel through which ships drawing 26 feet 

may pass on ordinary tides and favorable circumstances, and there is still more 

water on “spring tides.” Pilots affirm that they can take out as deep draught ships 

now as ever they could. The frequency with which steamers of 24 feet draught 

and under strike the bar, and the discrepancies between the last Government 

survey in 1881 and the surveys of Commander Taylor and of private surveyors 

more recently made, must be taken as evidence that in the interval a shoaling has 

occurred in other portions of Gedney’s Channel. 

As the requirements of commerce and of travel tend increasingly to larger and 

deeper draught steamers, in order that New-York may hold her supremacy against 

all competition, Sandy Hook bar should have as much water as it is possible to 

acquire. 

The committee rejected construction of a system of jetties as “preposterous,” and 

believed that ordinary dredging of an area of 500 feet by about 4,000 feet would be “too 

stupendous to be considered,” according to the Times article. 

The Corps advertised for bids, which were opened on January 15, 1885. The lowest bid, 

submitted by the firm of Morris and Cumings, proposed to use clam-shell dredges and 

centrifugal pumps at 35 cents per cubic yard. Aside from determining that the bid was 

irregular, the Corps was intrigued by a bid from “Roy Stone, of New York.” The 1886 

report described the bid as: 

. . . deepening the channel by means of what he [General Stone] termed 

“hydraulic plowing,” a process which consists in stirring up the material 

composing the bottom by means of a strong jet of water thrown against the sandy 

bottom during the ebb tide, which the projector thought was strong enough in 

Gedney’s Channel to carry away the material so loosened. 

Despite concerns about the proposed method of dredging, the Corps awarded the contract 

to General Stone on February 7, 1885: 

As Mr. Stone’s offer carried with it no obligation of payment on the part of the 

Government, unless he should deepen the channel to 28 feet for a width of 200 

feet to begin with, and as it was certain that the ordinary means of dredging could 

not be successfully used in a place so much exposed to sea-action as Gedney’s 

Channel is, it was decided to accept Mr. Stone’s bid; but as very little confidence 

was felt in the success of this process, though it seemed expedient to give it a trial, 

the time for completing his contract was limited to June 1, 1885, and, if at that 

time satisfactory results had not been obtained, the contract was to be annulled 

without any payment being made to the contractor. 

General Stone began the dredging on March 24, 1885. However, the Corps’ concerns 

about the proposal proved valid, as the Times noted on July 5, 1885, in an article about 
the Corps’ work. Referring to Major G. L. Gillespie, engineer in charge of improvements 

of certain rivers and harbors in New York and New Jersey, the article stated: 

Last Fall the corps of Engineers under Col. Gillespie made an excellent survey of 

a large area of the outer bay for the purpose of ascertaining the exact character of 

its entrances, what changes had taken place, and what improvements were needed. 

This was followed by the Engineering Department giving out the contract for 

dredging Gedney’s Channel to Gen. Leroy Stone. Gen. Stone’s scheme only 

partially succeeded, and his contract was annulled. While it was determined that 

his system of steam plowing was admirably adapted for some purposes, yet in this 

channel it was found that there was not enough scows to carry away the material 

loosened. 

Major Gillespie’s annual report to General Newton was less charitable, as the Times

explained on August 5, 1885. The Major recounted the difficulties that beset General 

Stone on this contract: 

From the outset the method was unsuccessful, and after a short time an induction 

pipe was substituted for the water jets, which was expected to draw the material 

up to the surface of the water and thereby give it a better chance of being carried 

off by the current. 

This, however, proved no more successful than the first method, and on the 14th of 

May, 1885, Mr. Stone was released from the contract at his own request. No 

money was paid him by the Government. [Annual Report of the Chief of 

Engineers, United States Army, to the Secretary of War for the Year 1886, Part I, 

49th Congress, 2d Session, House of Representatives, Ex. Doc 1, pt 2, vol II., 

Appendix E, 1886, p. 730-731] 

When Morris and Cumings declined to accept the contract based on the company’s 

earlier bid, the Corps readvertised for bids. Bids ranged from 33 cents to $1.50 per cubic 

yard, with General Stone having submitted the low bid. Because the General was 

“unable to prove his ability to execute the contract, his bid was thrown out.” 

An article in the Times on August 9, 1885, stated that Major Gillespie’s report had not 

received enough attention: 

It shows plainly that some method for permanently deepening and maintaining the 

channel should be adopted as soon as possible and expeditiously carried out. The 

experiment of dredging in Gedney’s Channel is practically a failure. The deposits 

on the bar are dug up and swept off only to be brought back, and the work is one 

that would have to be continued indefinitely, and then with unsatisfactory results. 

In fact the contractor who undertook the job on condition of receiving pay only 

when a channel 28 feet deep and 1,000 feet wide had been attained gave up the 

task as hopeless. 
The Chief of Engineers would struggle for years to keep Gedney’s Channel open for all 

traffic. 

[“The Needs of the Harbor,” December 10, 1884 

“Improving the Lower Bay,” August 5, 1885 

“The Entrance to Our Harbor,” August 9, 1885] 

Tracks for Trucks

In the late 1880’s, trucks were a major problem in New York City. The trucks were 

pulled by horses in that era, but their weight was hurting the horses and damaging city 

pavements. On July 2, 1889, the Times addressed the issue: 

Expert-testimony is not needed to prove that no form of pavement yet invented 

can stand the heavy traffic that goes on every day in the business districts. Along 

all the streets and avenues on which traffic is heavy, ruts and hollows are silent 

but conclusive witnesses to the faults of cobblestone and granite-block 

pavements. 

General Newton’s Department of Public Works estimated that as many as 70,000 trucks 

were engaged in daily business in the city: 

They earn on an average of $450 per day, or a total of $100,000,000 per year, 

which is larger than the combined freight earnings of all the railroads that come to 

this city. 

Only steel, the Times stated, “can be permanently satisfactory.” It explained this 

conclusion by reference to General Newton’s troubleshooter: 

Such was the conclusion reached by Gen. Roy Stone, General Inspector of Street 

Pavements, more than two years ago. Gen. Newton, then Commissioner of Public 

Works, readily shared his views. They found that a system similar to that which 

they had in mind had been put in operation in Glasgow, but not with entire 

success. The rails used there were so smooth that injury to horses from slipping 

on them almost counterbalanced the advantages secured in the way of easy 

traction. By consultation and otherwise they devised a rail with shallow grooves 

running its length and so notched across as to prevent a horse from slipping. One 

of the large steel companies reported upon the model that a special roller would 

be needed to make the rail at a cost perhaps of $3,000. With this equipment rails 

could be turned out at about the cost per pound of steel car rails. 

The article explained that in 1887, the proposal had been submitted to Mayor Abram S. 

Hewitt (1887-1888), who liked the idea. (Hewitt, a reform Democrat, had two main 

opponents in his 1886 election, one of whom was future President Theodore Roosevelt. 

Roosevelt, as he expected, lost, much to his relief since he had scheduled a trip to 
England 4 days later to marry his second wife, Edith Carow (following the death of his 

beloved first wife from complications following childbirth aggravated by Bright’s 

disease). He came in third largely because Republicans had voted for Hewitt out of fear 

that if they voted for Roosevelt, the Labor party candidate, Henry George, a populist and 

advocate of the single-tax scheme, might become Mayor. George came in second.) With 

one modification (the rail should be depressed enough to leave the surface of the street 

level), Mayor Hewitt submitted the proposal to the Board of Aldermen. On November 

12, 1887, the Committee on Streets and Public Works decided to authorize a section of 

tramway to be laid on a portion of Hudson Street. A Times article on November 13, 

1887, listed the advantages: 

Among its advantages, as claimed, will be the reduction of traction, or pulling, 

force required to move a load on the level to eight pounds per ton, as against 33 

pounds on the best stone pavement; reduction of wear and tear of vehicles and 

roadway in like proportion; avoidance of blockages by reason of higher speed and 

heavier loading and consequent reduction in number of teams required for a given 

traffic; relief to Broadway and Fifth-avenue by drawing the heavy traffic to other 

streets; relief of street car lines from obstruction by wagons; absence of noise and 

the possibility of laying a smooth and noiseless pavement in residence streets with 

out attracting a destructive business traffic. 

The article listed several objections and the answers to them: 

Objection to the cost of a tramway system is met by the fact that a new pavement 

in a wide avenue like that in Fifth-avenue would cost $180,000 per mile, while a 

double line of tramway would be built and the present pavement relaid for 

$50,000 to $60,000 per mile. The objection that horses might slip on the rails is 

said to be avoided by the peculiar arrangements of the surface for that purpose. 

The article of July 2, 1889, described the outcome: 

The Aldermanic Committee on Public Works reported back the Mayor’s 

communication with a resolution to carry it into effect over an experimental 

section on Hudson-street, in the neighborhood of the heaviest traffic. Some of the 

Aldermen at this stage became suspicious that the project might hide a scheme for 

private enrichment, and as the relations of the Mayor with the Aldermen were 

such that he could not plead with them, and as Gen. Newton would not, the 

resolution failed to pass. 

The article did not explain what “scheme” the Aldermen feared – and the Rambler has 

not been able to find other information on this point. At the time, however, the Mayor 

and the Board of Aldermen were in a dispute over the board’s authority on municipal 

matters. That is apparently why Mayor Hewitt submitted the proposal but did not feel he 

could plead with the Aldermen for their support. 
However, an article on February 2, 1888, did provide additional details on what was then 

a recent event: 

[The] question of an experimental tramway . . . was considered by the Board of 

Aldermen last November. At that time a resolution was offered by Alderman 

[Alfred R.] Conkling recommending the establishment of an experimental 

tramway in Hudson-street, between Duane and Canal streets, which, 

notwithstanding the fact that it was approved by the Department of Public Works, 

was lost on a division of the Board of Aldermen on Nov. 29. 

This February 1888 article was prompted by a petition submitted by over 40 residents of 

Fifth Avenue to Mayor Hewitt. They asked “for a system of tramways in the streets 

parallel to Fifth-avenue, so that the heavy traffic which now fills the avenue with noise 

and wears out all too rapidly the costly pavement so recently laid may be diverted into 

other channels.” Deputy Commissioner Smith of the Department of Public Works told 

the Times “that he thought it would be hard to find a street parallel to Fifth-avenue which 

is as level and free enough from street car tracks and other surface obstructions to be 

suitable for a tramway.” After considering several options, he said he feared “that no 

tramway could be constructed which would divert altogether the heavy traffic from the 

smooth level roadway of Fifth-avenue.” 

Although the Department of Public Works would not be authorized to move forward, 

General Stone would remain committed to the idea of steel tracks. He would periodically 

return to the idea of steel track roads, as discussed in later sections of this article. The 

later sections will show that General Stone had patented a design for the tracks, and it is 

possible the Aldermen were concerned that he was promoting the idea for his personal 

gain. 

[“To Save the Horses,” November 13, 1887 

“Would Save Fifth-Avenue,” February 2, 1888 

“Tracks for the Trucks,” July 2, 1889 

Southern Society Dinner 

General Stone took a break from his work on February 22, 1890, to attend the Lenox 

Lyceum for an event sponsored by the Southern Society. The Times article on February 

23 about the event described it as “the annual dinner of an association of gentlemen who 

have brought North with them the tradition of that past when a Southerner’s house was 

his guest’s house, their quarrels his quarrels, and their happiness the supreme aim of his 

endeavor.” 

The featured speaker was former President Grover Cleveland, who had been defeated in 

his 1888 reelection bid by Benjamin Harrison. Speaking on “The Birthday of George 

Washington,” the ex-President referred to the first President as “the most thorough 

American that ever lived.” Additional speeches included “The Negroes in the South” and 
“The West and the South.” (President Cleveland became the only President to serve two 

non-consecutive terms by defeating President Harrison in 1892.) 

General Stone was included in a long list of those in attendance for the event. 

[“Southern Society Dinner,” February 23, 1890] 

Aqueduct Commission

On August 22, 1890, Walter Howe drowned while swimming at Bateman’s Beach near 

his summer home in Newport. Although Howe was an excellent swimmer, he appears to 

have been overcome by cramps and drowned before he could signal for help. He was 42 

years old and left behind a wife and two children. 

In 1888, Mayor Hugh L. Grant had appointed Howe to New York City’s Aqueduct 

Commission. The commission had been chartered in June 1883 “to provide new 

reservoirs, dams, and a new Aqueduct, with the appurtenances thereto, for the purpose of 

supplying the city of New York with an increased supply of pure and wholesome water." 

With a seat on this important commission vacant, Mayor Grant needed to name a 

replacement. It would have to be a Republican, which Howe had been, because city law 

required a certain party distribution. 

On September 5, 1890, the Times reported that Mayor Grant had received a petition from 

a number of prominent men recommending General Stone for Howe’s position “on the 

ground that he has rendered the city important services, ‘which are little known to the 

general public and have never been adequately recognized or appreciated.’” Cornelius N. 

Bliss, a wealthy merchant, Republican Party activist, and future Secretary of the Interior 

(1897-1899) under President William McKinley, and other members of the Union League 

Club also submitted a petition on General Stone’s behalf. Endorsement by the Union 

League Club suggests that General Stone was a member, but The Rambler cannot 

confirm that (so don’t quote him). 

(The Union League Club was an influential social service organization, founded in 1863 

to help preserve the Union. It helped establish the Metropolitan Museum of Art in 1870, 

played a role in the founding of the American Red Cross, helped erect the Statue of 

Liberty, and played a role in bringing down the “Boss” Tweed ring. According to the 

club’s Web site, “Theodore Roosevelt managed his early political career from the Club’s 

chambers,” while early members included J. Pierpont Morgan, John Jay, William Cullen 

Bryant, President Chester A. Arthur, and Thomas Nast.) 

The Times reported on October 1, 1890, that despite these endorsements, Mayor Grant 

chose Henry W. Cannon as Howe’s replacement. Cannon, a member of the Union 

League Club, was president of Chase National Bank and had been Comptroller of the 

Currency under President Arthur. The Times explained: 
Mr. Cannon is a member of the Union League Club, and some members of the 

anti-Platt Republicans of that organization are said to have urged his appointment. 

That he is not a Platt Republican is demonstrated by his appointment. 

This was a reference to members of the New York Republican Party who opposed 

Senator Thomas C. Platt, the party “boss.” (Platt had served in the U.S. House of 

Representatives from 1873 to 1877 and in the United States Senate from March to May 

1881, before resigning along with Senator Roscoe Conkling in protest of President James 

Garfield’s Federal appointments in New York, and from 1897 to 1909. In addition to 

helping pass the Greater New York bill in 1898 that created the modern, multi-borough 

New York City, he used his position as Republican boss to promote a political rival, 

Theodore Roosevelt, as President William McKinley’s running mate in 1900.) Since 

Bliss was a prominent anti-Platt Republican, the Rambler would speculate that General 

Stone also was anti-Platt. 

[“Death of Walter Howe,” August 23, 1890 

“Gen. Roy Stone in the Field,” September 5, 1890 

“Walter Howe’s Successor,” October 1, 1890] 

The New-York and Long Island Railroad Company 

In the mid-1880’s, business and civic interests began to consider the idea of linking New 

York City and Long Island by rail. (As just noted, New York City and Long Island were 

separate jurisdictions, not yet part of a single multi-borough city as at present. New York 

City consisted of the island of Manhattan.) Under New York State’s General Railroad 

Act of 1850, a group of Long Island businessmen formed the East River Tunnel Railroad 

Company in 1885 for that purpose. The company reorganized in 1887 as the New-York 

and Long Island Railroad Company, incorporating on July 30, 1887, under the 1850 Act. 

Financier Malcolm W. Niven was the leader of the investors who formed the company. 

Clifton Hood, in his history of the New York Subway, explained the company’s goal: 

Spread across several big islands (Manhattan, Long, and Staten) and parts of the 

mainland in New Jersey and what is now the Bronx, the New York region was 

split by such major waterways as the Hudson River, the East River, and New 

York Harbor, all of which disrupted the movement of people and goods. Of all 

the railroads that served this booming metropolis in 1887, only one, the New 

York Central, entered Manhattan; all the others terminated on the New Jersey side 

of the Hudson River or the Long Island side of the East River. There were no 

bridges or tunnels across the Hudson between New Jersey and Manhattan; indeed, 

the closest bridge over the Hudson River was located seventy-five miles upstream 

in Poughkeepsie. The Brooklyn Bridge, completed in 1883, was then the only 

direct connection across the East River. The absence of such bridges and tunnels 

prolonged passenger journeys and raised transport costs. 

The New York and Long Island Railroad intended to correct this situation. It was 

conceived as a terminal railroad that would carry freight and passenger traffic 
across the East River, mainly between New York Central’s depots in Manhattan 

and the Long Island Railroad’s terminal in Queens County. [Hood, Clifton, 722 

Miles: The Building of the Subways and How They Transformed New York, Johns 

Hopkins University Press, 1993, p. 163] 

Hood added that the “long, convoluted history” of this project “reveals some of the 

engineering, financial, and political problems that thwarted New York’s early underwater 

transit projects.” [p. 162] Although Hood, for some reason, was not interested in 

General Stone’s role in these events, the Times covered the General’s significant role, 

much to the Rambler’s relief. 

On August 6, 1887, the Times reported that “promoters of the scheme to build a tunnel 

under the East River from Hunter’s Point to Fourth-avenue are exhibiting vigor and 

perseverance.” General Stone, who was the Chairman of the Directors of the New-York 

and Long Island Railroad Company, had been taking soundings between Hunter’s Point 

in Queens and the New York shore: 

With here and there a fissure, none of which is deep enough to occasion serious 

trouble, the divers have found the bed of the river composed of solid rock like that 

at Flood Road. 

In view of the recent improvements in mining and quarrying machinery these 

conditions are most favorable to the project. Dynamite and compressed air have 

so reduced the expense, that tunneling through rock can be done cheaper than 

through any other formation. The new aqueduct is an example. 

The reference is to the New Croton Aqueduct, which the Aqueduct Commission had 

approved to increase the city’s water supply. Construction began in 1885, with the 

aqueduct opening in 1890 while construction continued. The article stated that the 

aqueduct tunnel, which was wide enough for a single-track railway, cost about $500,000 

a mile: 

It is assumed that the cost of a tunnel large enough for a double-track road would 

not be double the cost of the aqueduct tunnel. Conceding that as an outside 

estimate, the tunnel would be far cheaper than a bridge. 

The Times described the route the company had identified: 

Beginning at or near Borden-avenue and Hayward-street in Long Island City, it is 

intended to follow Borden-avenue to the river and to cross in a direct line to about 

Thirty-fourth street. Following Thirty-fourth street the tunnel will go to Fourthavenue, whence branches will connect with the Grand Central Railroad Station 

and the New-York Central freight depot at Thirtieth-street and Ninth-avenue. A 

third branch may be extended to the Hudson River tunnel. 
(Colonel Dewitt Clinton Haskin, an engineer from California who had worked on the 

Union Pacific Railway, began construction of a tunnel under the Hudson River in 1874, 

starting at 15th Street in Jersey City, New Jersey. Construction was delayed by legal and 

financial problems, but resumed on May 5, 1887, prompting the reference in the Times

article. Financial problems again halted the project, which was completed in 1908 by 

William G. McAdoo’s company.) 

The tunnel, the article explained, “would establish connections between the railroad 

systems of the nation and the 400 miles now in operation on Long Island.” 

Canvassers for the company “began to skirmish around yesterday” seeking consent of 

property owners. “If half of them consent, the legal requirements will be fulfilled, and 

the organization of the company and prosecution of the work will immediately follow. 

General Stone, the article stated, “is giving the matter his closest attention.” 

On January 29, 1888, the Times informed readers that the company had petitioned the 

city’s Common Council “for leave to construct a railroad tunnel for freight and passenger 

traffic under the East River and under the city, connecting Long Island City, the Grand 

Central Station, and, by the Hudson River Tunnel, the New-Jersey railroads.” 

General Stone participated in a hearing on January 28, 1888, conducted by Alderman 

James P. Fitzsimmons, chair of the Committee on Railroads. Everett P. Wheeler, 

president of the Reform Club, one of the directors of the company, and a long-time 

Democratic political activist, opened the discussion “with an address in which he set forth 

the benefits of a comprehensive system of tunnel communication between Long Island 

and the New-England, New-York, and New-Jersey railway systems.” The Times

summarized Wheeler’s view that, “The feasibility of the plan was unquestioned.” 

Appleton D. Palmer, the company’s counsel, insisted that the time was right for “some 

radical and comprehensive plan for handling and transporting the rapidly-increasing 

commerce of the city,” as the Times phrased it. 

Committee members raised a concern that would be repeated in subsequent discussion of 

the proposal, namely that the tunnel would “tend to divert a large part of its present 

commerce from New-York.” It would not, they were told. O. W. Barnes, another 

company director and a member of the Aqueduct Commission, told the committee that 

New York’s harbor was so superior that there was little danger traffic would be diverted 

to Long Island. Further, he said, the tunnel would not only facilitate commercial business 

in the city but reduce its cost. 

General Stone also addressed the point as well as a rumor being spread to undermine the 

company: 

President Stone said that there now came 400 wagons daily with produce from 

Long Island, at an expense of not less than $2,000 a day. This traffic would be 

transacted through the tunnel in half the time now consumed and at half the 

expense. The story that a harbor for ocean steamers was to be established at Fort 
Pond Bay as part of the tunnel scheme, and that between them, the tunnel and the 

new harbor, a large portion of the foreign commerce of the country would be 

diverted from the city, he denounced as absurd. 

On January 30, 1888, the company presented a petition to the Brooklyn Common Council 

for freight shipments on specified surface roads to be used only between midnight and 5 

a.m. The petition covered a double line of tracks where needed, along with sidings, 

turnouts, and switches, as well as connections with side tracks on private property. The 

company also wanted the privilege of cutting across private property at the angles and 

curves needed after due compensation to the private owners. The council referred the 

petition to its Committee on Railroads. 

On the afternoon of February 3, the Committee on Railroads of New York City’s 

Common Council held another hearing on the proposal. According to a Times article on 

February 4, the meeting “attracted a large attendance of interested parties. But none of 

the expected opponents of the scheme appeared.” The Times quoted General Stone’s 

presentation extensively: 

Gen. Leroy [sic] Stone, President of the company petitioning for the franchise 

spoke of the objections which have been urged against it. These were the 

attraction of population from New-York to Long Island by improved transit 

thereto, and the diversion of commerce to a rival port at Mantauk Point by 

opening a connection with the West through the city. “As to the first,” said Gen. 

Stone, “in our view of the matter, it is only by means of cheap and accessible 

suburban homes that the vast business of this centre can be done at a cost that will 

not drive it away altogether. If all the people engaged in business and labor here 

were compelled to live on this island it is true that rents and real estate would 

advance for the time, but that advance would be a tax on business that would soon 

send it elsewhere and New-York would begin its decline. Commerce always, and 

manufacture of late, seeks the centres of communication, but they make those 

centres too valuable to be homes for their employes [sic] and they demand free 

outlets for that purpose to cheaper districts. The expenditure of some millions for 

labor in construction and the like addition to taxable values in the city would be 

items worth counting in immediate benefits. 

“Regarding the diversion of commerce to the end of Long Island, it is impossible 

to consider the matter seriously when we compare Fort Pond Bay, a little notch on 

the north side of Montauk Point, open to all the winds that blow from the 

northeast to the west, approached through dangerous islands and shoals, barren of 

all means and appliances for storage or shipment, and utterly defenseless in time 

of war, with the great harbor of New-York completely land-locked, with a sea 

approach stretching, without island or shoal, from Montauk to the Bermudas and 

Hatteras, with a hundred miles of water front, and its costly equipment of 

wharves, warehouses, and elevators, and with safety assured by its defenses, or, as 

a last resort, by blocking the channels at Sandy Hook against an enemy’s ships; 

but the climax of unreason is reached when all these advantages are to be 
sacrificed in order to attain the disadvantage of carrying freight 100 miles further 

by rail for shipment at double the cost of water carriage. For passenger service, if 

there was ever an object in having an ocean line from Montauk it was not to save 

the five hours difference in time by rail, but to make a quicker passage by means 

of larger steamers than could cross Sandy Hook bar and to avoid delaying for tide 

there. This object is no longer of importance, since the deepening of the bar is 

progressing so rapidly that vessels of greater draught than any now in use may 

soon cross at any stage of the tide. 

“Our greatest business need is that of better facilities for freight transfer, 

collection, and distribution. It costs now $100,000,000 per annum to do this 

work. As the city becomes more crowded the cost increases, and but for the relief 

afforded in the water transfer by car floats our streets would before this have been 

completely blocked and traffic driven elsewhere. The crowding of freight stations 

into the water front injures both railways and shipping; the removal of those 

would largely put an end to the street blockages which are so costly and 

vexatious, and if each important road could have a central station in the heart of 

the city, with branch stations in various localities and a general junction for 

transfers, the problem of cheap city transportation would be solved. Manifestly 

this cannot be done on the surface without ruining the city for everything else. 

Beneath the surface it might apparently be done at a moderate cost and without 

harm to any interest. Even the truckmen would not suffer, for the improvement in 

facilities would bring such increase in business as to keep them fully employed. 

Upon the question of cost of depot and storage room below ground it is interesting 

to note that chambers can be excavated alongside a tunnel railway to the height of 

18 feet for $2 per square foot of floor surface, or at the rate of $5,000 per city lot 

of 25 by 100 feet, a price much below the value of ground on the surface, and 

that, measured in cubic contents, such chambers would cost only $3 per yard 

against at least $10 for the same space in buildings well situated above ground. 

This saving in storage of such goods as may be kept below ground would amount 

to many millions annually, while the saving in insurance alone would be a very 

considerable sum.” 

R. K. Cortis, formerly the New York agent for the White Star Line, and Commodore W. 

H. Thompson, former commander of the Britannic, agreed with General Stone that 

freight and passenger shipment from an ocean harbor at Montauk would be impractical 

and expensive. The Times reported that the cost of shipping freight from New York to 

Montauk would be as great as shipping the freight from New York to Liverpool in 

England. 

In March 1888, the Times covered discussions between the company and the Committee 

on Railroads regarding a franchise fee. On March 10, the Times explained that General 

Stone “claimed that his company should not be placed on the level of surface railways, 

for whose benefit the city had assumed great expense.” Palmer, the company’s counsel, 

objected that the Common Council did not have the legal authority to charge the 

company: 
“How would 3 per cent. on the gross receipts do?” asked Chairman Fitzsimmons. 

“It wouldn’t do at all,” replied Mr. Palmer, “but 3 per cent. on the net receipts 

might do.” 

[“Gross” versus “net” represents a significant difference, as Hollywood movie studios 

have long understood. “Gross” revenue refers to the total ticket sales, while “net” refers 

to the profit a film makes. (In the case of the proposed tunnel, the difference was 

between total receipts from fares versus the company’s profit.) Because of studio 

overhead (such as paying for flops), few films ever make a “profit,” so wise negotiators 

seek a percent of gross rather than net. In case any Hollywood moguls are reading this 

article, the Rambler wishes to make clear that he is willing to sell the movie rights to 

“General Roy Stone and The New York Times” for an upfront payment plus a percentage 

of gross to be negotiated.) 

While Palmer agreed to discuss the matter with the company’s incorporators, Alderman 

James J. Mooney entered the meeting room: 

Alderman Mooney . . . called upon Mr. Stone to explain an article that had been 

printed to the effect that an attempt had been made to blackmail the company by 

an emissary of the board. Mr. Stone said that no officer of his company knew 

anything on that subject. 

The Times reported on March 17 that on the day before, the New-York and Long Island 

Railroad Company had assured the Committee on Railroads that the company would pay 

the city 3 percent of its gross receipts in lieu of all taxes in return for approval to tunnel 

the East River and under the city. Wheeler tried to get the amount reduced to 21⁄2 percent, 

but the company agreed to the 3 percent. 

[“The North River Tunnel,” May 22, 1887 

“In and About the City – The East River Tunnel,” August 6, 1887 

“Under the East River – Another Tunnel Project Advocated, January 29, 1888 

“A Night Freight Line,” January 31, 1888 

“The East River Tunnel – Answering Some of the Objections to the Enterprise,” February 

4, 1888 

“Looking for Compensation,” March 10, 1888 

“The Long Island Road’s Offer,” March 17, 1888] 

Cool Effrontery

On April 17, 1888, the Aldermen reached a decision on the bridge company’s proposal. 

The Times coverage the next day highlighted a “most astonishing contest” that took place 

during discussions. 
The majority report, signed by Aldermen Mooney, William Tait, Joseph Murray, and 

William P. Rinckhoff, rejected the project, largely because of the concern that the project 

would benefit Long Island at the city’s expense: 

Innumerable attempts to divert the traffic of this city to other localities have from 

time to time been made . . . . in the interest of private individuals and corporations 

and to the advantage of our rivals . . . and always against the earnest protests of 

our city authorities; but the application under consideration surpasses in cool 

effrontery any project of a like character ever called to their attention. Reflection 

is lost in amazement in contemplating the possibilities for evil to this city and its 

interests that are contained in the application of this railroad company and certain 

to befall the city if the proposition is favorably considered by those whose first 

duty it is to avert just such threatened evils, if in their power. 

The petitioners, the majority stated, had surely underestimated the intelligence of the 

Aldermen if the company thought it had disguised its purpose: 

In conclusion, your committee, being of opinion that your honorable body is not 

desirous of bringing the sand hills of Long Island into any closer or more active 

competition with the real estate located within our own corporate limits, more 

than half of which is still vacant and unimproved, that you are not in favor of 

giving a syndicate of individuals—a trust in the most offensive sense—an 

opportunity to enter into active competition for the control of the traffic of the 

port of New-York and the business of our own citizens, nor desirous of taking any 

action which will tend, in the remotest degree, to interfere with the future progress 

and prosperity of the city of New-York, respectfully offer for your adoption a 

resolution against the project. 

The minority report, signed by Aldermen Fitzsimmons, A. R. Conkling, and Walton 

Storm, favored the company’s proposal. Fitzsimmons tried to delay action in hope of 

rallying support for the minority’s view, but the Alderman voted against the proposal. 

Mooney stated that if the proposition were approved, the newspapers would claim the 

Aldermen “belonged” to Austin Corbin, president of the Long Island Railroad and a long 

time booster of Long Island interests. After Fitzsimmons denied that Corbin was 

involved in the proposition, Mooney made comments (not printed in the Times) 

suggesting that Alderman Conkling, whose father, former U.S. Representative and 

Senator Roscoe Conkling, was seriously ill, had stock in the company. Alderman 

Conkling replied that, “My only property consists in city bonds, real estate, and 

mortgages.” Mooney’s statement was, therefore, “false, malicious, and unmanly.” He 

had never boasted of owning stock in a railroad company whose franchise was before the 

Common Council. “Can the Alderman from the Twenty-third Ward say as much?” he 

asked. “I never asked who was ‘to be seen’ in regard to railroad franchises.” Mooney’s 

insinuation that Conkling had an interest in the company “was false and malicious.” (The 

phrase “to be seen” was at the heart of a corruption investigation, as will be seen.) 
The Times stated that after these comments, “The Aldermen held their breath at the 

insinuations of Alderman Conkling.” Mooney rose to reply: 

When the Alderman of the Seventh District says that I stated he was interested in 

this road he tells an untruth. I’ve called him so once or twice before, but he isn’t 

gentleman enough to resent it . . . . No gentleman, no person, save a monkeyskulking man like the Alderman . . . would dare approach me in the matter of 

railroad franchises. I have been here three years and no one can say that I was 

ever approached. Yet monkey business runs in the family. I will hold him 

personally responsible for his words before he leaves the chamber or in the 

neighborhood of the City Hall, and I have give [sic] him fair warning.” 

The president of the Common Council prevented Conkling from replying. Later, 

however, Mooney told a reporter that he regretted his comments about former Senator 

Conkling, who was dying. “I wish you would say that I regret very much my remark in 

the Common Council meeting to-day about the ex-Senator. What I said was very wrong, 

and I am sorry for it.” 

(Conkling died the following day on April 18, 1888, and is irrelevant to this article about 

General Stone, except for the indelicacy during the hearing. However, the Rambler is 

delighted to use the chance reference to the senior Conkling to digress to historian David 

McCullough’s view of him. In his biography of Theodore Roosevelt, McCullough 

discussed Conkling’s rivalry with Roosevelt’s father. Calling Conkling “among the most 

fascinating, outrageous men of the era,” McCullough describes him as “considerably 

larger than life.” He was “tall, beautiful, enormously talented in the art of politics,” but 

in the view of the senior Roosevelt and other reformers, “evil incarnate.” He continued: 

Conkling was not a crook; his name had been linked with no scandals; nor had he 

any personal crudities of the kind associated with a reprobate like [William 

Marcy] Tweed [the notorious leader of the corrupt political machine known as 

Tammany Hall]. What was so objectionable about Conkling was his utterly 

masterful, arrogant use of the very system [the reformers] deplored . . . . 

Conkling himself, the picture of conspicuous manhood, stood six feet three, and 

was solidly formed beneath his extravagant clothes . . . . Women thought 

Conkling gorgeous, which he was. He carried a sun umbrella and favored bright 

bow ties, fawn-colored vests and trousers, English gaiters [cloth coverings for the 

lower portion of the pants], and gleaming pointed shoes. His beard was the color 

of burnished copper and it too was pointed. His hair was a darker red, thick and 

wavy, and he combed it to produce a single Hyperion curl at the center of his 

forehead . . . . 

Though a married man with children he had for years been carrying on an affair 

with a fellow senator’s wife, the beautiful, ambitious Kate Chase Sprague . . . . 
He had little humor, no patience with those he thought beneath him intellectually. 

He remained haughty and insufferably vain, anything but a man of the people. He 

deplored the use of tobacco and whiskey and said so. He disliked reporters and 

crowds; he hated ever to be touched. 

Conkling’s base of power was the Customhouse on Wall Street, “the largest federal office 

outside Washington.” It collected tariffs on imported goods, one of the Federal 

Government’s prime sources of revenue – two-thirds of tariff revenue was collected 

through the Customhouse in New York. Conkling had installed Chester A. Arthur as 

Collector of the Port of New York. Although Arthur was not accused of corruption, 

virtually every aspect of the Customhouse’s operation was corrupt. Nevertheless, 

President Rutherford B. Hayes fired Arthur as part of an ineffective reform effort. 

Arthur, against his patron Conkling’s advice, emerged as the Vice Presidential candidate 

in 1880 with presidential candidate James A. Blaine, a long-time Conkling foe. Shortly 

after taking office on March 4, 1881, President Blaine nominated a Conkling enemy, 

Judge William H. Robertson, to be Collector. In a fury at this breach of senatorial 

courtesy, Senators Conkling and Platt resigned, as noted earlier: 

Both men had expected to be quickly vindicated and reinstated by a compliant 

legislature at Albany and thus to return to Washington stronger than ever. But it 

had not worked out as planned. Most people thought Conkling had made a fool of 

himself; the legislature turned on him and chose another in his place. 

Inconceivable as it seemed, the giant Conkling had come crashing down, his 

political career was ended. 

Platt might have prevented the reversal in Albany, but he “had been discovered in a 

compromising position with a young woman and was forced to retire from the scene in 

disgrace.” McCullough noted that Platt may have been framed but since that’s no fun, 

the Rambler will ignore the suggestion. 

As for Arthur, he became President on September 18, 1881, following Blaine’s 

assassination by a disgruntled office seeker. 

This brief digression describes the gentleman whose dying days created such sensitivity, 

affronted feelings, and unlikely apologies among the Board of Alderman. [McCullough, 

David, Mornings on Horseback, Simon and Schuster Paperbacks, 2003, p.152-154, 171, 

267]) 

[“Some Personal Remarks,” April 18, 1888] 

A Sort of Joke 

Following the elections of 1888, the railroad company tried again in 1889 after a brief 

glimmer of hope. The old Board of Alderman was still in office on January 3 when the 

Times reported: 
A majority of the Aldermanic Committee on Bridges and Tunnels reported 

yesterday in favor of the adoption of the resolution to give permission to the NewYork and Long Island Railroad Company to build a tunnel under East River and 

across the island under Forty-second-street. The report was laid over for the 

consideration of the next Board of Alderman. 

The old board concluded on January 7, and the new Board of Altermen took office at 

noon on the same day. 

This time, however, the company’s petition was sent to the Committee on Docks, instead 

of the new Committee on Bridges and Tunnels. The Times reported on January 24, 1889, 

that H. V. Arnold, president of the Board of Aldermen, was surprised by comments that 

the Alderman had assigned the petition “as a sort of joke, but that was a good enough 

place to kill it in.” Arnold called for the committee to hold a meeting on January 24 to 

consider the proposal. 

At that hearing, Aldermen and speakers discussed whether the proposal would benefit 

Long Island at the city’s expense. Alderman William H. Walker stated his view that “it 

might benefit Long Island by populating it at the expense of” New York City. Further, 

“its real purpose was to take freight through New-York without delay and to put it on 

steamships running from Montauk Point across the ocean.” General Stone said he was 

hampered somewhat in responding to the concern because his company’s papers had 

been sent to the Committee on Bridges and Tunnels. The article did not quote any 

comments he may have made on the benefit to New York City. However, two steamship 

company officials and Captain Ambrose D. Snow of the Board of Trade agreed “that the 

tunnel could not be used to divert commerce from this city, because steamships could not 

be run to and from Montauk Point as advantageously as from here.” As summarized in 

the article, Captain Snow said: 

New-York must be benefited by every railroad that came into it. The railroad 

might build up outlying places, but New-York would be the centre of supply for 

such places. 

Before long, Alderman Walker rose “with dignity” to say he had some questions for 

General Stone: 

He said: “A statement has been attributed to you that some of the members of this 

committee and of the Board of Aldermen are actuated by improper motives in 

taking the position they have taken in this matter. Those who utter it are moral 

assassins. If any one knows that there is truth in it I wish he would make a 

statement here publicly. Aldermen who voted in favor of corporations used to be 

assailed. Now we are assailed for not voting for a corporation.” 
“I did not know,” Gen. Stone replied, “that any such statement was attributed to 

me. The company has not been approached in any way for the benefit of a 

member of the present Board of Aldermen.” 

The answer did not satisfy the Aldermen, particularly Orator Carlin. Chairman 

Walker had an extract from The Times read to back up his speech, but Gen. Stone 

denied that it contained any charge of wrongdoing against any present Aldermen. 

He corroborated its truthfulness, and repeated the statement made in it that he had 

been told some days ago that a combine had been formed in the board against the 

tunnel. As for corruption in the old Board of Aldermen, Gen. Stone declared that 

he had said all he desired to say before a Grand Jury last year. Finally Gen. Stone 

asked if the petition of workingmen in favor of the tunnel could not be got before 

the committee. He was assured that it was on the old files, and the board had 

decided not to take it from them. 

(The Rambler notes that the Times article about the hearing, published on January 25, 

1889, carried this subhead: “The Committee on Docks Insists That It Is Incorruptible.”) 

On January 28, 1889, the Times was harsh in its commentary on the new Board’s actions: 

Members of the Board of Aldermen resent the insinuation that their opposition to 

a railroad tunnel under the East River is due to a corrupt desire to be paid for their 

consent to its construction, and yet it is difficult to find any other explanation 

which would be a credit to the intelligence of a schoolboy. 

The argument that the proposal would benefit Long Island at the city’s expense “cannot 

be a real, honest reason to any mind that is not either ignorant or stupid.” The editorial 

explained: 

What New-York most needs for its future growth and prosperity is closer 

connections with the territory about it. The more tunnels and bridges there are 

connecting Manhattan Island with adjacent lands, provided there is no obstruction 

of navigation on its surrounding waters, the better for the city, and their 

construction should be encouraged and promoted in every legitimate way. 

The talk of advantage to Long island “is the sheerest nonsense.” The editorial saw “no 

danger” of business being driven from the city. “Probably the dullest Alderman does not 

imagine that it would be a good thing for the city if it were as difficult and expensive to 

get across the Harlem River as it is to get across the East River and the Hudson, and he 

ought to see that it would be a good thing if communication to the east and the west were 

as east and inexpensive as it is to the north.” 

The editorial saw a larger concept playing out in the debate: 

The growth of the metropolis ought not to be restrained by municipal lines, but as 

its parts become more closely wrought together it would be well to obliterate 
partition lines altogether and draw the municipal boundary around the whole 

aggregation of population and business and wealth which really belong to a single 

community and have the lower part of Manhattan Island as their centre of 

operations. Under proper safeguards for public and private interests every effort 

of capital and enterprise to supply the bonds of union between sections of the 

metropolis and to give it a more perfect connection with the channels of traffic in 

every direction should be encouraged and promoted. All barriers should be 

removed, and our borders should lie open to the world. 

The new Aldermen were quick to act, again rejecting the petition. The Times reported on 

January 30 that the application “was yesterday peremptorily denied . . . based on a report 

of its Committee on Docks adverse to the tunnel scheme.” The committee’s report 

began: 

“It was not necessary to remind your honorable body,” as does this new 

application, “that throughout the past year the company has constantly sought the 

consent of your honorable body to the construction of a tunnel railway joining this 

city with Long Island,” nor is it necessary to inform Mr. Roy Stone and his 

company that the Common Council of this city has constantly and persistently 

denied the application. The vilification to which the members of the Common 

Council was subjected last year, and the villainous attempt made to injure their 

reputations, both as citizens and officials—at the instance of Mr. Stone and his 

friends—served to remind the re-elected members of the late board of the former 

tact. 

“Mr Roy Stone, President, is simply an employee of the Department of Public 

Works, is in no way or manner a responsible person, does not own a dollar’s 

worth of property in the city, if anywhere else, has no interest whatever other than 

the amount of salary he draws from its treasury in its welfare or prosperity, and it 

is very questionable if any of his associates are better qualified to engage in such 

an extensive enterprise; and your committee has come to the conclusion that Mr. 

Stone and his associates in the ‘New-York and Long Island Railroad Company’ 

are simply cat’s paws, chartered or incorporated to draw this municipal chestnut 

out of the fire for the use of more important and better-known individuals, who, if 

their identify appeared, would arouse a feeling of indignation at this new one of 

the many schemes they have inaugurated and established, by which they have 

enriched themselves at the expense of the city of New-York and its people.” 

The vote was 16 to 9 in favor of the report. Alderman Carlin asked the Aldermen to 

reconsider, acknowledging that he did so to “kill the bill.” Under the rules, a matter once 

reconsidered and readopted cannot be reconsidered. The Aldermen again voted in favor 

of the report. 

The Times, also on January 30, carried an editorial describing the report of the Committee 

on Docks as “an extraordinarily flippant and frivolous document.” If there were 

substantive grounds for rejecting the proposal, such as financial problems or lack of 
expertise, the committee might have had a valid objection. “But resentment for slurs 

upon the honesty of past or present Aldermen is a very poor ground upon which to decide 

such a question.” The editorial added: 

If the committee really thinks that a tunnel connecting this city with Long Island 

would be an injury to its interests, that is reason enough for opposing it, but it is 

really too shallow to be credible in the case of anybody but a New-York 

Alderman. Evidence accumulates that the Board of Aldermen is really too stupid 

and incompetent a body to be intrusted with the decision of any question affecting 

the interests of the city. Such power should be lodged where there was some 

chance of its intelligent and honest exercise. 

On January 31, the Times carried a letter from General Stone responding to the report by 

the Committee on Docks. He did not respond to the personal attack on him, but only to 

details in the report: 

Only one branch of the Aldermanic report quoted this morning needs comment. 

The cost of the East River tunnel is estimated, by better authorities than the 

Committee on Docks, at $5,000,000 instead of $15,000,000; the amount “paid up” 

and expended for surveys, &c., is between $5,000 and $10,000 instead of “less 

than $1,000”, the present stockholders are not “irresponsible,” but quite able to 

build the tunnel and the franchise cannot be transferred without being forfeited. 

These errors were corrected at the “hearing,” but of course too late if, as stated in 

the board [sic], the report was already in type. 

It is quite true that the capital of the company was temporarily fixed at $100,000, 

or only double what the law required, but, as the event proves, it would have been 

folly to pay an organization tax of many thousands of dollars on a charter 

dependent for its validity upon the action of the Board of Aldermen. If their 

consent is ever granted the capital can be increased by a simple vote of the 

stockholders. And the company is by no means hopeless of consent; it took three 

months argument to get four votes in the last board and only three weeks to get 

nine in this; at the same rate of progress the next board will make short work of 

the opposition to an improvement commended by the commercial bodies, the 

press, and the people generally, and opposed only by the orators who represent, I 

hope inadequately, the intelligence of Thirty-eighth-street. Roy Stone 

[ “Work of the Aldermen,” January 3, 1889 

“The Tunnel Under the City,” January 24, 1889 

“Talking About the Tunnel,” January 25, 1889 

“Tunnels and Bridges for New-York,” January 28, 1889 

“The Application Denied,” January 30, 1889 

Untitled editorial, January 30, 1889 

“The East River Tunnel – Gen. Stone Corrects Some Mistakes in the Aldermanic 

Report,” January 31, 1889] 
The Charge of Bribery 

The charge of bribery would resurface in the spring of 1890 when the State Senate’s 

Committee on Cities conducted its inquiry into municipal departments. As the Times put 

it in an article on April 8, 1890: 

It was the Board of Aldermen that came in for the biggest share of the 

committee’s attention yesterday. The poor old board came out of the day’s 

entertainment with a very black eye. It was roundly abused, its total abolition was 

suggested, it was declared to be utterly useless, and one witness added to the 

general assault upon it by saying that, “the very name Aldermen is repugnant to 

an honest man.” 

Former Alderman Conkling had made the comment. He had served on the board in 1887 

and 1888. Asked if he could describe the makeup of the board during that period, he 

said: 

“Yes: one-half were in the liquor business, four were educated men, the 

remainder were ward politicians.” 

Conkling classified himself among the educated Aldermen. 

He described how Aldermen Dowling had sought a bribe in exchange for his vote in 

support of an electric light company that wanted to run its motors on Fourth Avenue. 

Conkling was then asked if he could provide any other examples, including names: 

Mr. Conkling then said: “Gen. Roy Stone, President of the New-York and East 

River Tunnel Company, told me that he had been improperly approached in the 

matter of the tunnel franchise.” 

“How was he approached?” 

“He was called aside by an Alderman and told that money was a condition 

precedent to the passing of that franchise.” 

“Who was this Alderman?” asked [Senator J. Sloat] Fassett. 

“Do you want his name?” 

“We do.” 

“Alderman Dowling.” (D. R. Dowling.) 

Corporation Counsel William H. Clark tried to object that when Conkling had appeared 

before a grand jury investigating the alleged frauds, his testimony was not allowed, but 

Clark was overruled. 

General Stone was one of the witnesses before the Senate committee on April 19, 1890, 

as described in the following day’s Times: 
Gen. Roy Stone, ex-President of the New-York and Long Island Railroad 

Company, said that he had been interested in an application made to the Aldermen 

in 1888 for the tunnel under the East River. The application was rejected. 

“Has such an application been made to this board?” asked [Assistant Counsel A. 

R.] Boardman. 

“Yes, but I have had no connection with the application before the present board.” 

[Franklin] Bartlett [counsel to the current Board of Aldermen] objected and was 

again overruled. Mr. Stone said that the matter was still pending before the 

present Board of Aldermen. Mr. Boardman wanted to know whether the witness 

had any talks with Aldermen of the board in 1888 in which the matter of paying 

money for the franchise was spoken of. Mr. Stone said that one gentleman 

introduced himself to him as a member of the board, who said that it would be 

necessary for him to know who to “see” before the resolution was passed. “I did 

not continue the conversation. I knew what he meant. Later I was told that the 

resolution would not come out of the committee while we were pursuing the 

methods we were.” 

“Who was the gentleman who introduced himself to you?” asked Mr. Fassett. 

“I don’t think I should be asked that.” 

“The committee does.” 

“The matter is now pending before the Grand Jury, isn’t it?” asked Mr. 

Boardman. Mr. Stone said that it was before the Grand Jury two years ago; he did 

not know whether it was before the Grand Jury now or not. 

Senators McNaughton and Fassett both thought it was unjust to the other 

members of the Board of Aldermen of 1888 not to have the name or names come 

out. Mr. Stone said that the man who had spoken to him said that he had sixteen 

votes and that the bill could be passed. He did not mention the names of the 

sixteen men. 

Senator Fassett questioned the witness at some length as to the meaning of the 

word “see” as used by the Alderman. Mr. Stone said that perhaps it was used in 

the parliamentary sense. Mr. Fassett did not believe it was. [Counsel to the 

Committee William M.] Ivins asked Gen. Stone if his inference that money was 

needed came from the use of the word “see” by the Alderman. Gen. Stone said 

that it was and that no money had been asked for. Mr. Ivins did not think that if 

this was so the committee had any further use for the witness. There was a deal of 

whispering between the lawyers and the committee, and Mr. Stone said that he 

did not wish to name the Alderman until he had been further advised. Finally 

Senator Fassett said that he would have to insist that the question should be 

answered. “It would seriously cripple this committee if it shrank from the point 

when it comes to such a thing as this,” said he. 

After more backing and filling Gen. Stone said: “Well, it was Alderman 

Dowling, the Vice President of the board.” 

“That’s as ex-Alderman Conkling, testified” said Mr. Fassett. 

The Chairman’s queries then elicited the statement from Mr. Stone that Dowling 

had not asked for any money. He spoke of the methods that the company was 

pursuing, and Dowling made the statement to him that he wished it understood 

that he was not asking for money.” 
“Do you think he was?” asked the Chairman. 

“I’ll leave that for you to infer,” was the answer. 

Mr. Bartlett then asked whether he knew of his own knowledge that any of the 

members of the present board were dishonest. Gen. Stone said that he had had no 

experience with them. When asked whether any of the members of the present 

board had asked for any money for the franchise, he said they had not. The tunnel 

question is now before the Aldermen’s Committee on Bridges and Tunnels. They 

have given three hearings on it. 

This exchange concluded General Stone’s testimony. 

[“Abolish the Aldermen,” April 8, 1890 

“Fassett’s Probe at Work,” April 20, 1890] 

Another Try for Approval 

As noted in the article summarizing General Stone’s testimony, he had stepped down as 

president of the company. He was replaced by James D. Leary, a shipbuilder and 

contractor. (He would be known in later years as the contractor who built the Harlem 

River Speedway for light-harness horsemen.) The Times did not explain why General 

Stone stepped down as president, although later articles reflected his continuing interest 

in the project—hence the Rambler’s continuing interest. 

The Committee on Bridges and Tunnels decided to take the petition up again. (Despite 

The Rambler’s manipulation of the Times’ archive search engine, he was unable to figure 

out how this happened.) Nine months after receiving the petition, the committee had not 

issued a report on the proposal for action by the Aldermen. On December 3, 1890, the 

Times reported that Alderman Storm had offered a resolution on December 2 discharging 

the committee from further consideration so the petition could be considered by the 

Board of Aldermen. In response, Alderman Oakley created a sensation by claiming, “I 

have been approached and offered bribes if I would favor this scheme, and I have no 

doubt that other members of the board have had similar experiences.” According to the 

Times, he offered no details of the bribe and was not asked to explain his assertion: 

Oakley, however, was not in the revelation business even if he had anything to 

reveal. He simply went on in a general way to say that no scheme had ever come 

before the board with more corruption behind it. He used the old argument that 

the tunnel was a scheme of Austin Corbin to build up Long Island at the expense 

of New-York. If some of the Aldermen could be found, he said, to change their 

views and cast their votes for it, that might be taken as an evidence of rottenness. 

Regarding the allegation of bribery, the Times said: 

After the first surprise of his announcement had worn off the Aldermen began to 

think that Oakley didn’t know what he was talking about. He has played the low 

comedy part in the Aldermanic show for so long that his words are not weighty. 
Alderman John A. Dinkel stated that he was suspicious that the 9-month delay in 

committee was a demand for a bribe. Dinkel had taken office as an Alderman on July 2, 

1890, following the death on June 28, 1890, of Alderman Louis Schlamp, and had taken 

Schlamp’s place on the Committee on Bridges and Tunnels, which had taken no action 

on the petition since then. When Alderman Storm asserted that no Alderman could be 

bribed, Oakley called out, “Ask the Alderman if he has been retained by Col. Bliss, the 

attorney for the tunnel?” (This was a reference to Colonel George Bliss, a lawyer who 

was active in Republican politics in New York City and State, with considerable 

influence on legislation emerging from Albany.) 

The Times article explained that the charge of bribery was not new to the tunnel project: 

The application for the permit has been before three different boards. Two years 

ago, when Gen. Roy Stone was President of the company, charges were made that 

some of the members of the Committee on Bridges and Tunnels were willing to 

accept bribes. The Grand Jury investigated, and there were hints and innuendoes 

that reflected on the character of some of the Aldermen. No indictments were 

ever found. The Senate Committee on Cities also paid some attention to the 

matter, and before that body one of the witnesses testified that Gen. Stone had 

mentioned the name of certain Aldermen who had endeavored to get the company 

to bribe them. 

The Aldermen voted to require the committee to provide some sort of report in time for 

the board’s next meeting. 

That meeting took place on December 9, 1890. The committee had met since the 

previous board meeting, but decided not to issue a report. Instead, the committee decided 

to ask the board to discharge it from further consideration of the company’s petition. In 

response, Alderman Storm offered a resolution giving the board’s consent to the 

company. Before the board could act, Alderman Oakley stated that the petition was not 

properly drawn and left the city without adequate protection. His remedy was a motion 

to commit the petition to the Committee on Railroads, but his motion was rejected. 

Oakley then disputed the number of votes the measure would need to pass. When 

President Arnold answered that 14 votes were needed, Oakley claimed that a threefourths majority was needed, but he was ruled out of order. 

Finally, Storm’s resolution was ready for a vote. The Times article on December 10 

stated: 

Alderman Storm made a long argument in favor of the tunnel. Alderman Clancy 

hinted at bribery, and wanted to know how so many of the Aldermen who had 

formerly opposed the tunnel now came to be in favor of it. When the voting was 

done it was found that 14 votes, just the requisite number, had been cast in favor 

of the franchise, while 11 votes had been cast in opposition. 
The article contained additional details on the bribery charge: 

After a fight that had its beginning three years ago, the Board of Aldermen 

decided yesterday by the closest kind of vote to grant the New-York and Long 

Island Railroad Company a franchise . . . . The company obtained the original 

right to build from the Legislature . . . . The history of the fight for this measure 

before the three Boards of Aldermen that have considered it involves much talk of 

bribery, and some ugly insinuations were made yesterday. In 1888 Alderman 

Conkling went before the Grand Jury and endeavored to get one or more 

Aldermen indicted for efforts to extort bribes for votes in favor of the measure . . . 

. Mr. Conkling’s complaint in 1888 was chiefly against Alderman Daniel 

Dowling, but there was no evidence to support it. 

As the article also noted, now that the Board of Aldermen had approved the franchise, 

“the only thing that remains to be done before the company will have a clear right to 

begin the work is for the Mayor to affix his signature to the resolution adopted yesterday. 

On December 14, 1890, the Times carried a brief article indicating that General Stone had 

stopped by Mayor Grant’s office to see if he had signed the resolution. “The Mayor did 

not discourage him.” General Stone told the Times that all the preliminaries had been 

arranged except consents of property owners along the Long Island approach. The State 

had already conveyed a deed to the company for the underwater right-of-way. The article 

added that, “it is proposed to go fifty feel below the bed of the river for the excavation 

and to carry the tunnel across the city at the same level.” 

Although Mayor Grant was prepared to sign the resolution granting the franchise, he 

concluded that he could not. The Times reported on December 17 that Mayor Grant had 

returned the resolution to the Board of Aldermen because the wording was defective. 

The resolution stated that the company was to pay 3 percent of its gross receipts to the 

city “inclusive of all taxes and assessments,” instead of “exclusive.” Alderman Storm 

attributed the mistake to a clerical error. As a result, the resolution would be revised and 

put to another vote before the board. 

The Board of Alderman approved the corrected resolution and Mayor Grant approved it 

on December 31, 1890, the last day of operation before the new Board, elected in 

November, took office. 

[“Oakley Charges Bribery,” December 3, 1890 

“A Tunnel Under the City,” December 10, 1890 

“The East River Tunnel,” December 14, 1890 

“Sent Back to the Aldermen,” December 17, 1890] 

Construction Underway at Last 
By January 25, 1891, the Times was reporting that a dozen surveyors and engineers were 

in Long Island City surveying the proposed line of the tunnel. 

On October 21, 1891, the Board of Aldermen of Long Island City approved the right-ofway for the company’s tunnel into the city and voted to give the company the franchise. 

The Aldermen added conditions to the approval, namely that the tunnel must come to the 

surface within the city limits and that the company was required to run passenger trains 

between the hours of 5 am and midnight. The Aldermen also called for bridges over 

Newtown Creek. According to the Times article the following day, this was the second 

time the board had considered the company’s proposal: 

The statement was officially made that the plans recently submitted had been 

changed substantially from those on which the Aldermen had acted adversely 

some time ago. 

Henry B. Slaven, a company Director, told the Times that the board’s action was the final 

hurdle. Construction would begin as soon as possible. “The charges made by some of 

the Long Island City officials that the company was composed simply of schemers who 

did not mean business, he said, was not true.” He expected the tunnel to cost $10 million 

and to be completed in about 3 years. 

Before construction could begin, Austin Corbin announced a rival scheme (as noted 

earlier, Corbin was president of the Long Island Railroad Company). On December 10, 

1891, the Times reported that he had incorporated under “the more or less selfexplanatory title of the ‘New-York and Queens County Tunnel Railroad Company.’” 

The Times summarized the proposal: 

The road is to be three and a half miles in length “under the waters of the North 

and East Rivers, and to be operated by steam, electricity, or other motive power.” 

The termini of the road are to be “some point at or near the boundary line of the 

States of New-York and New-Jersey in New-York City, and some point at or near 

the mouth of Newtown Creek, in Long Island City.” 

The reporter tried to secure further information from officials of the company, most of 

whom comprised “the ‘dummy’ Board of Directors usual in schemes of this sort.” But 

the reporter did locate General Stone: 

Gen. Roy Stone, who is connected with the two tunnel schemes known as the 

New-York and Long Island Railroad Company and the New-York and NewJersey Terminal Railroad Company, examined the route of Mr. Corbin’s tunnel, 

and said that it was evidently intended as a strike against the New-York and Long 

Island Railroad Company, to offset the cost of enjoying the advantages of the 

latter scheme. The New-York and Long Island Railroad Company is a bona fide 

scheme, backed by large capital, to build a tunnel under the East River from a 

point near the Queens County Courthouse, in Long Island City, to and under 

Forty-second Street to Eleventh Avenue, in New-York, with connections with the 
Grand Central Station system of railroads. The plan of the scheme is feasible, and 

has been fully ventilated and very generally approved. Consents have already 

been obtained, and there is an abundance of capital to perform the necessary 

work. 

The opinion of Gen. Stone was shared by others familiar with the various tunnel 

projects. 

In April 1892, the New-York and Long Island Railroad Company began construction of 

its East River Tunnel. It had hired the Inter-Island Construction Company as the 

construction contractor. Niven, who was listed as the secretary of the New-York and 

Long Island Railroad Company, was president of Inter-Island Construction Company. 

By December 1892, the company had drilled the shaft in Long Island City to a depth of 

85 feet and had begun tunneling horizontally toward the East River. However, on 

December 28, 1892, an explosion that “shook Long Island City from end to end” brought 

construction to a halt, killing five and injuring many others. The Times described the 

morning incident on December 29: 

The explosion was caused by Nicolo Loadano, the Italian who lost his life, 

thawing out dynamite cartridges in a stream box erected for the purpose twenty 

feet away from the mouth of the tunnel shaft . . . . A little before 8 o’clock the 

Italian laborer brought two boxes of dynamite cartridges from the storehouse on 

the meadows, on the outskirts of the city. It was badly frozen, so he placed the 

two boxes, which aggregated nearly a hundred pounds in weight, in the stream 

box to thaw out the explosive. Three minutes after he left the cartridges the 

explosion occurred . . . . 

The scenes following the explosion were indescribable. From every door in the 

immediate vicinity issued men, women, and children with cut and bleeding faces. 

Before the reverberations of the explosion had died away it was found that the 

row of flats [facing Jackson Avenue] was on fire. Part of the rear walls of 25 and 

27 had been blown in and those two houses where the first to catch fire. The 

entire Fire Department and police force of the city were summoned. 

They were promptly at work, assisted by hundreds of volunteers, in rescuing the 

wounded and helping out the women residents, who were prostrated with fright. 

Many of them had not yet arisen from bed. 

Loadano was the only worker killed. Of the 14 men at work on the shaft, only the 

foreman was injured. All the other deaths and injuries were suffered by residents of Long 

Island City. 

Work on the tunnel was halted while officials assessed the damage and the coroner 

conducted an inquiry into the explosion. On December 30, the Times reported that 

property damage was estimated to total $100,000. An insurance company that 
specialized in insuring plate glass was identified as one of the biggest losers in the 

explosion, with losses estimated to total $15,000. 

At the inquest on January 12, 1893, the foreman, Peter McAltee, testified that 64 

packages of dynamite was being thawed out in the stream chest at the time of the 

explosion. He could not explain how the explosion had occurred. 

On February 3, 1893, the Times reported that the inquest into the cause of the explosion 

came to an end the day before: 

In its verdict, the jury stated it was unable to designate any cause for the 

explosion, and attributed it to “unforeseen circumstances.” 

Work has been abandoned at the tunnel since the explosion. This week a gang of 

laborers began taking down the machinery and carting it away. The mouth of the 

tunnel was floored over and the pump taken out. 

The ninety-foot shaft is now half filled with water, and persons who were 

damaged by the explosion are beginning to fear that the project has been 

abandoned and that no way will be left for them to recover against the company. 

The Inter-Island Construction Company promised to resume work as soon as a 

compressed-air plant was put in, but regardless of the sincerity of the assertion, the delay 

would be prolonged. The Panic of 1893, the worst economic crisis the country had ever 

faced, made fund raising difficult until recovery began in 1896. (The Panic had been 

triggered by the collapse of the Philadelphia and Reading Railroad in February 1893, 

bursting a credit bubble in May. Professor H. W. Brands, in his book about the 1890’s, 

described the impact: 

Consumers stopped purchasing, retailers canceled orders, factories shut down, 

workers drew pink slips, and commodity prices plunged. Iron and steel business 

was flattened overnight. Big, well-financed corporations retrenched and lived off 

reserves; smaller firms dissolved. Credit contracted with a suffocating sound. 

The best bonds went begging; unproven ventures . . . drew derisive laughs from 

investors fortunate enough to be still liquid. [Brands, H. W., The Reckless 

Decade: America in the 1890s, St. Martin’s Press, 1995, p. 63]) 

A year later, on May 2, 1894, the Times reported that Niven was in England talking with 

a syndicate of English capitalists who were thinking of subscribing $8 million for the 

tunnel. The article added: 

The [Inter-Island] company met with considerable difficulty in settling claims for 

damages resulting from the explosion, and there are many persons in this city 

[Long Island City] to-day who say that they never received anything but promises 

of indemnity for their losses. Several of those who were seriously injured have, it 

is said, secured large judgments against the corporation. There will be general 
rejoicing here if a portion of the reported $8,000,000 subscribed in England is 

devoted to the settlement of existing claims. 

The article also pointed out that the project had been proposed by the New-York and 

Long Island Railroad Company, but it was “at present said to be controlled by the InterIsland Construction Company, with offices at 45 Broadway, New-York.” 

Construction had still not resumed by 1899 when the Times reported on March 8 that 

construction might soon begin. Nevin was again in England trying to raise the capital for 

reorganization of the New-York and Long Island Railroad Company. The article 

explained: 

About three years ago steps were taken to raise money to resume the work on the 

tunnel, but a short time later William Steinway, the leader of the movement, died, 

and again the carrying out of the plan was postponed. Mr. Steinway’s heirs are 

not actively interested in the work of reviving the undertaking. It is estimated that 

it will take about five years to build the tunnel. 

Steinway, whose piano firm Steinway and Sons, was world famous, had “responded to 

the second call for capital in July 1891 and soon became the railroad’s largest stock 

holder.” [Hood, p. 164] (He was first identified in the Times as a director following the 

company’s annual meeting on October 21, 1891.) In addition to his business ventures, 

Steinway was president of the Rapid-Transit Commission formed under the State’s Rapid 

Transit Act of 1891 (approved January 31, 1891, by Governor David B. Hill) and a strong 

advocate for construction of the subway. He also owned real estate in Long Island City 

as well as the Hunter’s Point Railroad, a horse car transit line. 

According to David Rogoff, writing in Electric Railroad #29 (Electric Railroaders’ 

Association, April 1960): 

By obtaining control of the tunnel company, it would increase the value of his 

properties. It was his plan to operate the tunnels by electricity which had recently 

been harnessed for electric traction motors. Stations were to be scattered along 

the route for both passenger and freight service. Upon assuming control he 

appointed Henry B. Hammond, a prominent railroad official and lawyer, 

President with himself as Vice-President. Pomeroy P. Dickinson, who had built 

the Hudson River Railroad bridge at Poughkeepsie became Chief Engineer and 

Malcom Niven, Secretary. 

The contract for the construction was awarded to Myles Tierney a contractor who 

had built the Washington Bridge over the Harlem River at 180th Street. He in turn 

gave the contract to the Inter-Island Construction Co. which he founded on Jan. 6, 

1891 in association with Niven. 

Steinway died in November 1896 before financing could be arranged. 
Earlier that same year, on June 4, 1896, Austin Corbin had died when he was thrown 

from his carriage in Newport, New Hampshire. The Times reported the death of the Long 

Island booster the following day: 

The accident took place at 3 o’clock this afternoon, when the party started from 

Mr. Corbin’s country house on a fishing trip. They rode in an open carriage 

drawn by a pair of horses which the coachman, [John] Stokes, was driving 

Just as they were moving out of the yard, the horses, which were being driven 

without blinders for the first time, shied, and all the occupants were thrown down 

an embankment against a stone wall. 

Corbin and Stokes died from their injuries. 

[“The Tunnel to Long Island City,” January 25, 1891 

“To Tunnel the East River,” October 22, 1891 

“Now for Another Tunnel,” December 10, 1891 

“Five Killed by Dynamite,” December 29, 1892 

“Mr. Gleason on Dynamite,” January 13, 1893 

“Due to ‘Unforeseen Circumstances,’” February 3, 1893 

“Millions for East River Tunnel,” May 2, 1894 

“Austin Corbin Dead,” June 5, 1896 

“East River Tunnel Plans,” March 8, 1899] 

The Steinway Tunnels

Although Roy Stone had moved on to other endeavors in 1893, the Rambler will continue 

the narrative of the tunnels to demonstrate that the General’s labors were not in vain, 

even if they did not benefit him. 

August Belmont, Jr., a wealthy banker, took an interest in the tunnel between Long Island 

and New York City in 1902. According to Rogoff: 

Control of the financially shaky New York & Queens County and its sister 

company the New York & Long Island Railroad passed from Steinway’s 

successors, along with the franchises to Belmont, for the sum of about $80,000. 

Although Steinway owned both companies, they were always kept as separate 

corporate entities. 

The revived tunnel program became known as the “Belmont Tunnels” although 

Belmont preferred to have them known as the “Steinway Tunnels.” 

Construction of the Steinway Tunnels resumed in 1905 using a cylindrical tunneling 

shield. William Barclay Parsons had used the innovative technique, which had been 

patented in England in 1869, as chief engineer of the Rapid Transit Commission. In “A 

Short History of Shield Tunneling,” Jerome B. O’Carroll stated: 
Parsons joined forces again with August Belmont, with whom he had worked 

previously on the Interborough Rapid Transit (IRT) to construct the Steinway 

Tunnel in 1907. It was on the Steinway (now known as the Queensboro Tunnel) 

that the use of the hydraulic shield was developed further. 

The hydraulic shield, as it was developed during the construction of the Steinway 

Tunnels, offered ground support and protection against flooding by the inclusion 

of a solid bulkhead that allowed the excavation of the tunnel to be carried out in 

compressed air. The incidence of flooding and face collapses was reduced 

considerably but, unfortunately, the fatality rate did not decrease because workers 

spent long periods of time in compressed air without undergoing proper 

decompression procedures. [O’Carroll, Jerome B., A Guide to Planning, 

Constructing and Supervising Earth Pressure Balance TBM Tunneling, William 

Barclay Parsons Fellowship, Parsons Brnckerhoff Monogragh 18, April 2005.) 

The north tube was completed in 1907, with a symbolic trip marking the end. Clifton 

Hood described it: 

On September 24, 1907, streetcar number 601 made the first official trip through 

the tunnel, carrying August Belmont and T.P. Shouts of the Interborough, 

Michael J. Degnon of Degnon Construction Company, several Public Service 

commissioners, and other dignitaries. The streetcar went from Jackson Avenue 

station in Long Island City to Grand Central in less than four minutes, a dramatic 

improvement over the thirty-five or forty minutes needed to make the same 

journey via ferry and trolley. [Hood, p. 168] 

New York City had taken several legal actions against the company, including a 

challenge to the franchise granted to the company in December 1890. The city claimed 

the franchise, which had been extended several times, had expired. Rogoff noted that the 

city also objected to the revenue it would receive, pegged at 3 percent of gross earnings, 

as agreed to in 1888, and the fact that the privately owned company was “under the 

relatively weak control of the Public Service Commission, a state agency, as to fares and 

service.” 

Although the company won in court, the court also ruled that the company did not have 

permits to dig under the river docks and that the route had been altered since the franchise 

was granted. 

Belmont operated cars in the tunnels for curious visitors but without a franchise to 

operate for revenue, and the status of the company in limbo, he offered the tunnels to the 

city. While the city and the Public Service Commission fought over the offer, Belmont 

sealed the tunnels until the issue was resolved when he sold the tunnels to New York City 

on April 3, 1915, with the IRT assuming responsibility for their completion and 

operation. 
Hood summarized the issues that had delayed the opening: 

[After the] ceremonial run through the tubes in September 1907, its formal 

opening was delayed by a dispute between the government regulators and the 

Interborough Rapid Transit Company over the validity of the IRT’s franchise. 

The Interborough had built the tunnel under the terms of the New York and Long 

Island’s old franchise [i.e., the one General Stone had worked so hard to secure – 

The Rambler] issued during the laissez-faire period of the late nineteenth century, 

this franchise granted the private corporation perpetual control of a public rightof-way, allowed it near complete freedom from government supervision, and 

imposed modest fees on it. Such generous grants of power to a private business 

were not uncommon during the 1890s, but the construction of the Steinway tunnel 

took so long that the political situation changed by the time it was completed. 

The Steinway tunnel thus became entangled in the general conflict about 

government regulation of business that was a major concern of the progressive 

era. It also became caught in the Interborough Rapid Transit Company’s battles 

with the Public Service Commission over the monopoly of rapid transit in 

Manhattan and its refusal to build new subways; until these critical issues were 

settled, the PSC refused to sanction the Steinway tunnel’s opening. Only when 

the IRT and the PSC resolved their larger differences with the signing of the dual 

contracts in March 1913, was the Steinway tunnel released from limbo. Under 

the terms of Contract No. 3, the IRT agreed to sell the Steinway tunnel to the City 

of New York for $3 million and operate it as part of its Queensboro subway route. 

Originally equipped for electric streetcars, the tunnel was then reconstructed to 

handle the IRT’s subway trains. The tunnel finally opened on June 22, 1915, 

twenty-three years after construction had started and eight years after trolley 

number 601 had gone through it. [Hood, p. 172] 

Opening ceremonies for the Queensboro Subway, formerly called the Steinway Tunnel, 

took place on June 22, 1915. The Times described the festivities on June 23: 

An unofficial train carrying the Interborough officers, members of the Public 

Service Commission and guests left the Manhattan terminal at 10:45 o’clock, and 

arrived two minutes and fifty-five seconds later at Jackson Avenue station . . . . 

The party was met at Jackson Avenue by officials of Queens Borough, officers of 

civic and business organizations and a large delegation of citizens. When the 

ceremonies were begun, the stairway of the westbound tunnel was used . . . by the 

speakers, while the platform was packed with those who went to hear the 

addresses. 

August Belmont . . . predicted the rapid development of Long Island City and the 

rest of Queens Borough. That the Queensboro Subway had not been completed 

sooner was due not to lack of zeal on the part of the officials of the enterprise, and 

public officials, but to lack of wisdom. 
Borough President Connolly said the residents of Queens well knew what the 

opening of the tunnel would mean for them, and they rejoiced. 

Mr. Ryan and Mr. Adkes, representing the Chamber of Commerce, forecast the 

development of Queens that would follow increased transit facilities. Both 

expressed the gratification and thanks of the people to the Public Service 

Commission, the Mayor, the Board of Estimates, and the Interborough Rapid 

Transit Company. 

Following the addresses at the Jackson Avenue terminal the officials, 

Commissioners, borough representatives and guests started at 12 o’clock on the 

first official train to make the run from Long Island City to Manhattan. 

Two other trains followed the first train, all to be greeted by large crowds waiting in the 

New York City stations. 

(The Times noted that the rapid speed of the unofficial train, under 3 minutes, was 

possible because it was the only train operating on the line. “Ordinarily trains will be 

operated with a headway of between four and five minutes.”) 

The Rambler will speculate that no one, on this important occasion, thought of, much less 

mentioned, General Stone. He had fought hard for the tunnel, and had helped steer it 

through the difficult early stages to success in securing the franchise on the last day of 

1890. Those early battles had been followed by so many later battles – a destructive 

explosion, a search for money during a devastating Panic, rival plans, political battles, 

court fights, and a transfer from private to public hands – that the Rambler formally 

forgives those officials who on June 13, 1915, neglected to recall General Stone’s 

contributions. 

Today, the Steinway Tunnel carries two tracks of the 7 train of the New York City 

Subway. The Rambler invites readers in the New York area and members of the 

nonexistent General Roy Stone Fan Club to take the train some day and think about 

General Stone. 

[“Queensboro Tunnel Officially Opened,” June 23, 1915] 

Terminal Railroad Company

The New-York and Long Island Railroad Company was not General Stone’s only interest 

in tunnels. He also was involved in the New-York and New-Jersey Terminal Railroad 

Company. The Times reported on February 3, 1891, that the company had filed articles 

of incorporation with the Secretary of State in Albany the day before: 

The capital of the company is $100,000. The road is to run from New York City 

to a point in the township of Kearney, N.J. In this city the road will begin at the 

easterly end of Fourteenth Street and run in a tunnel to the westerly end, where it 
will go under the waters of the Hudson River to Hoboken. It will run in tunnels 

under Hoboken and Jersey City to a point near the Hackensack River, thence 

under the last-mentioned river to the junction of the Delaware, Lackawanna and 

Western and the Pennsylvania Railroad in the town of Kearney, N.J. 

The road will have a branch beginning at the intersection of Hudson and 

Fourteenth Streets in this city and running in tunnels under Hudson Street to its 

intersection with Chambers Street, thence south to the intersection of Wall and 

Broad Streets, and thence underground beneath Broad Street to the East River. 

The company took an important step forward when the Land Commissioners in Albany 

approved the application for a grant of land under the Hudson River at 14th Street. On 

May 29, 1892, the Times wrote about the approval in an article that featured General 

Stone’s views. The article stated that after the company secured further tunnel rights 

from the Sinking Fund Commissioners (“and there is said to be no doubt that this also 

will be granted”), the next step would be to apply to the New York City Board of 

Aldermen for approval. The company would also need consents from property owners in 

the city, but work in this area “is already well advanced.” The company was confident of 

its progress: 

[At] the office of the company full confidence is expressed that within a very 

short time all of the necessary franchises will have been obtained. It will then be 

necessary to obtain similar franchises in New-Jersey. In that State the process is 

one of condemnation and, so far as is now seen, nothing can stand in the way of 

such proceeding. 

After describing the proposal in detail, the Times continued: 

Gen. Roy Stone, the engineer in charge, says that the most careful calculations 

have been made, both as to the physical feasibility of the scheme and as to its 

financial prospects. He is perfectly confident that the tunnel can be constructed 

by the usual methods in the rock sections, and in the earth by the Greathead 

system, or by the Jennings & Stannard plan lately used by the London and 

Northern Railway. 

As to feasibility, General Stone continued: 

Gen. Stone says that if the feasibility of tunnel construction shall be admitted 

there can be no possible doubt of providing fast and comfortable travel by 

electricity. Electric companies have undertaken to provide motors that will carry 

trains of 500 tons at the rate of thirty miles per hour through the tunnel of the 

Baltimore and Ohio Railroad in the City of Baltimore. The construction will be 

undertaken in the Baltimore Tunnel under this guarantee and Gen. Stone has no 

doubt that it will be entirely successful, the underground conditions for the use of 

electricity being more favorable than are the conditions in the open air . . . . 
Conferences and correspondence have been had by the terminal company with the 

engineers and other officers of the great railroad companies that have termini in 

New-Jersey. Gen. Stone says that they seem to be much interested in the project, 

and he has letters from some of them showing this beyond doubt to be the case . . 

. . 

Gen. Stone has had occasion to write one letter comparing the location of the 

proposed road with the proposed Corbin tunnel as to the possibilities of NewYork passenger business. In this letter he says that Union Square is the best 

distributing and gathering point for travel in the city by carriage and by foot. 

Trains in the proposed tunnel will have a double use for the elevated and other 

north and south railroads by striking them in the middle . . . . 

Gen. Stone is encouraged to believe that the tunnel system, when understood, will 

be regarded as much more feasible than a system of bridges. One reason for this 

belief is that the tunnel system affords ample terminal space, which cannot be 

obtained in the construction of bridges. Another reason, and one quite as potent, 

in his opinion, as that of terminal space, is that the lowest estimate he has seen for 

the construction of a bridge adequate for large railroad travel is about 

$50,000,000, while the cost of a tunnel of equal or greater capacity would not be 

much more than one-third of that sum. 

An approximate cost of the undertaking estimates $2,000,000 per mile for the 

three and five-eighths miles of four-track line, including intermediate stations, or 

$7,250,000 for the main tunnel. He estimates that the two-track tunnel for 

business down town will cost $1,000,000 per mile for two and half miles, or 

$2,000,000. The cost of the passenger station at Union Square is put at $900,000, 

while the cost of a tunnel of equal or greater capacity would not be much more 

than one-third of that sum. 

The Board of Aldermen’s Committee on Bridges and Tunnels considered the proposed on 

June 19, 1893. The Times mentioned the committee’s action the next day without 

describing the discussion. It summarized what the company was seeking, namely 

permission to tunnel under the city to build the terminal system for trunk lines: 

The plan is to operate the trains by electric power and to have four tracks from the 

Hackensack meadows to Union Square, under which it is proposed to have a 

union station. Stations for way traffic will be at Sixth Avenue and Ninth Avenue 

on the main tunnel, and at Houston, Chambers, and Wall Streets on the downtown branches. There will be sidings under the Post Office for the delivery of 

mails. The tunnel will be 100 feet below the surface of the streets and the stations 

will be reached by elevators. The project calls for six miles of tunnel in this city 

and the station at Union Square is projected as a vast affair, with greater capacity 

than the Grand Central Station and with sixty miles of track. The estimated cost 

of the scheme is $16,500,000. 
The Rambler has been unable to determine if General Stone played a role after he moved 

on to the Good Roads Movement. It is not likely. 

The company’s proposal was only one of several proposals for linking New York City 

with New Jersey. On September 27, 1896, the Times reported that the company had 

merged with two other companies, the Central Tunnel Railroad Company (formed 1881) 

and the Terminal Underground Railroad Company (1883), to protect their rights: 

The combination just formed claims to have rights in the route on which the 

commission is now working, and it is for the purpose of conserving these interests 

that the companies agreed to consolidate under the name of the Underground 

Railroad Company of the City of New-York. A certificate of their agreement has 

been sent to the Secretary of State. 

Cornelius V. Slidell of 146 Broadway was the President of each of the old 

companies, and is President also of the consolidation. He explained yesterday 

that the intention of the original corporations was to have a grand trunk line 

terminal in New-York, which was to approach the city from New-Jersey by a 

tunnel under the Hudson River, reaching to City Hall Park. 

Although the companies had secured some rights, “none did any actual constructive 

work,” the Times explained. Slidell said, “Everything was done, however, that was 

demanded by law. For this reason we now claim vested rights in the present route, and 

we proposal to maintain them.” The consolidated company filed a certificate with the 

New York Secretary of State on October 2, 1896. 

Given the difficulty of tracing whether the consolidated company led to construction of a 

tunnel between New York City and New Jersey, the Rambler will move on, as General 

Stone did, to the Good Roads Movement. 

[“Underground Terminals,” February 3, 1891 

“A Big Tunnel project,” May 29, 1892 

“Underground Rapid Transit,” June 20, 1893 

“Claim Rapid Transit Route,” September 27, 1896 

“Tunnel Consolidation,” October 3, 1896] 

To Improve the Roads

The League of American Wheelmen (LAW) was the leading organization behind the 

Good Roads Movement. On September 11, 1892, the Times reported on “What 

Bicyclists Have Done.” The article began: 

It does not seem possible, even in these days of rapid growth and development of 

popular movements, that the subject of roads and the improvement of the same 

could be so widely disseminated by an athletic organization as has been the case 

with the League of American Wheelmen. Since the inception of the movement its 
growth has been marked, and the distinct credit that will come to the organization 

was forcibly expressed by the President of the United States, when he turned to 

Col. Charles C. Burdett, the President of the Wheelmen’s league, upon the 

occasion of the visit of the cyclers at Washington in July, and said: “One thing: 

if wheelmen secure us the good roads for which they are so zealously working, 

your body deserves a medal in recognition of its philanthropy.” 

President Benjamin Harrison’s comment came on July 19 while he and Burdett stood on 

the balcony of the White House watching the annual parade of LAW bicyclists. The 

Times had reported on the parade on July 20: 

In point of numbers, the parade broke all previous records, being the largest turnout of cyclists ever seen in this country. Nearly every State in the Union was 

represented. Order and discipline were not well maintained in some divisions, 

and discreditable straggling and disorder resulted. 

(The article also quoted a letter President Harrison had written to Colonel Albert Pope, 

the pioneering Boston bicycle manufacturer and prominent good roads advocate. The 

President had said: 

A want of understanding and system has resulted in a nearly useless expenditure 

of enough labor and money to have furnished the settled portions of our country 

with good substantial roads.) 

One of the LAW’s promotional ideas was to include a good roads exhibit at the World’s 

Columbian Exposition in Chicago. The exposition was originally to take place in 1892, 

the 400th anniversary of Christopher Columbus’ first trip to North America. Problems 

delayed the fair until 1893, but backers scheduled a dedication ceremony on October 21, 

1892. 

General Stone, in cooperation with the LAW, had drafted a National Highway 

Commission bill. It called for a commission to formulate plans for a national school of 

roads and bridges, gather information on progressive State highway laws and foreign 

practices, and prepare a road exhibit for the exposition. The commission would also 

submit a report containing recommendations for a permanent commission. 

Representative Philip S. Post (R-Il.) had introduced General Stone’s bill in the U.S. 

House of Representatives on June 29, 1892, while Senator Charles F. Manderson (R-Ne.) 

had introduced the bill in the Senate on July 5. (Post was born in Orange County, New 

York, in 1933 and graduated in 1855 from Union College in Schenectady, a year ahead of 

General Stone. The Rambler suspects they knew each other in college, but cannot 

confirm it. Their cooperation on General Stone’s bill may have been a coincidence of 

shared interests.) 

On July 20, the day after the bicycle parade, Burdett, General Stone, and others appeared 

before the House Committee on Revision of Laws to urge passage of the National 

Highway Commission bill “and later paid their respects to President Harrison.” They 
also appeared before the Senate’s Interstate Commerce Committee. As the Times’ article 

on September 11 explained, “They, with Gen. Stone, the framer of the bill, offered such 

convincing arguments that the Senate Committee favorably reported it to the House 

[meaning the Senate] on July 23.” The full Senate approved the bill on July 27, 1892. 

On October 12, 1892, the Times reported: 

The latest agitation to take shape is that of the National League for Good Roads. 

This proposed organization will hold a meeting at Chicago on October 19, and its 

main promoter is Gen. Roy Stone. 

Invitations were to be extended to “State and local road-improvement societies, the 

League of American Wheelmen, Boards of Trades [sic], Chambers of Commerce, and 

patrons of Husbandry, and to all the farmers’ associations, as well as to a number of 

private individuals who are interested in this movement.” The LAW’s leadership was 

committed to participating in the event, in part to interest fair organizers in the good 

roads exhibit. 

The New York delegation to the convention left the city on October 17, 1892. The Times

reported the following day that the delegation included representatives of the chamber of 

commerce, board of trade, and the New-York State Road Improvement Association. 

General Stone had gone ahead: 

Gen. Roy Stone, who has done as much as any other man to push the movement, 

has gone to Chicago for advance work in relation to the meeting. He carries with 

him signatures that he has obtained by correspondence and otherwise from every 

State, and containing the name of some person prominent in every department of 

business and industry. 

The Times reported that insurance companies were especially interested in the cause: 

The expenses of handling country business grew largely out of the bad roads. 

When a country house catches fire the difficulty of reaching it is responsible for a 

good share of the loss sustained by underwriters. The insurance companies 

believe that the Government ought to spend largely out of its surplus for the 

improvement of the roads. They think that convict labor might very well be 

employed in this way wherever it may not be used as a rival of honest labor in 

mines and manufactories. Few men voluntarily go to work at breaking stone on 

the road when they can possibly make a living any other way. It is therefore 

urged that if convicts were put at this work there would be no objection on the 

part of laboring men, while the prospect of working on the road would operate as 

a positive deterrent of crime. 

The Times also noted the interest of farmers, who would “be able to get their produce to 

market much more readily over good roads than over bad ones, and it is believed that 
they will see that this movement must contribute to their material prosperity.” The article 

concluded: 

Those who are the most prominent in the movement feel that it has gained such 

widespread favor that no argument is needed to convince the people of its 

importance. Acting upon this supposition they believe that it will be 

comparatively easy to prevail upon Congress to take up the matter and make it 

one of national concern. 

As described in “Portrait of a General,” the Chicago convention resulted in organization 

of the National League for Good Roads. The new organization’s executive committee 

met on November 3, 1892, at its temporary headquarters in General Stone’s office at 45 

Broadway. (The Rambler reminds drowsy readers that this address was last seen in this 

biography as the office of the New-York and Long Island Railroad Company/Inter-Island 

Construction Company. Wake up, readers – take a walk, eat some chocolate, drink 

coffee, whatever it takes. You’re only one-third of the way through this epic!) 

A Times article the following day about the meeting explained that the purpose “was to 

take steps to further the work of the league and extend its usefulness.” Actions included: 

The first step was to appoint committees from the different cities which will 

nominate finance committees for these cities . . . . Similar committees were 

appointed from the wagon and bicycle manufacturers, both of whom are 

interested in this matter . . . . 

The committee appointed representatives to participate in the Grange’s national 

convention on November 16 and the Southern Inter-State Road Congress that same day. 

Letters received from Governors were read; the league had written to all Governors 

seeking their cooperation. A circular would be prepared explaining how to establish local 

leagues, while members would all receive a pamphlet containing the proceedings of the 

Chicago convention. 

The Times article concluded by summarizing General Stone’s views after the meeting: 

Gen. Stone said yesterday that the organization had met with the heartiest 

reception all over the country, especially from grangers and bicyclists. Gen. 

Stone said further that the object of the organization was to awaken public interest 

in the improvement of public roads, determine the best method of building and 

maintaining them, secure legislation, State or national, that may be necessary for 

their establishment and support, and to conduct and foster such publications as 

may serve these purposes. 

On November 8, 1892, the people of the United States voted in the presidential election 

pitting the Republican candidate, President Harrison, against the Democratic nominee, 

former President Grover Cleveland. Cleveland, who had served one term before being 

defeated by Harrison in 1888, won with an electoral advantage of 277 to 145. In advance 
of the presidential and congressional elections, the 52nd Congress had completed its first 

session on August 5, 1892. The second session would run from December 5, 1892, to 

inauguration day on March 3, 1893. 

On November 12, the Times reported that the work of the league “is fast progressing.” 

Letters and other documents had been sent to places around the country, with positive 

responses received in many cases. Governors had agreed to serve as vice-presidents of 

the league, while Senator Manderson had agreed to be temporary president, as voted at 

the Chicago convention. Many citizens had taken up the cause after reading about it in 

the Times. 

General Stone was attempting to extend the league’s reach: 

In presenting this matter to the railroads of the country, Gen. Stone was yesterday 

preparing and sending out a circular letter to all the railroad Presidents in the 

country, telling them what the league intends doing and asking them to give their 

assistance in the propagation of the league through the dissemination of 

documents and the active good offices of their different local agents . . . . When 

this matter was first presented to the railroads in the West the officials said that 

they knew well enough without any one telling them that good roads helped their 

businesses and that bad roads were a detriment to it. These gentlemen further said 

that they for years had done all that they could do to improve the roads in the 

territory through which their lines ran, and would continue to do so. They further 

said that the ideas of the league were somewhat indefinite, and they did not know 

how they could help in this work. These circulars which are being sent out to the 

railroads will give the railroad officials some definite information, and then it is 

expected that the league will have as its ally the railroads of the country. 

The league also was reaching out to the National Horse Show Association, with a 

meeting scheduled in Box 19 at Madison Square Garden on November 14. General 

Stone would be there, as would two members of the executive committee who also were 

directors of the horse show association. The league had sent out hundreds of letters to 

“different classes of citizens” while reaching out to the general public with brochures 

summarizing the league’s work. 

The November 14 meeting was noted in the Times the following day. The brief account 

concluded: 

The members of the league state positively that they are not identified in any 

manner with Col. Pope’s movement to establish a road department at Washington. 

Both Mr. [Chauncey R.] Ripley and Gen. King said this would bring a question of 

politics into the organization, which is contrary to its scope and purpose. 

(“Gen. King” may be General Stone.) 

[“What Bicyclists Have Done,” September 11, 1892 
“Cyclists at Their Best,” July 20, 1892 

“To Improve the Roads,” October 12, 1892 

“For Good Country Roads,” October 18, 1892 

“In the Cause of Good Road” (sic), November 4, 1892 

“Good Roads Much Needed,” November 12, 1892 

“Seeking Improved Roads,” November 15, 1892] 

A Rift in the Movement 

When the proceedings of the National League’s Chicago meeting were published, the 

Times reported on the rift between the league and Colonel Pope. The article on 

November 20, 1892, listed all league officers and quoted General Stone on one 

substitution: 

Mr. Wetmore was chosen to fill the place on the Executive Committee made 

vacant by the resignation of Col. Albert A. Pope of Boston. Col. Pope’s recent 

public advocacy of the establishment of a National Department of Road Building, 

with a Cabinet officer at its head, was a complete surprise to the league. He had 

never made any such suggestion at our meetings. He was first spoken of, I think, 

about Nov. 3, just after our road convention in Chicago, and many of us disagreed 

with his views very decidedly. 

The present purposes of the National League are simply to organize the roadreform establishment of the country in such a manner that its influence will be felt 

in the direction toward which it may ultimately be thrown, whether in favor of 

State, county or national action, and we accordingly avoid for the present any 

commitment to special plans, in order that we may not repel any friend of good 

roads. 

We quite agree with the utterances of many newspapers in deprecating Col. 

Pope’s action in favor of a National Road Department. We desire to keep the 

league entirely free from politics just as long as possible, and this scheme would 

be a direct plunge into politics. We have no sympathy at all with the department 

idea. 

Laying that incident aside, I am glad to say the league is receiving encouragement 

from all parts of the country. They had a Southern Road Congress in Memphis 

within a day or two—it met Nov. 16—at which there were nearly 400 delegates. 

Local leagues are organizing continually, and we meet everywhere with most 

cordial co-operation. 

On Nov. 10 I sent out letters to the managers of a large number of railroads 

throughout the South and the West, asking them for their ideas upon the subject of 

co-operative work in good road building, inviting them to subscribe money for the 

work, and requesting, if they were willing, that their station agents should 

distribute our blank forms for the organization of local leagues. So far, I have not 
had a single reply disapproving of the work. In some cases they send money 

subscriptions, and in all cases they express cordial consent to the plan of 

distributing the league’s papers and forms by means of their station agents. 

After listing some of the responsive railroads, General Stone explained the plan for 

another meeting of league officials, probably in Philadelphia on December 1: 

We want to hold this meeting before the assembling of Congress, and consider the 

further work of the league. We are in favor of incorporation under a national 

charter, and we want to keep hammering away until we get our Senate bill 

through the House. That bill, which was passed by the Senate last July, was 

sidetracked in the House of Representatives as “an invasion of State rights.” It 

was a perfectly harmless bill. It only provided for the creation of a National 

Highway Commission, whose work was to be simply that of inquiry, with a view 

to having an exhibit of the various processes of roadmaking prepared for the 

World’s Fair. Such an exhibit would be an object lesson to everybody who saw 

it, and would help wonderfully in teaching the people that it is unnecessary to pay 

large sums of money annually for the sake of having the most awful country roads 

that ever were seen. 

The only way to promote the work is to enlist general interest in the work and 

give suggestions for concerted and systematic action which will amount to 

something. People want better roads and they can have them just as soon as they 

master the idea of organized work, which starts by forming a Good Roads League 

in every school district. I believe that in every such small area at least a dozen 

persons can be found who will agree to vote for the support of this work. A 

million votes in all is only four to a school district. The work only needs to be 

pushed with system and energy to make this country worth a great deal more 

money that it is now, besides relieving us from the national disgrace of 

maintaining sloughs instead of roads. 

We are in this work to stay, and we mean to keep at work until we get a little 

headway, and then I am sure the work will go ahead of its own weight. 

The Times recapped the National League’s good work in an article on December 4, 1892. 

After pointing out that the movement “has become of national importance, and local 

branches of the league are springing up everywhere,” the article stated: 

A large share of the initial success of the movement has no doubt been due to the 

positive stand taken by the promoters against that other scheme of establishing a 

Government Department of Roads. The people do not want politics mixed with 

their roads, and the strong declaration of the National League for Good Roads 

against political roads and roadmaking will have the effect of attracting a very 

large number of persons who would otherwise hold aloof . . . . 
Senator Manderson of Nebraska is among those who have written to Gen. Stone 

commending the National League for refusing to go into the Government roads 

department scheme. Senator Manderson says that the time has not yet come for a 

National Commissioner of Highways. 

A summary of the National League’s work on December 18 reported that $1,300 in 

subscriptions had been received, including $100 from General Stone and $100 from 

Colonel Pope. The league was still occupying General Stone’s office in Aldrich Court at 

45 Broadway. 

Now that the work and aims of the league “are becoming known throughout the country,” 

the Times reported on December 24, “farmers and all classes of citizens are taking kindly 

to it, and a number of local leagues are being formed.” One had been organized in 

Maryland by D. C. Wharton Smith, president of the Deer Creek Farmers Club of Harford 

County. Smith and B. Howard Haman were in town that week from Maryland to see 

General Stone on business connected with the league. In eastern New York, the City of 

Hudson League had been formed, while doctors were organizing in the western part of 

the State. The article also quoted Judge Noah P. Loveridge of Michigan: 

The country has now railroads enough. It needs fine wagon roads to traverse the 

sections between the railroads. 

The league’s vice president for North Carolina, Richmond Pearson, was organizing the 

State’s branch. He was trying to convince George W. Vanderbilt II to serve as a 

Director: 

Mr. Pearson says the people are ripe for something to start them upon the subject 

of good roads. Mr. Vanderbilt has laid out some most excellent roads near and on 

his property near Asheville, and farmers from 100 miles away drive to see these 

roads and to watch their construction. 

(Vanderbilt was an heir to the family fortune, begun by “Commodore” Cornelius 

Vanderbilt, from steamboats, railroads, and other enterprises. With no business 

responsibilities, George Vanderbilt II had bought land near Asheville in 1889, eventually 

totaling 228 square miles, and began building an estate known as Biltmore. He employed 

Frederick Law Olmstead, widely considered the father of American landscape 

architecture, to landscape the estate. Gifford Pinchot managed the forests on the vast 

estate; he would become the first Chief of the U.S. Forest Service (1905-1910) and 

Governor of Pennsylvania (1923–1927 and 1931–1935).) 

The article also pointed out that the possibility of a good roads exhibit at the World’s 

Columbian Exposition, one of the issues raised in General Stone’s bill, was receiving 

attention. W. I. Buchanan, chief of the exposition’s Department of Agriculture, had 

written to Samuel W. Allerton of Illinois, a member of the league’s executive committee, 

on this topic: 
I have taken a great deal of interest in the question of calling the attention of the 

people of this country to the necessity for good roads, and particularly with 

reference to what could be done in the exposition to further the cause, but for a 

number of reasons it has been found impracticable to accomplish very much in 

the exposition in this way. Concerns who are building roads and whose business 

it is to construct them, and who are manufacturing materials connected with road 

building, have not taken the interest in it which it seems to me desirable, and, as 

you know, the function of this department of the exposition is not to create 

exhibits by purchase, but to take care of exhibits offered by parties who have 

something which they wish to display or present to the public. The National 

League for Good Roads has seemed to me a very desirable movement, and I was 

heartily in favor of its organization. 

During the summer of 1892, Colonel Pope had begun circulating a petition in support of a 

national road department. Somewhat to Pope’s surprise, he received over 150,000 

signatures on the petition. Although still irritated that the National League had not 

supported his proposal, Pope agreed to delay submitting the petition while General 

Stone’s bill was still under consideration in the 52nd Congress. (Colonel Pope submitted 

the proposal to President Cleveland in 1893.) 

The Times edition of January 1, 1893, reported on the continuing “splendid work” of the 

National League. Subscriptions had continued arriving at 45 Broadway, including one 

from Henry Flagler, the wealthy oil tycoon who had taken an interest in developing 

eastern Florida. Flagler “is much interested in the building of good roads in Florida, and 

believes thoroughly that they are the best help possible to any railroad enterprise.” He 

informed the league that his railroad enterprise, the Jacksonville, St. Augustine, and 

Halifax Railway, “will carry any material necessary for the building of a good road, free 

of charge, and expressing himself happy in the hope of aiding in a much-needed reform 

in the State of Florida.” 

General Stone, meanwhile, was corresponding with James J. Hill, president of the Great 

Northern Railway: 

Secretary Roy Stone has sent a letter to James Hill . . . who suggested that the 

farmers and land owners make the first steps, in which he [Stone] says that it is 

necessary that others should enforce the need of good roads upon the minds of the 

people living in agricultural districts. Farmers, as a result, Mr. Stone says, do not 

originate anything. They follow in the wake of an originator. He advises that Mr. 

Hill’s agents be the apostles of good roads; that they spread the good road 

literature among the farmers living adjacent to the Great Northern Railway, and 

that the establishment of road leagues in that section of country will be of the 

greatest benefit, not only to the people themselves, but also to the railway 

company. 

[“At Work for Good Roads,” November 20, 1892 

“The Work for Good Roads,” December 4, 1892 
“Seeking Good Highways,” December 18, 1892 

“At Work for Good Roads,” December 24, 1892 

“The ‘Good Roads’ Campaign,” January 1, 1893] 

Back to Congress 

The National League held its second national convention in Washington on January 17, 

1893. While in town, league officials testified on January 19 before the House 

Committee on Agriculture. The Times reported on the events on January 22: 

While the convention was in session a committee was appointed to go before the 

Committee on Agriculture of the House and explain to it the aims and objects of 

the league. The House committee took such interest in the matter that when it met 

there was hardly an absentee. Two resolutions which had been passed by the 

convention of the league were pressed upon the attention of the committee. These 

were: First, for Congress to appropriate $50,000 to have a road exhibit at the 

World’s Fair and to show approved methods of road building; second, to ask 

Congress to appropriate $15,000 to carry on an inquiry as to the best method of 

road building and to appoint a Highway Road Commission of six to look into the 

question. The commission is to serve without pay. 

Among the members of the convention who addressed the committee on the 

subject were Senator Chandler of New-Hampshire, Dr. Ripley of New-Jersey, and 

Gen. Stone of New-York. Judging from remarks made by the members of the 

Committee on Agriculture, it is more than likely that they will take favorable 

action, and that very shortly. 

According to historian Philip P. Mason, all the witnesses favored General Stone’s bill 

except W. C. Gifford of the National Grange. He questioned the constitutionality of the 

bill as well as the advisability of Federal participation in road matters. Mason continued: 

The hearing came to an end with a statement by Chairman [William H.] Hatch 

[D-Mo.] that his committee would act on the proposed measure “conscientiously.” 

He took the opportunity to scold certain of his colleagues on the committee who 

“have become afraid of any new proposition that comes before them lest they may 

be knocked down by the Constitution when they get on the floor of the House, or 

as soon as they get back again.” [Mason, Philip P., The League of American 

Wheelmen and the Good Roads Movement, 1880-1905, Ph.d Thesis, University 

Microfilms International, 1957, p. 146] 

Officials of the League were “very enthusiastic over the convention.” It had “attracted 

attention from every one who takes the slightest interest in the matter, and was attended 

by members of both houses of Congress and members of several departments.” Secretary 

of Agriculture [Jeremiah M.] Rusk, in his address to the convention, “showed he would 

do all in his power to aid the cause,” while Major J. P. Sanger, representing Secretary of 

War William C. Endicott, “assured that the league would have all the co-operation from 
the department that that branch of the Government could possibly give.” (Actually, 

Secretary Rusk told the convention that he supported good roads, but not Federal-aid, 

because he considered road improvement a local issue.) 

The article also noted a change in league leadership. Allerton had resigned from the 

National Executive Committee. He was replaced by August Belmont, the wealthy banker 

who would later be involved in the venture to construct a rail tunnel between Long Island 

City and New York City. 

Despite the league’s efforts, the House did not pass General Stone’s bill. However, on 

February 1, 1893, at the request of Representative Allan C. Durborow, Jr. (D-Il.), the 

committee amended the Department of Agriculture’s appropriations bill to include 

$10,000 for the collection and dissemination of information on road laws and the 

methods of road construction. This appropriation was consistent with Secretary Rusk’s 

conservative views of the proper role of the Federal Government. 

General Stone tried to revive his bill, but Representative Post explained that the chances 

were poor. Convinced that his bill was dead in the 52nd Congress, General Stone tried to 

increase the amount of the appropriation for the road inquiry. But with Congress in a 

budget cutting mood, this effort failed as well. 

Congress approved the Department of Agriculture Appropriations Act for FY 1894 on 

March 3, 1893. President Harrison approved the legislation as one of his last acts before 

leaving office. The Act included $10,000 for the following purpose: 

To enable the Secretary of Agriculture to make inquiries in regard to the systems 

of road management throughout the United States, to make investigations in 

regard to the best method of road-making, to prepare publications on this subject 

suitable for distribution, and to enable him to assist the agricultural colleges and 

experiment stations in disseminating information on this subject, ten thousand 

dollars. 

Before the new Secretary of Agriculture, J. Sterling Morton of Nebraska, selected 

General Stone to take charge of the road inquiry, Stone continued his activities as 

secretary of the National League. On May 2, 1893, the Times reported that the executive 

committee had met the previous day at 45 Broadway, with General Stone presiding. The 

executives selected directors for New York and appointed a committee “to confer with 

railroad presidents regarding rates for the transportation of delegates, from time to time, 

throughout the United States, and also for the transportation of materials for road 

building.” The Times reported one other action: 

It was voted to appropriate $1,000 to assist in preparing a road exhibit under the 

Department of Agriculture at the World’s Fair, with the understanding that 

another $1,000 should be given if required. The Disbursing Committee was 

authorized to advance $50 to the league of each State for its preliminary expenses. 
The Times provided additional information about the proposed exhibit on May 12. 

General Stone had met with other National League officials the day before to arrange for 

“an exhibit of a roadway 50 feet wide and 1,000 feet in length at the World’s Fair in 

Chicago.” The Times provided details of the plan: 

The road will extend from the French colonies’ exhibit to the live stock pavilion, 

and will show the various processes of road construction in France, Italy, 

Germany, and England, where the country roads are in fine condition. An 

illustration of the condition of the roads in this country after bad weather will be 

given by a wagon fast in the slough of a rough country road. 

On the 15th inst. the headquarters of the league will be removed to Chicago, where 

Gen. Roy Stone, and Assistant Secretary T. P. Grace and his staff will have 

accommodation in the main Agricultural Building. 

The article added that, “On July 1 the league will receive an appropriation of $10,000 

from Congress for the purpose of disseminating literature respecting road 

improvements.” Whether the league believed this, or the reporter misunderstood the 

nature of the appropriation, the funds would become available to the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture at the start of the fiscal year on July 1, 1893, not the league. Secretary 

Morton, who would gain a reputation for penny-pinching and squelching government 

“paternalism” (as well as the nickname “The Stormy Petrel” because of his argumentative 

nature), decided to conduct the road inquiry within narrow limits consistent with his 

interpretation of limited constitutional authority. 

President Cleveland participated in the opening ceremony for the World’s Columbian 

Exposition on May 1, 1893. Norman Bolotin and Christine Laing stated in their history 

of the exposition that the Transportation Building was “one of the most interesting 

buildings of the fair.” It included “every vehicle known to man, ranging from a baby 

carriage to a rail dining car.” Exhibits included a wide variety of bicycles. The building 

did not include an automobile or “motor wagon.” [Bolotin, Norman, and Laing, 

Christine, The World’s Columbian Exposition, The Preservation Press, National Trust for 

Historic Preservation, 1992, p. 95-96] 

The National League’s plan for a road exhibit did not materialize. Leaders of the 

organization might have known that such an exhibit would have been a waste, for on the 

same day, May 12, that the Times was reporting on the plans, Senator Manderson wrote 

to General Stone to discourage the idea: 

I spent a few days at Chicago this week. I am convinced that any money 

expended there in an Exhibit of roads—bad or improved—would be money 

wasted. The Exposition is so immense and there is so much to be seen more 

interesting and more attractive, to the casual visitor from all over the country, that 

a good roads Exhibit would be lost and unseen. 

He added that the exposition itself provided the exhibit: 
The Exposition grounds themselves are an object lesson in good roads. When it 

rains mud is shoe deep when the road builder has not put in his best work. 

[“The Crusade for Good Roads,” January 22, 1893 

“Workers for Good Roads,” May 2, 1893 

“A Roadway for the Fair,” May 12, 1893] 

The Office of Road Inquiry 

“Portrait of a General” covers General Stone’s career as Special Agent in charge of the 

U.S. Office of Road Inquiry (ORI). The Rambler will understand if the reader skims this 

section. But skimming is not the Rambler’s modus operandi, so he will add details to the 

portrait to flesh out these pivotal days of the Good Roads Movement. 

New York State Aid Bill

In 1893, the New York State had enacted a law allowing each county board of 

supervisors to raise funds to improve roads through the county. Governor Roswell P. 

Flower (1892-1894) considered the 1893 Act “of great public interest.” After the State 

legislature adjourned on April 19, he told reporters: 

As I said in my annual message, I believe that the county-road system should be 

first tried before any attempt is made to undertake a great and expensive system of 

state highways. The bill which has been enacted to carry out this idea authorizes 

the Board of Supervisors in each county to borrow money for road improvements, 

to designate certain county roads which should be built and maintained by the 

county at county expense, and to appoint an engineer skilled in the science of 

roadmaking, who should have supervision of the construction of these roads. In 

order that Boards of Supervisors may be encouraged in carrying out this policy 

another bill was passed extending the terms of supervisors and Highway 

Commissioners to two years. I think this latter provision almost essential to 

carrying out the road project, for one year is too short a time successfully to 

establish any reform in roadmaking, and longer tenure of office will enable the 

experiment to be tried without the uncertain element of too frequent elections. 

. . . . The advantage of the new law is that it encourages action on the part of the 

representatives of the country towns, where farmers and others have been 

somewhat slow to appreciate the desirability of good roads, because the greater 

part of the expense of establishing county highways will fall upon the 

incorporated villages and cities within the county, and not, as heretofore, on the 

rural districts. Nor do I think the people in the cities and villages will begrudge 

this additional burden, if by means of it there will be easier access to the centres 

[sic] of population, and consequently more business and trading. 
On March 21, 1894, the Times reported that General Stone had appeared before the 

Assembly Committee on Agriculture in support of a State-aid bill introduced by 

Assemblyman Ira B. Kerr of Greene County. Kerr introduced his bill without waiting for 

the results of the experiment. He explained, in the Times’ words: 

It was the only way to bring about good roads. It provided for roads to be built on 

the petition of one-third of the property owners along the road. Surveys must be 

made by the State Engineer. 

The article stated that General Stone appeared before the committee at the request of 

Secretary Morton. The General introduced General E. H. Harrison, identified as 

president of the New-Jersey State Association for Good Roads to explain how New 

Jersey had obtained some excellent roads. The Times summarized General Harrison’s 

explanation: 

In the township of Chester, an object lesson had been had. One good road was 

built, and State aid was secured by an act of the Legislature. The lesson proved a 

good one, and now the property owners were crying for good roads everywhere in 

the State. The farmers in New-Jersey, where they once with a team drew a ton, 

now, with new roads, are able to draw six tons. There the new roads permitted 

the use of bicycles by school children instead of their patronizing the railroads. 

(On April 14, 1891, at the urging of the LAW and General Harrison’s association, New 

Jersey had enacted the first State-aid program in the Nation. It authorized $75,000 a year 

to pay one-third of the cost of county road improvements. [America’s Highway 1776-

1976, Federal Highway Administration, 1976, p. 43]) 

The Times also quoted from General Stone’s testimony: 

New-York is easily the Empire State of the Union for bad roads. We may not 

have the very worst, but we have the most kinds of bad roads and are the most 

contented with their badness. Good roads are being built, and the people are 

finding out that it pays to build them; the question now is not whether it ought to 

be done, but how to do it. Ohio has 10,000 miles of improved highways. 

Massachusetts, Connecticut, New-Jersey, Georgia, Kentucky, Texas, Indiana, and 

Michigan have all made substantial progress in road construction, and other States 

are moving toward it. It is quite time for New-York to get into line. These States 

have not only found the way to build roads without oppressing the farmers, but 

some of them have developed methods of construction which reduce the cost of 

good highways below anything that was thought possible a few years ago. 

On March 30, 1894, interested members of the State Legislature, including Assemblyman 

Kerr, and General Stone took a special train to New Jersey to meet with General 

Harrison. The brief account in the Times on March 31 stated that the delegation went to 

Merchantsville where carriages were waiting for a drive of 5-6 miles “over the excellent 
Macadam and Telford roads of that section of the State.” During dinner at Moorestown, 

the delegation discussed good roads before returning to New York by train. 

In a speech to the students of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) the 

following year, General Stone referred to this New Jersey trip: 

A committee of the New York State legislature, together with members of the 

boards of supervisors, numbering nearly one hundred, visited some of the Stateaid roads in New Jersey last spring and returned to New York and passed a bill for 

State aid through the lower house of the legislature by a majority of 4 to 1. 

[“Road Building in the United States,” Historical and Technical Papers on Road 

Building in the United States, U.S. Office of Road Inquiry Bulletin No. 17, 1895, 

p. 47] 

The House approved the bill, as General Stone noted, but not the Senate. In a letter on 

July 27, 1894, to John B. Simpson of Lake George, New York, General Stone explained: 

The bill only failed in the Senate through lack of time, and being sent to the 

wrong Committee. [Letter press book, National Archives at College Park, 

Maryland] 

[“Pleading for Good Roads,” March 21, 1894 

“Gov. Flower is Satisfied,” April, 20, 1893 

“Went to Inspect New-Jersey Roads,” March 31, 1894] 

Good Roads Convention, Asbury Park, New Jersey

The Times published several articles about the Good Roads Convention scheduled for 

July 5 and 6 in Asbury Park, New Jersey. Although the New Jersey association was the 

sponsor, the convention would feature the LAW, the Governors of Georgia, Rhode 

Island, and Vermont, representatives from other States, and General Stone representing 

the U.S. Department of Agriculture. According to the Times: 

Gen. Roy Stone . . . is arranging and planning the convention at the instance of the 

Secretary of Agriculture, J. Sterling Morton. President Luscomb of the League of 

American Wheelmen is also actively associated with him in making preparations, 

and reliance is placed mainly in the co-operation of the wheelmen throughout the 

country to make the convention a grand success and impart a powerful impetus 

throughout the United States in favor of better roads. 

One focus of the convention was to “show the paramount importance of good roads and 

to impress strongly upon the delegates and others in attendance the importance of passing 

in each State laws such as the State Aid act in force in this State.” The article also 

mentioned what was expected to be a highlight: 
The feature of the convention will be the building, in the presence of all the 

delegates, of a fine macadam road by prominent road machinery manufacturers, 

quarrymen, and contractors, probably from Main Street to the Asbury Park 

Wheelmen’s clubhouse in Bangs Avenue. This will be done free of expense to 

the town, and is to illustrate what is required for practical roadmaking. 

On June 17, the Times referred to General Stone’s release of a circular “calling attention 

to the proposed conference of road associations on the occasion of the meeting of the 

National Editorial Convention at Asbury Park, N.J., from July 2 to 6.” With newspaper 

editors from every State in Asbury Park, the circular suggested that they also participate 

in the good roads convention “to represent at the road conference the various associations 

in their localities not otherwise represented.” Based on reports on the convention in the 

Times, the Rambler does not see evidence that the editors took the opportunity to visit the 

good roads convention. 

An article on June 21 reported that General Stone had sent copies of a circular letter to 

Chief Consul James S. Holmes, Jr., of the New Jersey Division of the LAW for 

distribution among prospective delegates to the good roads convention. The circular 

quoted General Harrison as saying that, “This is not to be a convention of delegates, but a 

conference of road associations, State, county, township, and municipal authorities, 

corporations, and individuals concerned in road improvement.” It also explained the 

purpose of the convention: 

The conference is for the purpose of promoting organization for road 

improvement where such organization does not already exist, for strengthening 

the hands of existing organizations, and for the gathering and diffusion of general 

information on the subject of road improvement . . . We meet to interchange 

views and to give and get all the information we can to promote the cause of road 

improvement. 

The Times covered the events of July 5, the first day of the convention, in the July 6 

edition of the newspaper. “In response to the 20,000 bulletins sent out to the road 

associations, wheelmen, and editors throughout the country by the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture,” 300 to 400 delegates from 40 States and two Territories (Arizona, which 

did not become a State until 1912, and Indian Territory in what is now eastern Oklahoma) 

arrived at the Westminster Presbyterian Church for the convention. 

According to the article, the delegates, at General Harrison’s suggestion, voted Governor 

Levi K. Fuller of Vermont the president of the convention. (According to an article in the 

September 1894 issue of Good Roads, Governor Fuller’s reputation as a good roads 

leader was such that he “was nominated for Chairman by half of the delegates, and his 

nomination was seconded by the other half, so there was hardly any need of a vote.”) 

“Gov. Fuller was escorted to the platform by Gen. Roy Stone, the head of the Road 

Inquiry Department at Washington, and by Mr. Young of Pennsylvania.” Governor 

Fuller, who had taken office in 1892, was an engineer, machinist, inventor, and wealthy 
businessman. He discussed the progress Vermont had made in building good roads; the 

State boasted some of the finest roads in the country. The State’s roads, he said, had been 

laid out by skillful engineers, with a road commissioner in charge of each town. 

However, the Governor lamented a condition that was true across the country: 

Far too many of our people, Gov. Fuller said, are entirely ignorant about the 

making of roads, while scores of the Road Commissioners do not know the 

difference between the common bank gravel and the river-wasted pebbles. Road 

laying has come to be a question of science, and the need is of geologists as well 

as engineers. 

The article also quoted General Stone’s address, which began: 

The Secretary of Agriculture requested me to express to this body his sincere 

regrets at not being able to be present with you. He considers this convention to 

be a matter of the greatest importance and hopes that good results may follow the 

deliberations. 

He cited statistics to demonstrate the cost of bad roads. “The people are coming to 

realize this state of affairs more and more, Gen. Stone said, and are more earnestly and, 

he hoped, successfully seeking a remedy.” 

On July 7, the Times carried an account of the second day’s events (July 6), quoting a 

number of the speeches, and noting that the convention adjourned early in the afternoon 

so “the delegates might witness the various exhibits of road-making machinery working 

on several of the main avenues in Asbury Park.” However, because the article did not 

mention General Stone, the Rambler will move on to an article that appeared in the Times

on July 14 that quoted the General extensively on the results of the convention. Bylined 

“Washington, July 13,” the article began, “The friends of good roads in this vicinity are 

much encouraged by the results of the recent good roads conference at Asbury Park.” 

Much work remained to be done, but they “are gratified with the increasing evidence that 

in every State in the Union there is growing dissatisfaction with the existing conditions.” 

General Stone told a correspondent of the Times that he was very pleased with what he 

heard at the convention: 

“This conference,” said Gen. Stone, “was proposed originally by the New-Jersey 

State Road Improvement Association, which is in the advance of all road 

improvers, but not so far advanced as not to desire further information from other 

localities. The proposal was indorsed by the National League for Good Roads, 

the New-York State League, and the Maryland Road League, and was then taken 

up by the Department of Agriculture through the office of Road Inquiry. 

Invitations were sent to all the known road improvement associations, to 

commercial bodies, and to other associations concerned in road improvement. 
“The attendance was very satisfactory, but would have been much larger if there 

could have been any certainty of its being well attended. So many road 

conventions have been called and have been entire failures that many people who 

would have been interested lacked confidence in the success of the gathering. 

The two delegates who came from Rochester, N.Y., for instance, said that twentyfive were ready to come if they could have had any assurance that they would not 

be the only people there. Schenectady, however, sent twelve delegates, and 

Oneida, five. 

“In this conference no special arrangements were made for cheap transportation, 

as we were not able to give any assurance as to definite numbers of delegates who 

might be expected. The railway companies are disposed to promote all gatherings 

of this class, and hereafter it will be possible to secure very low rates. A central 

committee was formed, with Gov. Fuller of Vermont as Chairman, with the power 

to call another conference at some future time, and invitations were immediately 

received from Atlanta, Ga., and Cleveland. The representatives of New-Jersey 

urged some point in New-Jersey as the next place of meeting. 

“The general business of the conference was the gathering of information from all 

the delegates of the different States as to the actual progress of road improvement 

in their several States. About one-half of the States represented, forty-four in all, 

reported very substantial progress in the improvement of road building, and very 

great satisfaction on the part of all concerned in the building and use of roads. 

The Department of Agriculture was fortunately able to furnish for distribution 

Bulletin No. 9 of the road inquiry related to State aid to road building in NewJersey, with the opinions of many farmers along the line of the State aid roads as 

to the benefits derived from the improvement. Gov. Fuller was also able to 

furnish copies of the publication of the Vermont League for Good Roads, giving 

the details and purposes of the organization. Other literature was contributed by 

the Department of Agriculture, by the publishers of Good Roads magazine and 

other periodicals devoted to a like purpose. 

“A comparatively new topic in the Road Improvement Associations was 

presented by Martin Dodge, President of the Ohio State Road Commission, who 

advocated the extension of the electric roads into the country with rails suited to 

wagon traffic as well as [street] cars. This would have aroused much discussion if 

there had been time for it, it being considered to have some possible merit besides 

novelty, but as being a long step into the future. Mr. Dodge’s speech will be 

revised and published in full in the proceedings of the conference, which will 

form the next bulletin of the Department of Agriculture. [It was reprinted in 

Proceedings of the National Road Conference Held at the Westminster Church, 

Asbury Park, N.J., July 5 and 6, 1894, ORI Bulletin No. 10, 1894] 

“The conference was very conservative in its action, and did not go beyond 

recommending to the Legislatures of the several States the establishment of 

highway commissions to consider what legislation and methods it might be wise 
to adopt and a general recommendation for the organization of road improvement 

associations and leagues of instruction in highway engineering, together with a 

limited adoption of the State aid system. The general feeling, however, appeared 

to be that the New-Jersey plan would be very strongly commended by the 

delegates to their respective Legislatures during the coming Winter, and that as 

many as possible of those Legislatures would be induced to send committees to 

New-Jersey, as was done by the New-York State Legislature last Winter, to 

inspect the State aid roads and consult with the State authorities and citizens 

regarding that system. 

“The subject of convict labor on roads was touched upon, and aroused some 

difference of opinion. The Chairman of the Massachusetts Highway Commission 

expressed the opinion of that State as decidedly opposed to the public use of 

convict labor, while the delegates from North Carolina and some of the other 

States spoke of the beneficial work accomplished in their States by means of that 

labor. A compromise plan was suggested of using State convicts for the 

preparation of roads [sic] materials in quarry camps where they could be easily 

guarded. In this case it was suggested that the State should furnish the road 

material free to the counties and townships, and that county prisoners, tramps, and 

vagrants be used for the grading and preparation of the road beds. 

“Another novel topic that was talked of outside of the conference, but not 

introduced in view of the shortness of time, was the organization of bodies of 

State police to be used normally in the work of road improvement and 

maintenance, but to be armed and equipped for military duty as well whenever 

emergencies should arise requiring their services. This idea met with a very 

favorable reception, and will probably come up for general discussion at the next 

conference. The conference separated with a general feeling that some good had 

been accomplished, and that the next meeting would be largely attended because 

of the great service to the cause of road improvement.” 

(Martin Dodge would serve as acting head of the ORI in the second half of 1898 while 

General Stone was a volunteer in the Spanish-American War, and as permanent Director 

after Stone left the ORI in October 1899. Like Stone, Dodge would promote the Stateaid plan as a model for Federal involvement in road improvement. For information on 

Dodge’s life and good roads work, see A Maximum of Good Results: Martin Dodge and 

the Good Roads Trains at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/highwayhistory/dodge/. New 

Jersey’s State-aid plan would be adopted by many States and serve as a model for the 

Federal-aid highway program that would be adopted in 1916.) 

[“Will Demand Better Roads,” June 7, 1894 

“Proposed Good Roads Conference,” June 17, 1894 

“The Good Roads Convention,” June 21, 1894 

“Working for Good Roads,” July 6, 1894 

“To Improve the Highways,” July, 7, 1894 

“The Goods Roads Conference,” July 14, 1894] 
New Roads and Road Laws in the United States

One of the hallmarks of General Stone’s tenure was how enterprising he was in using the 

ORI’s limited resources. On July 22, 1894, the Times carried an article about his latest 

activity – publication of a book, New Roads and Road Laws in the United States, by Van 

Nostrand & Co. 

The article began by pointing out that General Stone “presents this volume in order to 

stimulate public interest and thus ‘promote the success of the official inquiry.’” It 

explained that the inquiry is focused on several points: 

First, in regard to the new legislation for road improvement and the working of 

that legislation; second, to the cost of methods of road construction, and, lastly, to 

the effects of road improvement where it has been accomplished. 

The unnamed reviewer stated that much had been learned in recent years about road 

building, with old road building techniques, including macadam construction, by 

“common-sense engineering.” The reviewer stated: 

Something that old roadmakers had little perception of was that horses in drawing 

a load feel the strain much less where there are slight elevations or depressions. 

The monotony of traction, the constant calls upon one set of muscles, are in this 

way relieved. What is novel, and something which Mr. Roy Stone and others 

bring into prominence, is the effort made to change the character, not alone of the 

wheels of wagons, but of the axles. 

The Massachusetts Highway Commission had concluded that wider tires would allow for 

larger loads to be hauled with less strain on the horses and damage to the roads. 

However, requiring the State’s 50,000 wagons to switch to wider tires was impractical. 

Further, broader tires and axles of unequal length were even more advantageous. This 

had been demonstrated in usage in several locations, including Camden County, New 

Jersey. 

The reviewer continued his summary by asking, “Will you have a dust heap in Summer 

or a quagmire in Winter?” He said: 

That is the question which addresses itself to many a farmer in the United States. 

Mr. Roy Stone explains graphically what he calls the mud tax. 

Among other topics, General Stone covered New Jersey’s State-aid program, also called 

the “local-option and co-operative plan.” 

Five years later, on June 24, 1899, the Times carried a lengthy article titled “Municipal 

Engineers” covering books that would be of interest to them. On the subject of good 

roads, the article summarized the brief history of the good roads movement, including 
formation of the National League for Good Roads and the funding appropriated for the 

Secretary of Agriculture to conduct a road inquiry. It continued: 

Much good has been accomplished by the Bureau of Road Inquiry thus created, at 

the head of which was placed Gen. Roy Stone, who was a Vice President of the 

National League. A little book by him, “New Roads and Road Laws in the 

United States,” (New York, D. Van Nostrand Company. $1) with excellent halftone illustrations of good and bad roads, is both interesting and instructive. 

In the interest of fairness, the Rambler notes that the article also mentioned: 

General Gilmore, A Practical Treatise on Roads, Streets, and Pavement, D. Van 

Nostrand Company, 1876, revised for 9th edition, price not listed (“still a very 

useful and handy manual for the road-maker. It is a thoroughly practical book”). 

Byrne, Austin T., A Treatise on Highway Construction, John Wiley & Sons, $5 

(“The latest and fullest information respecting the location, construction, and 

maintenance of roads of all kinds, in city or country.”). 

Spalding, Fred P., A Text Book on Roads and Pavements, John Wiley & Sons, $2 

(the article is suspicious of this book because of its lack of sources – this book is 

for “those who trust to theory rather than experience”). 

[“The Great Roads Question,” July 22, 1894 

“Municipal Engineers,” June 24, 1899] 

A Home in New Jersey

The Times reported on September 9, 1894, that a ceremony took place in Mercer County, 

New Jersey, to celebrate “completion of the macadamizing of the old Scotch Road, 

leading through Ewing Township into the City of Trenton.” The gathering of farmers 

and business men of the county reflected enthusiasm over the good roads movement and 

“was a great success.” 

State Road Commissioner Edward S. Burroughs discussed the status of the State-aid 

program, reporting that the $75,000 appropriated for 1894 had been spent for about 30 

miles of roads. The article stated that over 60 miles of macadamized and hard roads had 

been secured through the State-aid program since its inception. 

The article summarized the “agitation” that began 2 years earlier, concluding: 

When it became known that Morris County was to be bonded for $350,000, some 

of the farmers protested, but the bitterest opponents of the movement then are 

now its enthusiastic supporters. William E. King made surveys and prepared 

maps of about thirty miles of road, which are now nearly completed. Gen. Roy 

Stone, National Chief of the Bureau of Road Inquiry in Washington, is a Summer 

resident in Morris County, and he gave to the Freeholders the benefit of his 

services as consulting engineer. 
General Stone’s summer home was in Mendham. In the years before air conditioning, 

Washington was often abandoned by officials, including the entire Congress, until crops 

had been picked and weather in the area moderated. 

[“For Good Roads in New-Jersey,” September 9, 1894] 

General Stone on Convict Labor

The Rambler has a saying, “Roads are not about concrete, asphalt, or steel, but about the 

money available to buy the concrete, asphalt, and steel.” With some wording changes, 

the saying has applied throughout highway history. In the early years of the Good Roads 

Movement, money was hard to come by. As a result, convict labor was seen as a way of 

avoiding the difficulty of raising money. (Money is still hard to come by, but on a 

different order of magnitude.) 

On December 16, 1892, the Times reported that New York’s Superintendent of State 

Prisons, Austin Lathrop, had written to the Board of Trade and Transportation about the 

use of prisoners on the roads. The article quoted one paragraph from Lathrop’s letter: 

I do not think it would be practicable to work the convicts confined in Sing Sing 

and Auburn Prisons on the State roads. I think the extra expense of guarding and 

caring for them would cost more than to hire outside labor. At Clinton prison it 

would, in my judgment, be different, owing to the remote location. In fact, we are 

now thinking of taking a number of idle convicts from that prison and putting 

them to work on the highways running through the State lands. This is an 

experiment. 

Many Times articles quoted Lathrop on the importance of employing convicts in useful 

activities. For example, as noted in the Times on January 31, 1895, Lathrop’s annual 

report for 1894 stated: 

No fact has been more thoroughly demonstrated in prison administration than this 

one, namely: Convicts in prison need constant employment at work, to save them 

from destructive moral and physical deterioration and degradation . . . . No prison 

manager anywhere has had the fertility of resource which enabled him to maintain 

a body of prisoners in idleness and at the same time keep them from the 

deterioration which culminates too often in insanity or death. 

Road work offered one opportunity for employing the convicts. The annual report, as 

summarized in the Times, stated that: 

Much labor of convicts was spent in constructing prison buildings and on roads in 

Westchester, Cayuga, and Clinton Counties, which, could it be credited at fair 

rates, would make a material addition to the earnings of the prisoners. 
On March 5, 1895, the Times reported that State Senator Frederick D. Kilburn’s 

subcommittee of the joint legislative committee to investigate State departments had held 

a hearing the day before on the State’s prisons. Lathrop and the wardens of the prisons 

were the witnesses. One topic addressed was convict labor on roads. Warden James C. 

Stout of Auburn Prison stated that in 1894, he had employed about 30 convicts on a twomile stretch of road, while about 50 worked on a one-mile stretch. Warden Stout 

preferred to use short-term convicts because they were less likely to want to escape. 

Only two guards, he said, were needed to keep the men in order. 

Senator Kilburn favored convict labor for roads, but preferred that they work under an 

engineer on a general plan, not just here and there as at present. He “asked if it would be 

practicable within the next fifty years to rebuild the main roads throughout the State by 

convict labor.” The article summarized the reply: 

Warden Stout replied that he believed it would be best to confine convict labor to 

a main road through the State. It would cost about $340,000 to build the road 

straight through to Buffalo (340 miles). 

When Superintendent Lathrop testified, he was less supportive of convict labor: 

Superintendent Lathrop thought the employment of prisoners on public roads 

impracticable. The State can better afford to hire free labor than to pay for 

watching the convicts. Besides this, any such general employment of prisoners 

would cause a howl about taking bread out of the workingman’s mouth. 

It would be ruinous for any political party ordering such work. He figured that 

the State would save $250,000 yearly by hiring free labor for road work. There is 

also danger of the prisoners escaping, as they did when working at Clinton, where 

it cost $3,000 of the ten-thousand-dollar appropriation to recapture convicts who 

escaped while working on roads. 

Senator Kilburn asked if it was true that the prisoners had actually been working on the 

warden’s house and that the expense of recapture had been charged to the road account to 

avoid a scandal. “Superintendent Lathrop insisted that there was nothing to this story.” 

On March 15, 1895, the Times reported that the day before in Washington, one of its 

reporters had asked General Stone about Superintendent Lathrop’s view that the use of 

convicts on public roads was impracticable. General Stone “controverted” this view. 

“Gen. Stone has devoted much time to this particular question, and is convinced that 

convict labor may profitably and safely be used in improving the highways of the 

country.” 

The article continued: 

“There are three sides to the question of working convicts on the highways—or 

rather two sides and a broad middle ground,” Gen. Stone said to-day to a 
correspondent of The New-York Times. “The negative side is taken by the Prison 

Association of New-York and by penologists generally. The reasons advanced in 

opposition to the plan are that honest labor would be interfered with; that a large 

body of keepers would be required at great expense; that there would be a 

constant necessity for shooting convicts in order to prevent escapes; that in many 

cases the prejudice against convict labor would require a military force to protect 

convicts thus employed, and that it would be demoralizing to the convicts 

themselves to employ them in public places. 

This is a view of the question natural to men whose minds are fixed on the needs 

to [sic] society of the reformation of criminals. Opposed to it is the opinion of 

many equally good citizens who seek the public advancement in other ways, and 

especially in the direction of improved means of communication, and who see in 

the convicts now idle in our jails and prisons a labor force sufficient to mend all 

the roads in the country if it could be so applied, and which they believe could be 

so applied without prejudice to free labor. The advocates of convict road work 

insist further that the outdoor life and exercise afforded by such employment 

would benefit the health and morals of the prisoners. 

“In the vicinity of Charlotte, N.C., convicts have built miles of substantial roads, 

and with such satisfaction to the people that the special law under which it was 

done is now being extended to other counties. In other Southern States, where the 

convict lease system still prevails, it is clear that a transfer of the prisoners from 

irresponsible and often inhumane private employment to the care of States or 

counties would be a saving kindness to them and would benefit the entire 

community. 

“Some of the apprehensions of the New-York Prison Association do not appear to 

have been well founded. The Legislature passed a bill providing for the 

employment of convict labor on the wagon roads of the State, in spite of the 

protest of the association, and a very satisfactory experiment was made at Clinton 

Prison. There was no interference with the convicts by citizens, except in two 

cases, where intoxicated men offered them liquor; no apparently demoralizing 

effects on the prisoners or the public; no shooting of convicts, and only three men 

attempted to escape. In the report on the subject, the Warden of the prison 

concludes as follows: “That a limited number of convicts can be worked 

successfully is now an established fact.” 

“On the other hand, when we examine the Warden’s financial statement, we find 

but little if any economy in the use of convicts as compared with the employment 

of free laborers for the same work. The cost of guards and of the search for 

escaped convicts was equal to 91 cents for each day’s labor done, which, 

considering the comparative efficiency of such labor, is very near the full value, 

the day’s work being only eight hours. Again, it may be safely predicted that 

when road making becomes a great business in the country, the introduction of 

labor-saving appliances will do away with a large share of the hand labor now 
requisite in laying a stone or gravel road. The material being generally 

transported by railroad will then be transferred to wagons without shoveling, and 

from the wagons will be mechanically spread in its place, so that almost nothing 

will be left for convicts to do on the lines of the roads. 

“These considerations strengthen the position of those who hold the middle 

ground of the question, which is that State prisoners should be employed wholly 

in the preparation of road materials, and in places where they can be guarded and 

secluded as easily and cheaply as in the prisons. The plan proposed for this is in 

substance as follows: First—For the State to buy some of the territory which 

contains the best rock within its limits. Second—To make the necessary railway 

connections, having first secured the permanent agreement of all its leading 

railroad companies to carry road material at the cost of hauling, on condition, if 

required of the State furnishing to them a certain amount of track ballast free of 

charge or at cost. Third—Having erected the necessary buildings and provided 

the best machinery for quarrying and crushing rock, to bring all able-bodied State 

prison convicts and put them at this work. Fourth—The counties to put their jail 

prisoners and tramps at the work of grading, draining, and preparing the roads for 

macadamizing. Fifth—The State to furnish broken stone free on board cars as its 

contribution to road improvement. 

“The cost to the State, in addition to the maintenance and guarding of the 

convicts, would be only that of food and oil, explosives, and use of machinery, or, 

according to the Massachusetts commission report, 6 8-10 cents per cubic yard of 

broken stone, amounting for the 1,200 yards required to lay a mile of single track 

road nine feet wide and eight inches deep to $81.60. 

“The remaining cost would be the railroad freight, amounting, for an average 

distance of 100 miles, to not more than 28 cents per yard, or $336 per mile; the 

wagon haul, averaging possibly 21⁄2 miles, 30 cents per yard, or $360 per mile, 

and the rolling, superintendence, and incidentals (not including engineering, 

which would be a general county charge) 10 cents per yard, making the total local 

cost 68 cents per cubic yard, or $816 per mile. 

“This plan would bring the expense of road improvement so low that no elaborate 

scheme of taxation or borrowing would be necessary, and all its benefits could be 

speedily and universally realized. The best plan for carrying it out would perhaps 

be to let the ‘benefit district’ as heretofore defined pay one-third of cost by 

installments, and the township one-third; the county to pay the remainder, and to 

advance the amount for the district, with a rebate or discount to all individuals 

who might prefer to pay in cash, so that no one would be put in debt against his 

will. The cost to the district on this basis of division would be $272 per mile. 

“The growth of the road movement in North Carolina is unquestionably due to the 

use of convicts. Indeed, this use has in the majority of cases been the most 

important factor in deciding the counties of that State to vote a tax for the 
improvement of public roads. The result of the experiments in North Carolina has 

been altogether favorable to the system both in point of efficiency and in 

economy and in the health of the convicts. In Lenoir County only short-term 

criminals are employed. They are carefully described and photographed and 

offered certain inducements in the way of reward or shortening of term if they 

remain at their posts and faithfully discharge their duties. They are employed on 

the public roads very much as hired labor would be, under the control of a 

Superintendent, but without a guard, and they are allowed to remain at their 

homes from Saturday night until Monday morning. This novel experiment has 

been in operation a year and not a convict has attempted to escape. 

“Many of the States are now arranging to establish supply camps for road material 

at which State convicts can be worked under proper restrictions. In California 

especially the State prison grounds contain an excellent vein of trap rock, the very 

best of road material, and abundant water power, with the necessary machinery 

for moving and crushing rock. There are 700 or 800 convicts in the prison. The 

prison authorities find that they can prepare road material and put it on the ground 

for 20 cents a cubic yard and pay all the expenses of the prison out of the receipts. 

“Many railroads have already offered to transport material for the bare cost of the 

train service, and probably most of the railroads in the country would be willing 

to make such an arrangement, for they are naturally interested in the improvement 

of the highways.” 

The article, noting that General Stone was preparing a small volume on convict labor, 

stated that he “is convinced that, notwithstanding the opposition of the PrisonAssociation of New-York, the idea of employing convicts in making highways will grow, 

with much consequent good to the country.” 

On April 1, 1895, General Stone transmitted a 15-page volume titled Notes on the 

Employment of Convicts in Connection with Road Building to Secretary Morton seeking 

approval for publication. It became ORI Bulletin No. 16 in 1895. It described the use of 

convicts in North Carolina, explained the Delaware and California laws on the subject, 

and contained an article by General Stone (“Working Convicts on the Highways”) 

extracted from New Roads and Road Laws. (The extract was similar to General Stone’s 

statement to the Times.) The bulletin also quoted Warden Stout: 

I approve of the employment of convicts in road making. The cost to the State 

will be only $800 per mile. It will take about fifty years to improve by this means 

all the highways of the State. I advise the repairing of the old turnpike between 

Albany and Buffalo. Something should be done to give the prisoners work. 

[“Prison Labor on Roads,” December 16, 1892 

“Convicts in Need of Work,” January 31, 1895 

“Convicts as Roadmakers,” March 5, 1895 

“Convict Road Builders,” March 15, 1895] 
Planning for the Higbie-Armstrong Bill

On December 12, 1895, the Times reported on a conference held at the Albemarle Hotel 

in New York City to consider good roads legislation for the State beyond the 1893 law 

encouraging county action. Participants included Isaac B. Potter, Chief Consul of the 

LAW’s New York Division; State Senator Richard Higbie, and General Stone. The 

article stated: 

The purpose of the conference was to devise a plan to secure better roads for the 

State, and better roads mean enjoyable cycling. Each man present showed 

himself to be an enthusiast on the subject of roads, and many valuable suggestions 

were offered and commented upon. Legislative action was finally deemed the 

only proper course to pursue, and the committee set to work to draft a bill to be 

presented at Albany. The aim of this bill will be to secure the improvement of the 

highways throughout the State. The bill was not completed at last night’s 

conference, but its essential features were determined upon. 

Potter told the reporter that New York was “far behind some other States in roadimprovement work.” He favored a State-aid plan similar to New Jersey’s, which Potter 

said “has given to that State some of the finest public highways to be found anywhere.” 

Racing and Sidepaths 

On January 1, 1896, the Times published an editorial commenting on a meeting of the 

Board of Officers of the New York State Division of the LAW. The editorial described 

the board’s recommendation to the national LAW to sever all connections between the 

LAW and bicycle racing. The rationale for this recommendation involved the purpose of 

the LAW: 

The league exists for the purpose of promoting the objects which all wheelmen 

have in common, such as the improvement of roads, of maps, and in general of 

the means for getting about the country on wheels with pleasure and profit, which 

includes improvement in country taverns. Racing is not one of those objects. The 

proportion of wheelmen who care anything about it is very small. 

Bicyclists were interested in “records” achieved by the bicyclists, but racing could best be 

handled by “those who have direct pecuniary interests in the promotion of bicycle racing, 

to wit, the professional riders and the makers of bicycles.” Given the “enormous” 

pecuniary interests, no “association of a body of amateur sportsmen can undertake to 

supervise a commercial rivalry between powerful interests without getting more or less 

smirched in the course of the operation, and without more or less unfitting itself for its 

avowed legitimate purposes.” 

Bicycle racing was at a critical juncture in the mid-1890’s. It had started as an amateur 

endeavor in the 1870’s, but its popularity prompted bicycle makers to see it as a 
marketing opportunity. They began sponsoring races and skilled racers. The LAW had 

established rules for racing based on the assumption that the racers were amateurs and 

that the prizes were trophies or of only nominal value. However, commercial 

involvement prompted a change in 1893, as described by Professor Robert A. Smith in 

his social history of bicycling: 

The quarreling and bickering over professionalism continued until late in 1893, 

when the racing board of the LAW decided to divide racing cyclists into . . . three 

categories, Class A, Class B, and Professional. 

The Class A amateur got nothing but prizes from his riding and was not even 

allowed to accept expenses from a cycling club or any other group that might 

sponsor his appearance in a contest. The Class B amateur was something else, an 

amateur who could accept pay for his work. 

The Class B racers soon gained a bad reputation, openly accepting commercial 

sponsorships from manufacturers. “Many of the Class B amateurs became masters at 

sharp practices and plotting.” According to Professor Smith: 

Scarcely had the group been designated than rumors began to circulate that some 

races were rigged. A reporter for the Minneapolis Tribune suggested to his 

readers that since the men were working for cycle makers and their jobs depended 

on winning a race every now and then, the riders sometimes got together and 

agreed on who should win each race. He also hinted that some referees appointed 

by the LAW’s racing board were getting kickbacks for fixed races. 

The New York State Division’s recommendation, therefore, was not surprising. As for 

the timing, Professor Smith said: 

By 1895 the stench arising from the Class B situation was so overpowering that 

the demand was made for the LAW to eliminate the class altogether, or, even 

more drastic, for the league to get completely out of racing. Some critics argued 

that racing took too much of the league’s time and money and distracted from the 

promotion of cycling in general and the movement to improve roads in particular. 

The LAW ultimately chose a middle ground: 

Early in 1896 the LAW abolished Class B racing and tightened restrictions on the 

amateur Class A . . . . Nevertheless the League of American Wheelmen and its 

racing board remained under constant attack. [Smith, Robert A., A Social History 

of the Bicycle (American Heritage Press/McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1972, p. 

151-154) 

A separate group, the National Cycling Association, took over the professional races, 

while the LAW clung to its role in amateur racing until finally giving up racing in 1900, 

according to Professor Smith. 
While the board members were in agreement on this point, the editorial stated that, 

“Another point is much more open to question.” Chief Consul Potter had offered a 

compromise on the good roads issue. In view of the rural districts’ desire for economy, 

he suggested that cycle paths should be built along the existing highways, from three to 

six feet wide. “By inference he seemed to intimate that if this accommodation were 

afforded to the wheelmen their agitation for better roads would cease.” 

Adoption of this compromise, the editorial stated, would be “a public calamity.” 

Although bicyclists wanted good roads for their own use, the issue was broader than 

them: 

What is needed is to convince the rural public that good roads are economical, so 

economical that they cannot afford to have bad roads. Even if the wheelmen were 

to agree that, so long as a cinder path was provided for them, they would not 

object to the rest of the road being by turns a mud-wallow and a dust-heap, they 

would defeat their own purpose, for the full and combined force of all the 

elements enlisted in favor of good roads is necessary to produce good roads, and 

has not yet availed for that purpose. 

The editorial hoped that the Chief Consul “will consider, on more mature reflection, that 

his suggestion was a mistake.” 

In an article on the work of the LAW published on January 5, 1896, Potter defended his 

idea: 

A movement for the construction of side paths has taken strong hold in the State 

of New-York, and must be respected. The wheelmen are large taxpayers and 

have the same right to ask that the public highways shall be placed in fit condition 

for the passage of vehicles they use as have travelers who employ other means of 

conveyance. It is perhaps unfair to say that the public roads should be improved 

at great expense because bicyclists alone should seem to demand it, but it is not 

unreasonable to ask that a narrow wheelway should be improved at moderate 

expense on many country roads, which would otherwise be impassable to the 

great body of cyclists who have occasion to pass over them. 

Professor Smith stated that cyclists were divided on sidepaths: 

Some argued that the hard-won recognition of wheelmen’s rights on the highways 

would be jeopardized, for cycle-paths laws would be “class legislation” and 

therefore bound to create an unfavorable reaction against cyclemen. As a result, 

they might lose the right to use public roads and instead be confined exclusively 

to the paths. [Smith, p. 214] 

The Times, by this time, was publishing a column called “Gossip of the Cyclers,” that 

included two items on sidepaths on January 12, 1896. One item quoted the Lockport 
Journal as saying that construction of sidepaths “is assuming large proportions.” 

Construction of a network of sidepaths in central New York was under consideration. 

“The wheelmen have for years been anxious to assist in the improvement of country 

highways, but since others who use the roads have not been as enthusiastic, the wheelmen 

have preferred to avoid further delays and secure what they might on their own account.” 

The second item quoted a statement General Stone issued on Potter’s suggestion: 

The general movement for improved highways in the State of New-York through 

the action of the existing legislative commission has taken such promising shape 

that I earnestly hope the influence of the wheelmen of the State will not be 

diverted in the direction of constructing separate cycle paths. Their help will be 

greatly needed in bringing about the general improvement of highways in the 

State, and such combined movement as is proposed in Buffalo will be of great 

value in its effect on the Legislature and upon public sentiment generally. If the 

bill for State aid which will be offered by the State legislative commission 

prevails, you will see many hundred miles of good roads built in the State of 

New-York during the coming Summer, and so scattered through the State as to 

become general object lessons in the advantages of good roads. The plan of a 

narrow, hard road with an earth road alongside for dry weather, is very highly 

approved wherever it has been tested. 

Despite the concerns about sidepaths, supporters were successful, as Professor Smith, 

explained “in part because taxpayers concluded that cycle paths, three to four feet wide, 

were cheaper than improved streets.” He stated that the result was a far-flung system of 

bicycle side paths that became downright grandiose in conception, beginning with the 

51⁄2-mile Coney Island Cycle Path in Brooklyn. The path opened on June 15, 1895, and 

was an immediate hit. [Smith, p. 214-215] 

Sidepaths or cycle paths appeared around the country, mainly in cities, and proved 

popular until the automobile brought the bicycle era to an end soon after the turn of the 

century. 

In speaking of Potter’s idea, General Stone was referring to the legislative commission 

established in 1893 to examine the good roads question. State Senator Higbie had been 

chairman of the Special Committee on Good Roads, which had visited Connecticut, 

Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and New-Jersey in the course of its review. On January 16, 

the Times summarized the committee’s report. It found “that there is widespread 

dissatisfaction with the present road system, and that a change of some kind is universally 

advocated.” The committee recommended establishing a central head to superintend all 

roads, with “the prime idea being that the maximum utility shall be reached with the 

minimum cost.” The report advocated a State-aid approach, as well as other changes, 

including wide-tire laws and the use of convicts to manufacture material for roads. 

General Stone testified before the Assembly Ways and Means Committee on February 

12, 1896. The Times explained on February 13 that the hearing was held to consider “all 
the bills which have been introduced in the lower house having reference to good roads.” 

General Stone repeated his oft-stated view that New York was far behind other States. 

“It paid too little attention to the question, and allowed other States to take the lead when 

the Empire State should set the example.” By contrast, he said, New Jersey had the best 

road system as a result of its State-aid plan. 

The New York General Assembly was not ready for the good-roads legislation, and 

would not be until 1898 when it passed the Higbie-Armstrong Good Roads Bill, named 

after Senator Higbie and Senator William W. Armstrong of Rochester. It established a 

State-aid approach under which the State would pay half the cost of projects to improve 

town and county roads. 

[“A Better Highway Law,” December 12, 1895 

“Wheeling, Racing, and Roads,” January 1, 1896 

“The Work of the L.A.W.,” January 5, 1896 

“Gossip of the Cyclers,” January 12, 1896 

“Good Roads Hearing,” February 13, 1896] 

Commission on Highways

While General Stone retained a strong interest in the roads movement in New York, he 

had national responsibilities as a Federal official. The Times reported that on March 12, 

1896, he attended a hearing before the Committee on Agriculture of the U.S. House of 

Representatives on a bill to create a Commission on highways: 

The purpose of the commission is to inquire generally how the Government may 

further promote the improvement of highways and the best methods of securing a 

scientific location of highways on the public domain; the employment of the 

Geological Survey in the discovery of road materials and the free testing of these, 

and the construction of modern roads and instruction in road making at 

agricultural colleges and experiment stations. 

Representative Charles W. Stone, a Republican from Warren County, Pennsylvania, had 

introduced the bill. Born in Groton, Massachusetts, Representative Stone had served in 

the State Legislature and as Lieutenant Governor of Pennsylvania before entering the 

U.S. House of Representatives in 1890. (After losing a bid for reelection in 1898, he 

practiced law in Pennsylvania until his death in 1912.) 

General Stone was one of the people the Times identified as “interested in the 

proposition.” General Harrison of Asbury Park, New Jersey, and officials of the LAW 

were among the interested parties. 

According to the Times, Representative Stone introduced these visitors to the committee 

and explained the bill. As summarized by the Times, he said that he “contemplated no 

great expense . . . no increase of salaries, and its life was limited in time.” It would 

simply continue “the work which the Agricultural Department had so well begun.” 
Although some of the visitors testified before the committee, the Times did not indicate 

that General Stone did so. 

The bill did not become law. 

[“National Good Roads Hearing,” March 13, 1896] 

Bicycling for Women

A common feature of newspapers in the era of the great steamships was to print the 

names of those coming and going by sea. On April 5, 1896, the Times reported that 

General Stone had sailed for Liverpool, England, on the steamship Umbria. The brief 

article did not indicate whether General Stone’s family accompanied him on the trip. 

The Times also did not record General Stone’s return (as far as the Rambler can 

determine), but did note on July 12 that he was among “the most prominent arrivals” in 

the resort of Asbury Park. Again, the Times did not report whether the General was alone 

or what he did during his visit to the resort. However, the article mentioned: 

Next to bathing in the ocean, bicycle riding is the most popular exercise enjoyed 

by the Summer visitors. Thousands of wheelmen and wheelwomen speed along 

the smooth avenues in North Asbury Park every afternoon and evening, and the 

ocean drive to Long Branch is also alive with bicyclists. Old and young enjoy the 

sport, but the females who “bike” outnumber the males nearly two to one. 

Occasionally a maid in bloomers can be seen scorching [speeding] along the 

avenues, but the short-skirt costume predominates among the fair sex. On Sunday 

last six wheel clubs from the big cities made runs to the Park, and to-day the 

Mercer County Wheelmen of Trenton came here on their annual “century,” with 

nearly 500 participants, 40 of whom were ladies. 

(Professor Smith wrote that despite efforts by dress reformers who wanted to ride a 

bicycle, women were still burdened by the dress of the day: 

Advertisements in magazines and newspapers show the American woman gliding 

toward the end of the century still clad in yards and yards of heavy material that 

swept the floor, gathering dust and dirt. Furthermore, she was burdened with 

whalebone-and-canvas corsets that pinched out the “hour-glass figure” so beloved 

at the time. These corsets also constricted her breathing, made her subject to 

fainting spells, and jeopardized both mother and child during pregnancy. [Smith, 

p. 97] 

(Attempts to change women’s dress faced scorn from husbands and fathers, limiting 

progress. The demands of bicycling, however, necessitated a change, especially when 

women rode diamond-frame bicycles requiring them to straddle the upper bar. 
(By the mid-1890’s, women had adopted the bloomer. It was named after Mrs. Amelia 

Bloomer who had begun wearing the style in the 1850’s. Smith described the bloomer: 

On Decoration Day of 1894, the dress designers opened the cycling season with 

the latest style, the bloomer costume. Bloomers, for generations that do not know 

them, were short, very full pants fastened at the knee, similar to the 

knickerbockers worn by men. They seem wholly appropriate to present-day 

Americans, but to a generation that had definite ideas about women who showed 

their legs, the bloomer costume was an eye-popper. [Smith, p. 100] 

(Mrs. Bloomer never claimed that she invented the design, even though she received 

publicity for wearing it in the 1850’s, long before the bicycle era, because the style was 

not only unusual but outrageous. 

(The Times covered the controversy. On December 23, 1894, the Times reported on a 

visit to “a New-York cycle emporium.” Every woman was wearing knickerbockers 

(baggy pants that ended below the knee), but the style was changing. According to the 

emporium’s instructor, Mr. Price, “short skirts with leggings would be the coming dress 

for wheelwomen.” He explained that “if a woman sits her wheel well, has her leggings 

free from wrinkles, and if her hat doesn’t look as if she had fallen from her wheel on to it, 

it will not be objectionable if the skirt is not the conventional walking length.” 

(Nevertheless, a young man told the reporter: 

Well, I’ll tell you the truth,” he said, “I think that when a woman takes off her 

skirts she loses all her charm. A young lady, a friend of mine, told me she 

thought of putting on bloomers, and I told her that if she did – ” It is not 

necessary to tell just what that young man said. There has been no announcement 

of broken friendships, and one young woman has been spared the expense of a 

new bicycle suit. 

(On August 2, 1895, the Times reported on a lawyer in Paterson, New Jersey, whose 

client objected to the fact that his bicycle riding wife had appeared a day or two earlier 

“to the utter surprise of her husband, in a pair of dark red bloomers.” The article stated 

that, “This was too much for him,” but his protests were to no avail. His wife “continued 

to wear the bloomers, although her husband refused to go out with her on the road.” The 

husband wanted the lawyer to initiate a law “to put a stop to the red bloomers,” but the 

lawyer said “he could not stop it, as the new woman was here to stay.” The lawyer also 

counseled the husband that if he would wait a year or two “he would not only see red 

bloomers on the road, but would see them in the legislative halls at Trenton.” 

(On August 26, 1895, the Times reported that Judge Wilson in Little Rock, Arkansas, had 

dismissed the prosecution of Mrs. Noe, “who was arrested Thursday for appearing on the 

streets in bloomers.” Judge Wilson ruled that, “Women had a constitutional and Godgiven right to ride a bicycle, and they are bound to have some comfortable and 

appropriate dress therefore.” This right, like most rights, was not without limits, Judge 
Wilson said. He added, “I should be disposed to give her the limit of the law” if she were 

“of a size that threatened to frighten horses and impede traffic” or if “her habiliments 

[were] of the sort originally designed by the woman whose name they bear.” 

(As reflected in the article about the resort bicyclists in Asbury Park, fashions evolve, 

whether the Rambler likes it or not. By 1896, according to Professor Smith, “French 

couturiers were moving away from the bifurcated garments.” One “had already refused 

to make any more bloomer costumes for his customers.” Smith continued: 

Harper’s Weekly reported as early as 1896 that the “hideous and unsexing 

bloomers and knickerbockers worn by some women in the early days of the wheel 

craze” had virtually disappeared. Although this was not quite true, nevertheless 

the bloomer fad did slow down, ultimately to pass away . . . . The bloomer 

costume might disappear, but “rational dress” in the form of the shortened skirt 

did not pass away. The Minneapolis Tribune noted that shorter skirts had become 

common in general outdoor wear by 1897, and no less an authority than the New 

York Sun said that the bicycle costume for women had brought about some 

desirable changes in women’s clothing, a reform that had long been demanded by 

common sense. [Smith, p. 108-109]) 

The Rambler has never been able to determine if General Stone was a bicyclist. He 

supported the LAW and worked closely with its leaders, but whether he rode a bicycle is 

unknown. (Similarly, the Rambler cannot determine if General Stone owned an 

automobile.) The Rambler does not wish to speculate, but is willing to go so far as to 

suppose that General Stone was pleased to see the wheelmen and wheelwomen using the 

smooth avenues of Asbury Park. 

Clearly, he saw women as potential advocates in the fight for good roads. In a letter 

dated November 25, 1896, to Charles Freeman Johnson of San Francisco (and located in 

the National Archives at College Park, Maryland), General Stone said: 

We cannot do too much to encourage women’s work in behalf of good roads. No 

agency will be more effective if once they are thoroughly aroused, as has been so 

well shown in many other lines of human progress. The interest of the women of 

the country districts in the improvement of means of travel and association is 

broder [sic] than that of the men. A Missouri delegate to a good roads convention 

once said to me “I don’t want to make nuns of my women folks. If I want any 

sport I can get on a horse and go through the mud and rain to a preaching, but 

they cannot do it, and that is why I am working for good roads.” One of the best 

contributions on road repair which this office has received is that of a daughter of 

the Hon. Abram Hewitt, of New York, who has had a large experience in actual 

road-management at their place in New Jersey. This communication I published 

in our Bulletin No. 8. 

Bulletin No. 8, printed in 1894, was titled Earth Roads: Hints on Their Construction and 

Repair. It contained information and suggestions on “the best method of constructing a 
common highway without gravel or stone,” as General Stone put it in his letter seeking 

approval from Secretary Morton to publish the bulletin. The final essay, “Repairs of 

Country Roads,” was a reprint of Sarah Cooper Hewitt’s article from Harper’s Weekly. It 

began: 

So much has been said about the difficulty of making good country roads without 

involving a great outlay of money that it seems rather presuming to take a 

contrary view of the subject, but I think the matter has been much exaggerated, 

and that in any part of the country where clay, hardpan, gravel or disintegrated 

rock can be found it is quite easy to get excellent roads at comparatively little 

expense. I speak from some practical experience acquired in road-making in a 

very wild and hilly region of northern New Jersey, where we are accustomed to 

work out our taxes on 13 or more miles of public highways . . . . 

A common county practice was to charge residents a road tax that could paid in money or 

labor. Based on her experience of working the road tax, Ms. Hewitt provided a practical 

guide to the when, where, what, and how of country road repairs. 

[“Passengers for Europe,” April 5, 1896 

“Founder Bradley’s Asbury Park,” July 12, 1896 

“Woman’s Wheeling Dress,” December 23, 1894 

“Applied for the Law on Bloomers,” August 2, 1895 

“Mrs. Noe’s Bloomers Vindicated,” August 26, 1895] 

School Boy Leagues

On January 31, 1897, the Times reported on General Stone’s proposal to enlist school 

children in the cause of good country roads. He had often tried to encourage country 

schools to get involved in the cause of good roads, a subject easily seen each day students 

came to school with muddy shoes or dusty clothes. The article explained that roads need 

daily care: 

Such care would be extremely costly under the present methods of management, 

but Gen. Stone points out that most of the roads in the country are patrolled twice 

each day by schoolboys old enough to give the necessary attention to throwing 

out stones, opening ditches and sluices, and filling ruts and holes. 

He suggested forming schoolboy road leagues in country school districts, with a few tools 

on hand and prizes for the best service rendered by the boys: 

Country teachers, it is believed, would naturally take an interest in this work, and 

any improvement in the roads would of course be a benefit to the schools. 

For example, where country roads had been improved in New Jersey, “schools have 

recalled many scholars who had been drawn away to the city schools, and who now go to 

school on their bicycles from miles around.” 
Wear and tear on the roads, according to General Stone, cost $40 million a year for 

restoration, not improvement: 

By getting the schoolboys to take a hand, says Gen. Stone, “very great practical 

benefit to the present roads would result at little or no cost, while training up a 

generation of road builders for the future. It is not expected that many school 

districts will take up this work at first. It requires that the teachers be competent, 

the boys ambitious, and the road authorities liberal and progressive, and this 

combination will be comparatively rare. But it will be found in some places, and 

if the work is successful it will rapidly spread.” 

The Rambler did not come across evidence of widespread schoolboy leagues, suggesting 

that the combination was rarer than General Stone expected. 

Good Roads Day 

The proposal was of only minor interest because New York State had more tangible 

issues to consider. 

On January 24, 1897, the “Gossip of the Cyclers” column in the Times alerted readers 

that the coming year would be one in which bicyclists and their partners in the Grange 

would work hard “to secure legislation favoring an improvement in the highways.” The 

LAW would be holding its National Assembly in Albany in early February, with the first 

day, February 10, designated Good Roads Day. The LAW’s Empire State Division 

planned to use the day to promote a good roads bill it had drafted, along with the Grange, 

and would introduce in the State legislature “providing for the systematic improvement of 

the highways.” Prospects were good: 

It is confidently believed that the bill will become a law, its provisions being such 

that it is hard to think of anybody objecting to it. 

The columnist identified General Stone as participating on behalf of the Department of 

Agriculture and indicated that other speakers would be “of almost equal prominence in 

this important work.” 

On February 7, the column elaborated on Good Roads Day—“one whole day 

(Wednesday) will be devoted to the discussion of highway improvements and the best 

means to secure them.” The column explained that, “A year ago at the annual meeting in 

Baltimore the first day of the convention was given over to this purpose, and it proved 

one of the features of the assembly.” Good Roads Day in Albany would be “doubly 

interesting from the attendance of some very prominent men in the league and the 

Government service.” Gen Stone “will be among those present.” The column stated that, 

“He has long been associated in good-roads work, and is a most entertaining talker on 

this question.” 
The next day, in an article bylined in Albany on February 7, the Times reported that 

proceedings in the State Legislature were going to be “of a routine character” that week. 

Hearings would be held on a number of bills, including bills on civil service, regulating 

marriage, and local topics such as building heights in New York City. However, the 

article ended by noting that legislators “will be interested in proceedings of the National 

Convention of the League of American Wheelmen, which opens a three day session here 

Wednesday” with a Good Roads Day. The LAW had invited the legislators to attend. 

“The Good Roads bill favored by the Wheelmen already has been introduced in the 

Legislature and hearings on the measure before the legislative committee will begin next 

week.” 

 

Good Roads Day opened on Wednesday, February 10, with delegates from every State 

except Florida and Louisiana (the Florida delegate was en route). The Times reported on 

February 11 that, Miss Mabel Woodberry of Danville, Illinois, “bears the distinction of 

being the first woman to act as a delegate in a League of American Wheelmen 

Assembly.” 

LAW President Sterling Elliott gave a brief speech on the value of good roads before 

introducing Lieutenant Governor Timothy L. Woodruff. He spoke of the need for 

improved roads, but where that was not possible, cycle paths should be provided: 

Where roads or streets are not adapted by nature or by improvement for wheeling, 

and cannot be made available without great expense, there should be constructed, 

if practicable, cycle paths for the exclusive use of the riders of the wheel. This 

plan was carried out in Brooklyn during the recent administration of the 

Department of Parks, and to-day her cycle paths furnish for the three millions of 

people of the Greater New York the finest wheel facilities in the world—from the 

very heart of the great municipality to the delightful roads which stretch 

throughout the length and breadth of Long Island . . . . 

He had a caution for the LAW members: 

Throughout the State, improvements of this exceptional character, involving great 

expense cannot and should not be entertained; indeed, they are not needed. What 

we do require is a systematic, intelligent and aggressive development of the 

roadways, with which nature has so plentifully endowed our great and beautiful 

Commonwealth. 

Such roads would benefit not only the wheelmen and wheelwomen but the farmers. 

Everyone, regardless of political affiliation, “should co-operate with you [the LAW] in 

extending to this worthy object the power of the State and its financial assistance as far as 

the proper care of its many great and eleemosynary [charitable] interests will permit.” 

He had campaigned with a promise to “put forth my best efforts” to work with those who 

favored good roads and “I am now prepared to do all in my power to redeem that 

promise.” 
The article briefly reviewed the day’s other speeches, including General Harrison’s 

afternoon address on “his experiences while traveling through New York and 

Pennsylvania in the interests of highway improvements.” He reported that the farmers 

were beginning to come around to the cause. 

General Stone was not listed as speaking on Good Roads Day. However, he addressed 

the LAW’s Good Roads Banquet on February 11. The Times did not report on the 

speech, but General Stone reprinted it in ORI Circular 28, a collection of his addresses 

around the country. He knew he didn’t have “to preach good roads to the wheelmen” 

because every wheelman “is a preacher, a worker, and a fighter for good roads.” All the 

wheelmen needed were the “texts for preaching, tools to work with, and weapons to fight 

with, and then to hold him back when his zeal outruns his discretion.” 

He recalled his first experience with the LAW 5 years earlier: 

In my first experience, five years ago, with the help of the League of American 

Wheelmen, under the guidance of President Burdett and the active and able 

leadership of ex-President Dunn, and when the league had less than half of its 

present strength, I found how potent an agency it could be made; our bill for a 

national highway commission was pushed through the Senate of the United States 

almost entirely by the wheelmen’s aid, and only failed in the House of 

Representatives through the determination of one man who had it in his power to 

put his foot upon it, and he was one who came from a district where the roads 

were so bad that he had scarcely a wheelman for a constituent. In that context the 

most grave and reverend seniors of the Senate were startled by the enthusiasm of 

their constituents for good roads, as shown by the flood of telegrams and columns 

of editorials, all of which I happened to know were inspired by our friends of the 

wheel. 

The national commission having failed, General Stone said, “we organized a National 

League of Good Roads” that led to creation of the ORI: 

We are ready through that office to furnish facts and arguments showing why 

good roads are necessary, how they can be built, and how they are being built in 

many parts of this great country. We have a whole arsenal of weapons now at 

your service. 

The next step in the movement was to convince the farmers that good roads were in their 

interest: 

In your discussion with the farmers and their representatives, you can bring to 

bear this powerful argument: That it is time to do away with the cruel injustice 

which places upon them and upon the small fraction of the property in the State 

which they hold the entire burden of building highways for the whole people. 
The “burden of the bad-roads tax,” in the form of unnecessary expenditures, “is infinitely 

greater than the tax for road building and repair.” He said: 

And when the wheelmen’s league and all the farmers’ associations pull together 

harmoniously in this direction, working only for justice and the public welfare, 

there is no limit to the power they may exercise and the good they may 

accomplish. 

Prosperity for the whole country will date from the happy hour in which that 

beneficent combination is established. 

He discussed the value of good roads (“That good roads will bring prosperity is no idle 

dream”), the need to involve cities in the cause, and the benefit of employing convict 

labor for good roads. 

Since most participants in the banquet were from New York, General Stone estimated 

that bad roads cost the State about $30 million annually (“and this is no guesswork, but 

the result of careful investigation and computation”). “This loss is wholly chargeable to 

bad government, and the remedy for it ought to be the first concern of the lawmakers of 

the State.” No other cause could “compare with it in magnitude or in pressing 

importance.” It was not as if the solution were hard to find – “no further study of the 

subject is needed and no experiment is required.” He advocated the State-aid approach 

used in Massachusetts and other States: 

If the best available intelligence of this State can be set to work to apply their 

example and adapt their experience to the conditions that exist here, it need not be 

long till New York is abreast of the leaders in the race. 

He concluded: 

Taking New Jersey for a pattern in State aid and California for the use of convicts 

in preparing road materials, we have all the legislation that is needed . . . . Put 

your idle prisoners at this work in this State and you have solved the convict-labor 

question as well as the road question. 

Following the Albany convention, General Stone went to Orlando, Florida, for the 

National Good Roads Congress. He was selected to chair the convention and “what he 

had to say was closely followed by his auditors.” Reporting that the “discussions were all 

entertaining and instructive” and resulted in “much benefit,” the columnist did not 

indicate what was said. 

According to a Times article on February 26, 1897, General Stone attended the Senate 

Finance and Assembly Ways and Means Committee’s hearing on the LAW good roads 

bill on February 25: 
The committee gave a hearing upon the Good Roads bill now pending in the 

Legislature, especially upon the measure introduced by Senator Higbie and 

Assemblyman Armstrong, which was prepared under the supervision of President 

Isaac B. Potter of the National League of American Wheelmen. 

The article reported that one witness, A. B. Crocker of Bethlehem Centre, “bitterly 

opposed the bill, as being too much a burden for the farmers to stand at present.” County 

Engineer McLaughlin of Queens County requested an exemption from any expense under 

the bill for his county because the county “had already expended $3,000,000 for repairs 

to roads, and that it felt it had done sufficient for this cause.” 

Other than that, “There were no further objections.” The article concluded that, “All the 

other gentlemen present favored the bill.” It did not state whether General Stone testified 

before the joint committees. 

[“Schoolboys and Roads,” January 31, 1897 

“Gossip of the Cyclers,” January 24, 1897 

“Gossip of the Cyclers,” February 7, 1897 

“The New York Legislature,” February 8, 1897 

“American Wheelmen Meet,” February 11, 1897 

“Gossip of the Cyclers,” February 21, 1897 

“The Good Roads Question,” February 26, 1987] 

Mazamas 

A mazamas, according to an article in the Times on July 18, 1897, is a species of 

mountain goat, as well as the name of a mountain climbing club on the North Pacific 

Coast. After describing the club and its activities, the article explained that in 1897, the 

plan was to visit Washington State’s Mount Rainier, “the largest and highest mountain in 

the United States,” beginning July 20. Because scientific research was a feature of all 

Mazamas enterprises, the group made “a very special effort . . . to interest and secure the 

co-operation of the scientific departments of the Government.” Officials of Agencies 

such as the U.S. Geological Survey and the U.S. Fish Commission had agreed to 

participate. Other officials were expected to be assigned to participate, including General 

Stone. (The article listed his name without explaining why Mazamas thought it would 

need a roadbuilder on Mount Rainier.) 

Whether General Stone participated, the Times search engine is unable to reveal. 

However, the Rambler is reasonably certain General Stone did not join this ill-fated 

expedition. The July 31 edition of the Times reported that Professor Edgar McClure of 

Oregon State University fell down a 300-foot precipice to his death, while two other 

climbers “had terrible experiences”: 

H. A. Ainslie and George Rogers of Portland, Oregon, got lost in a manner very 

similar to McClure’s experience, and fell forty feet into a crevasse on Cowlitz 

glacier. Both were rendered unconscious, but Ainslie was not so severely stunned 
as his companion. With great effort he succeeded in climbing over ice to the top, 

and then crawled two miles to Camp Mazama and gave warning. 

Rescuers found Rogers who “was taken out nearly dead and carried to the camp.” 

That same afternoon, a party of six, including William Pierce of Pendleton, Oregon, 

started for the summit: 

After climbing several hours, Mr. Pierce turned around on the Cowlitz ice fields 

and greatly alarmed his companions by his agitation. He was prostrated and 

partially demented from gazing down the frightful precipice on both sides, for 

thousands of feet downward perpendicular walls of ice greeting the eye. 

Meanwhile, Professor Brown of Stanford University began his ascent alone, became lost 

above Gibraltar Rock, and wandered around for hours before “finally sinking down 

behind some rocks exhausted. A rescue party found him and returned him to Camp 

Mazama just in time. “In an hour he would have been frozen to death.” 

[“Mountaineering Extraordinary,” July 18, 1897 

“Accidents on Mt. Rainier,” July 31, 1897] 

Object-Lesson Roads

Following the election of Ohio Governor William McKinley as President in 1896, the 

Department of Agriculture loosened restrictions on the ORI. Secretary of Agriculture 

James Wilson encouraged General Stone to emphasize the practical, scientific, and 

experimental over the academic. 

One outgrowth of the new approach was the object-lesson road program, an idea General 

Stone borrowed from Massachusetts. The idea was to build short stretches of good roads, 

initially at the Department’s agricultural experiment stations, partly to educate local 

citizens, engineers, and officials and partly to create support for good roads on the theory 

that “seeing is believing.” ORI, with its small budget, had to rely on donations of 

equipment and material, but General Stone hired General Harrison to take charge of the 

important new program. 

General Harrison built the first object-lesson road in June 1897 at the entrance to the New 

Jersey Agriculture College and Experiment Station in New Brunswick. The Federal cost 

was $321. In addition to building the road, General Harrison lectured area residents and 

officials on what he was doing. (Harrison would lead the object-lesson team until his 

death in February 1901.) 

On August 1, 1897, the Times reported on the second project, this one at the New York 

Experiment Station in Geneva: 
It is learned that the second of the sample roads to be built in connection with the 

newly established Office of Road Inquiry is at present in its first stages of 

construction at this place . . . . The director of the station (W. H. Jordan) desires 

that the citizens of New York, especially those who have the care of roads or who 

are engaged as engineers or otherwise in road construction, shall visit and inspect 

this operation while it is in progress, in order that the maximum benefit from this 

educational road building may be derived. 

Wednesday and Thursday of each week are set apart for visitors. During these 

days either Gen. Roy Stone [of] the Road Inquiry Office or Special Agent E. G. 

Harrison will be present to explain the work to them. A movement is on foot to 

have each county select a day when its visitors shall visit Geneva in a body. 

General Stone’s article on “Object-Lesson Roads” appeared in the 1897 Yearbook of the 

Department of Agriculture. [p. 373-382] After summarizing the work on Nichol Avenue 

and College Avenue in New Brunswick, he reprinted General Harrison’s report on the 

Geneva work. Harrison had visited the area in the spring to arrange for construction of a 

sample road from the experiment station to Arch Bridge on Castle Street. Estimating a 

cost of $7,000 to $8,000, Harrison approached two property owners along the road; they 

agreed to contribute $1,000 or more if necessary. He returned in May to secure village 

funding. He addressed a citizens’ tax meeting on May 18 to explain the plan for the 

object-lesson road. “The appropriation of $3,000 was carried by a vote of 60 to 4.” 

The Good Roads Machinery Company of Kennett Square, Pennsylvania, and the BuffaloPitts Company of Buffalo, New York, provided equipment without charge that was worth 

$6,000 to $7,000. Work began on July 16, but was not finished until November 8: 

The road was an expensive one, owing in part to the fact that it was a city street, 

requiring attention to sewers and gas and water pipes, and also requiring grading 

to a nicety not necessary in a country road. The grading also was very difficult, 

owing to the fact that the road had been graveled for many years with very coarse 

material, including a large amount of cobblestones. It was designed to make a 

good smooth dirt road alongside of the stone road, and to do this required that all 

cobblestones or coarse gravel be removed. The expense was further increased by 

the necessity of hauling most of the field stone which were used for the 

foundation over a distance of several miles and bringing the trap rock surface 

material a distance of over 300 miles from the Palisades of the Hudson River. 

The length of the road was increased by extending the work from Arch Bridge to 

Main Street, making a little over 11⁄2 miles in all . . . . The foundation was entirely 

of crushed field stone laid 5 inches thick with a surfacing of trap rock 3 inches 

thick. 

During the construction of this road it was visited by many hundreds of farmers 

from different portions of the State, including officials from half the counties of 

the State. 
Total cost was $9,046.32, with the experiment station contributing $1,040.73 along with 

funds from the town and three citizens. The result “seems to be meeting with favor,” 

especially the portion on Castle Street “from Mr. Mellin’s to the Octagon House.” 

Harrison added, “The only unsatisfactory piece is that portion between the brick 

pavement and Main Street.” Mud had been carried onto it and when it dried, “it has 

appeared to roll up on the wheels and take some of the surfacing of the road with it.” 

Nevertheless, the new road was “getting a very large amount of use” and was “the only 

place where the horsemen could drive” along with “everyone who had a load to draw.” 

He added “that the town of Geneva has purchased the road machinery.” [p. 376-378] 

As 1897 came to an end, the LAW was increasing its role in promoting good roads. The 

Gossip of the Cyclers column reported on December 19, 1897, that the LAW’s National 

Committee for Highway Improvement had proposed to distribute 1 million pamphlets on 

the good roads movement, especially the merits of State aid. Otto Dorner, the 

committee’s chairman, “is preparing the book for the press, with the assistance of Gen. 

Roy Stone.” The pamphlet would be distributed to farmers and State and local officials. 

The article explained that, “Gen. Stone has issued, since the establishment of the Good 

Roads Bureau, some fifty different bulletins relating to various phases of the good roads 

problem, and containing a great deal of valuable information, but the appropriations made 

by Congress for the support of the bureau being limited in amount, it has been impossible 

to circulate the bulletins upon a large scale.” The national committee proposed to 

supplement this effort. 

In 1898, the ORI published ORI Circular No. 31, Dorner’s Must the Farmer Pay for 

Good Roads? It stated that just as the burden of bad roads was shared by all, every 

citizen of the State and Nation should share in the cost of repairing them. The circular 

proved to be the ORI's most popular, in part because the ORI used a mailing list provided 

by the LAW to send free copies to 300,000 farmers.

[“Sample Road Building,” August 1, 1897 

“Gossip of the Cyclers,” December 19, 1897] 

The Grand Highway

On February 20, 1898, Gossip of the Cyclers reported on a “most alluring scheme to the 

wheelmen,” namely a grand highway across the continent. It was not a new idea, but one 

that General Stone had recently revived. In an 1895 speech to the Tennessee Road 

Convention, he had called it the Great Road of America, a transcontinental highway that 

would join at right angles with similar highways spanning the East and West Coasts. The 

column quoted General Stone on the financing of the proposal under which the States 

through which the highway would pass and the general government would “bear the 

expenses, which would ultimately be repaid from the benefits of such a concourse.” He 

explained: 
Suppose that property were to be assessed with a long term of payment, in 

installments running up to ten, fifteen, or twenty years, and suppose the property 

actually adjoining the road were to be assessed $2 an acre, for instance, and the 

next half mile back a little less, and so on, but always giving the party owning the 

property the privilege of selling out his land at a valuation if he did not choose to 

pay the assessment, and of buying back again by paying the interest if he found he 

had made a mistake. The Government could well afford to make that liberal 

proposition, and it would result in nearly all the present property owners getting 

the actual benefit of the increase of the value of their property and paying the 

assessment entirely out of such increase of value.

This idea would not be adopted, as General Stone probably realized. 

[“Gossip of the Cyclers,” February 20, 1898] 

Spanish-American War

Portrait of a General discussed the origins of the Spanish-American War and General 

Stone’s participation in it. In short, the explosion of the U.S.S. Maine in Havana harbor, 

attributed to the Spanish military, prompted President McKinley to ask Congress on April 

11, 1898, for permission to use American forces to end Spanish rule in Cuba. He also 

asked for 125,000 volunteers for the war, and would need officers to lead them. 

General Stone requested a leave of absence to serve under General Nelson A. Miles, the 

Commanding General of the United States Army. On May 12, 1898, the Times reported 

that General Stone had offered his services and that General Miles had recommended that 

they be accepted. Secretary Wilson “heartily acquiesced in the suggestion.” As a result, 

“Gen. Stone is now installed for temporary duty in the War Department.” The article 

continued: 

The Agricultural Department owns road-making machinery with which it has 

experimented, and this outfit has been placed at the disposal of the War 

Department. Nothing definite will be done by Gen. Stone until word is received 

from Col. Ludlow of the Engineer Corps, who is now at Tampa, and is being 

consulted as to what is necessary. 

General Miles, the article stated, considered it “especially important” to be “fully 

equipped with supplies and the most improved machinery for the construction of roads 

and railroads, and also with experts in the use of such machinery and construction.” 

General Stone was appointed Brigadier General of United States Volunteers on June 8, 

consistent with his rank during the Civil War. He accepted the appointment on June 14. 

While he was away, President McKinley brought his friend and former associate in Ohio, 

Martin Dodge, to Washington as Acting Director of the ORI. 
On June 24, the Times reported that General Stone, serving on General Miles’ staff, “has 

prepared a manual for the use of troops operating in Cuba, covering the most expeditious 

means of cutting military roads through the tangled tropical vegetation, swamps, and 

underbrush” the army would encounter. In preparing the manual, General Stone had 

studied Cuban soil, vegetation, and timber growth. In addition to “having a personal 

acquaintance with the country,” he had collected photographs and maps showing the 

topography of the island. (The Rambler does not known when General Stone had visited 

Cuba.) 

He emphasized the use of the guava tree or bush, “which grows in luxurious abundance” 

throughout Cuba: 

He gives diagrams by which this is to be cut and the boughs bound upward, 

making a compact roll, about the size of a small log. These guava bundles, 

known as fascines, are laid lengthwise, one row of bundles lapping over another, 

like shingles. There are successive layers of these bound together, making a 

serviceable roadway strong enough for troops, and even for field ordnance. 

The article quoted the pamphlet: 

If the road is an important one, it should have about sixteen feet of travelway, and, 

to allow for ditches on either side, the ground should be cleared at least thirty feet 

wide. Running through a wooded country, the advance or clearing party should 

be equipped with axes, machetes, bush scythes, and a few forks, and should be 

instructed to cut and clear away all vines, weeds, and small undergrowth, and to 

bind up into bundles all small bushes less than an inch in diameter at the ground, 

these bundles to be kept for repairs of roads. If there is heavy timber, the second 

gang, equipped with axes and saws, will chop out all trees, leaving the roots in the 

ground, and saw the trees into such lengths as will allow the logs to be hauled or 

rolled off the roadway. 

A third gang would then go through the area with axes, hatchets, and twine to create the 

fascines for the roadbed. The article stated that in crossing swampy ground, the gang 

should first place a layer of poles or canes lengthwise on the road, with the fascines on 

top. “While these bush roads might seem insecure, they are, as a matter of fact, more 

solid than an ordinary corduroy road, the bundles of bushes being crowded together with 

crowbars until they lie with the solidity of baled hay.” 

The manual also provided details on grubbing out timber, making sluiceways, and using 

sugar cane “as one of the best layers for improving the sandy roads.” The bark of the 

palm tree also could be used for this purpose. However, General Stone warned against 

using pine needles “as they work to the surface and are liable to be burned off,” 

according to the Times article. 

General Stone was still in Washington on July 3 when the U.S. Navy destroyed the 

Spanish fleet as it tried to escape a blockade of the harbor of Santiago in Cuba. On July 
8, 1898, the Times reported that General Miles and his party, including General Stone, 

had left Washington on the Southern Railway for Charleston, South Carolina. General 

Miles intended to go on to Santiago to take charge of operations. 

Shipping supplies from the harbor to troops in Cuba was a problem. According to an 

article in the Times on July 14, 1898, the Army imported stevedores from Tampa, 

Florida, to help unload the ships and move supplies to where they were needed. 

Additional help was on the way: 

When Gen. Miles sailed from Charleston for Cuba he left Gen. Roy Stone of his 

staff in that city to engage several hundred negro laborers to be taken to Santiago 

to build roads, dig trenches, and help generally in making easy the path of the 

American Army. This work in ordinary circumstances is done by the soldiers 

themselves, and the men at Santiago have done a vast amount of it 

uncomplainingly, but it is recognized that the extraordinary conditions at Santiago 

make unusual methods necessary and that a few hundred negroes will be able to 

relieve the men of some of the hardships to which they have been exposed. 

Gen. Stone has succeeded in hiring the men he wants and they are now at 

Charleston awaiting transportation. They will be hurried forward as soon as 

possible, and as soon as they get there will be put to work under the direction of 

Gen. Stone, who, as an expert road builder, will be able to make effective use of 

them in that work. 

Neither the laborers nor General Stone made it to Cuba. 

[“Roadmakers for the Army,” May 12, 1898 

“Road Making in Cuba,” June 24, 1898 

“Miles to the Front,” July 8, 1898 

“Laborers for Santiago,” July 14, 1898] 

In Puerto Rico 

When the fight for control of Cuba ended a few days later, on July 17, General Miles 

turned his attention to Puerto Rico. 

His first problem was getting there from Cuba. Despite detailed plans for his 

transportation to Puerto Rico with an escort of warships, his departure was delayed, as the 

Times reported on July 21, 1898 (dateline July 20): 

Gen. Miles failed to get away from Guantanamo last night with the vanguard of 

the Puerto Rico expedition, and he lays the blame for the delay on the navy . . . . 

No light is shed by either army or navy officials here [in Washington] on the 

puzzling question as to why there should have been any delay in the providing of 

a naval escort for this advance guard of this expedition. In view of the fact that 

nearly the entire strength of the navy is massed in the vicinity of Santiago and that 
the need of a convoy has been known for a week, the present delay, which War 

Department officials of the highest grade unhesitatingly blame the navy for, is felt 

to be unnecessary, to say the least. 

The article outlined the forces General Miles intended to use during the invasion. In 

addition to the usual combat forces, a large engineering corps would be accompanying 

the General “and he has assigned to the expeditionary force full complements of hospital 

and signal detachments.” The article continued: 

To make the outfit still more complete, 600 negro laborers engaged at Charleston 

will be sent along to build docks, clear and mend roads, unload transports, and do 

such other heavy labor as they may be called on for. 

Because the plan was to take and occupy the entire island, not just the capital, the road 

and rail network and the harbors were critical: 

For the execution of such a scheme the preliminary seizure of one of the fine 

harbors on the south coast, near Ponce, the second city to San Juan in size and 

importance, is considered desirable, and this is what the advance guard under 

Gen. Miles is expected to do. 

The best road in [sic] the island runs from Ponce to the capital, and the march of 

the invading army along this highway would drive the Spanish force gradually 

back upon San Juan, whose capture after a combined land assault from the rear 

and bombardment from the front by the warships would be a matter of hours only. 

San Juan so lies that the fleet can remain out of range of the shore batteries and 

shell the town effectively. It is significant of the intention to do a good deal of 

marching in Puerto Rico that whereas little wagon transportation was sent with 

the Santiago force, the two brigades of [Generals] Ernest and Haines already 

under way to Puerto Rico have orders to take all their mules and wagons with 

them. This transportation will be available on the macadamized roads of Puerto 

Rico. 

By July 22, General Miles and his forces were well on their way, but he sent the 

following dispatch to Washington: 

Am disappointed in non-arrival of Col. Hecker with construction corps. Col. 

Black arrived without snag boats or lighters. Please send at least four strong seagoing steam lighters and tugs. Also Gen. Stone’s boats at Jacksonville, if not 

already sent, as soon as possible. Moving along well. 

The article indicated that transportation would also be provided for 400 laborers engaged 

by contract, and “the 600 negro laborers engaged by Gen. Stone at Charleston.” The 

article also explained that General Miles’ reference to “Gen. Stone’s boats at 

Jacksonville” referred to lumber boats. 
An article on July 24 again discussed transportation conditions in Puerto Rico based on a 

recently released “Military Notes on Puerto Rico” by the War Department’s Bureau of 

Information: 

From Yauco to Ponce, a distance of some ten or twelve miles, a railroad runs, 

followed for its entire course by a wagon road, both following the coast line so 

closely that an army proceeding along them would be under the protection of the 

fleet for the whole distance . . . . From Ponce to San Juan the road is eighteen feet 

wide, with twelve feet in the centre laid with pounded stone. The streams are 

crossed by iron bridges and the road is in good shape for travel all the year. 

A separate article that same day (datelined July 23) noted that several ships were en 

route, while the Ute, “chartered to take 600 negro laborers to Puerto Rico,” was at 

Charleston. A third article stated that the ship was on its way to Jacksonville with 

300,000 feet of lumber and the “force of negro workmen.” It added: 

At Charleston she will stop to get Gen. Roy Stone, who is an expert in road and 

pier building. 

A July 26 article (datelined July 25) picked up the transport arrangement: 

The Ute took on 600 negro laborers at Charleston to-day and is understood to 

have sailed for Jacksonville, where she is to ship a lot of landing boats secured by 

Gen. Stone of Gen. Miles’s staff. 

The Ute headed to Puerto Rico on August 3, with 75 mechanics, the Negro laborers, and 

about 600,000 feet of lumber “which will be used in constructing pontoons and buildings 

for use by United States troops in their invasion of the islands.” All kinds of other 

building material were included as well. 

Although the Rambler has been able to trace the departure of the Negro laborers for 

Puerto Rico, he has not found references to their work. From future references to 

General Stone, as discussed below, they were not assigned to him. As a result, the 

Rambler will move on to General Stone’s activities on the island. 

General Stone arrived in Ponce, Puerto Rico, on July 25, with General George 

Garretson’s brigade as a member of the Corps of Engineers. The Times first reported on 

General Stone’s activities in Puerto Rico on August 1. A story datelined Ponce, July 29, 

said: 

Gen. Garretson’s brigade is massed at Yauco, the terminus of the railway, fifteen 

miles off, and will probably remain there until the army is ready to move, but it is 

thought that the artillery will be brought here immediately. The railroad is in 

good order, but much of the rolling stock has been destroyed. Yesterday Gen. 

Roy Stone found several engines wrecked. The machinery had been taken to 
pieces by Spanish sympathizers and hidden. Gen. Stone gave them two hours to 

get the engines into working order, under penalty of imprisonment, and in less 

than that time the engines had steam up and were ready to move. 

 

On August 6, 1898 (dateline August 5), the Times reported that while General Miles 

prepared his troops to advance, “Gen. Roy Stone is repairing the road to Arcibo, but a 

movement there is improbable.” 

An article published August 17, 1898, datelined Ponce on August 3, explained that a 

reporter had accompanied General Stone on July 26: 

Last Tuesday the writer accompanied a reconnoitering expedition under Gen. Roy 

Stone of Pennsylvania into the mountains north of Ponce. It was remarkable in 

more ways than one. Gen. Miles had ascertained that the enemy’s position at 

Albonito was almost impregnable and he had decided to turn the left flank of the 

Spanish position by landing Gen. Brooks’s force at Arroyo and thence moving his 

column to Cayoy, in the rear of the Spanish position at Albonito. The advisability 

of a movement by our left flank was also discussed. This could be done if the 

road across the mountains to Arecibo on the north coast was passable. 

The reports were that there was a fine carriage road from Utuado to Arecibo. The 

only question was as to the character of the road as far as the former point. Gen. 

Stone volunteered to make the reconnaissance. He took with him several men of 

the Signal Corps, four newspaper correspondents in carriages, armed with 

Remingtons [i.e., typewriters], and C Company of the Second Wisconsin. The 

start was made at noon. 

The road led straight up to the tip of the mountain for ten miles, and the infantry 

company was soon far behind. The carriages were drawn by native ponies, and 

went up the mountain on a gallop, except when the reckless drivers stopped to 

breathe the animals. It was right into the heart of the enemy’s country. The road 

rises to an altitude of five thousand feet, and is an extension of the military road 

from San Juan to Ponce, which cost 25,000,000 Spanish pesos. Even to the top it 

is a marvelous piece of engineering. At times it is hewn out of the solid rock, 

hanging over sheer cliffs a thousand feet deep. At others it spans gorges with 

stone bridges. The scenery of the Alps, though bolder, of course, is not more 

beautiful. Everything is covered with luxurious tropical verdure, even the rocks. 

Brilliant flowering plants and trees splash the green with vivid color. 

Once at the top, the completed military road is ended; and then we started on to 

Adjuntas, ten miles off. The drivers drove like jehus. [“Jehus” was a common 

nickname for stagecoach drivers. The term derives from an Old Testament 

reference at 2 Kings 9:20: “and the driving is like the driving of Jehu the son of 

Nimshi: for he driveth furiously."] The vehicles had no brakes, and the little 

ponies on the descent, were on the “dead run” to keep away from the wheels. 

Bounding, turning, swaying, now an inch from a precipice on but two wheels, and 
now swinging into the side of the cliff, the occupants holding on for dear life, the 

vehicles went at a tremendous pace as the drivers whipped on their mad beasts. 

One false step, a stumble, would have sent us whirling into space. Few Western 

stage drivers could have safely accomplished this feat. 

Adjuntas was a coffee-trading center surrounded by coffee haciendas that employed the 

inhabitants. [Puerto Rico: A Guide to the Island of Boriquén, American Guide Series, 

The University Society, Inc., 1940, p. 362]. When General Stone and his few 

companions arrived in Adjuntas, they found “women and children lining the streets [who] 

bombarded us with bouquets of roses, fuschias, and wild flowers, while the men who 

formed the background cheered the Americans and cried ‘Down with Spain!’” As 

residents waved a few American flags, the Alcalde (Mayor) formally greeted General 

Stone, who addressed the people from the veranda of the Town Hall: 

In their enthusiasm the people could not wait for the translation. At every 

sentence they cheered. Then they cheered the translation. 

The festivities ended in the evening with the citizens offering to put up the members of 

the party. 

Gen. Stone finally accepted the invitation of a rich Englishman, who had lived 

there fifty-four years. His children spoke nothing but Spanish and French, and the 

old gentleman was so delighted that he could himself still speak English that he 

would not take no for an answer. 

The next day, General Stone continued on to Utuado, where the Spanish defenses quickly 

fell. 

Although General Stone had other adventures in Puerto Rico, the Times did not cover 

them, so the Rambler moves on. (See “Portrait of a General” for additional details.) The 

Spanish lowered their flag in San Juan on October 18, 1898, effectively ending the Cuban 

phase of the war. 

A tiny article in the Times on November 4, 1898, reported: 

On board the steamer Philadelphia of the Red D Line, which arrived last evening 

from Ponce, Puerto Rico, were Brig. Gen. Roy Stone, Col. Edward Hunter, and 

Col. George W. Goethals, en route to Washington. 

(In 1907, President Roosevelt selected Colonel Goethals, an engineer with the U.S. Corps 

of Engineers, as chief engineer of the Panama Canal, which would be completed in 

1914.) 

[“Miles Delayed by the Navy,” July 21, 1898 

“Army Speeding to Puerto Rico,” July 23, 1898 

“Miles May Reach Puerto Rico To-Day,” July 24, 1898 
“Army Has a Navy of its Own,” July 24, 1898 

“Movements of Transports,” July 24, 1898 

“Men for Miles are Delayed,” July 26, 1898 

 “Puerto Rico an Easy Conquest,” August 1, 1898 

“Lumber for Miles’s Army, August 4, 1898 

“Not Stopped by Peace Talk,” August 6, 1898 

“Spaniards Made no Fight,” August 17, 1898 

“Gen. Roy Stone Arrives from Ponce,” November 4, 1898] 

After the War 

A longer article that same day printed an extract of a letter General Stone had written to 

Martin Dodge to be read before the National Road Parliament at the Omaha Exposition. 

Unfortunately, the letter arrived too late for that purpose. The Times quoted two 

paragraphs from General Stone’s letter about road conditions in Puerto Rico: 

I can only add to all that I have heretofore said in favor of the [good roads] 

movement a warning and reproof drawn from a country where, except for a few 

military lines, no roads have ever been built, and where the bulk of the product of 

a marvelously rich soil is carried to market on the heads of men and women or the 

backs of diminutive animals. As a result of this neglect, together with other 

kindred causes, the agricultural population of the island, although industrious and 

frugal, is so poor as to be almost without shelter, furniture, or clothing, and 

entirely without supplies of food, so that their trifling wages must be paid day by 

day to enable them to continue this hopeless existence. 

If the change to American possession can be made to bring the blessings of good 

roads to this island, the lesson may react upon the continent itself and aid the 

work of road improvement at home; and this is one thing which encourages me in 

my local work here [in Puerto Rico] and consoles me for my absence from the 

greater field. With liberal treatment by our Government I hope to see here a quick 

example of the effects of good communications by road, railroad, and water on a 

heretofore homebound people. 

On February 5, 1899, the Times carried an article titled “A Lesson in Patriotism,” 

referring to the joy of seeing the American flag abroad. The article recounted an incident 

the previous August when forces under Generals Garretson and Guy V. Henry had left 

Ponce on a march that would take them across two mountain ranges to the Atlantic Coast. 

After a difficult mountain march, General Henry had gone ahead to Adjuntas which “a 

week previously, had ignominiously capitulated to Gen. Roy Stone, two Signal Corps 

men, and four newspaper correspondents, and was then, so its inhabitants thought, 

American territory.” The Alcalde “in the fullness of his joy at the appearance of the 

commander of the invaders” hoisted a tattered American flag over the Town Hall. 

When the weary troops followed General Henry into the city, one of their leaders, 

Colonel Rice, saw the flag: 
With the patriotic reverence inherent in the breast of the regular soldier he took 

off his hat and passed on without giving a sign. Almost at the same moment the 

leader of the band observed the emblem and intuitively he started his men playing 

Sousa’s stirring “Stars and Stripes” march. 

Finally, his men saw the flag: 

Then, with a unanimity that was almost perfect, the hundred men broke into a 

cheer, thrice repeated, while every hat was doffed. As each company passed the 

flag these cheers were repeated and the salute given, much to the amazement of 

the natives, who had never heard an American soldier’s cheer before. 

The following day, when the natives passed the flag, they also removed their hats in 

tribute. 

On April 4, 1899, the Times reported on the return of Inspector General Joseph C. 

Breckinridge following an inspection tour of Puerto Rico. In several weeks of riding 

across the island, he found considerable discontent and a danger of uprisings. The people 

were divided among those who favored annexation to the United States, returning to the 

Spanish flag, and establishing an autonomous country. Many believed they were under a 

military government. General Breckinridge also reported that General Stone “is engaged 

in constructing a railway across Puerto Rico, from the southeast to the northwest corner.” 

This line would complement a railroad running diagonally across the island, northeast to 

southwest. 

Poverty had worsened. “Over 100,000 of the natives . . . have been without bread and 

meat for six weeks, and are on the verge of starvation,” the Times reported on April 26, 

1899. The day before, the article stated that General Stone and the Executive Committee 

of the National Red Cross had called on President McKinley “to lay before him a plan for 

the partial relief of the destitution in Puerto Rico.” The article added that, “The aid the 

military authorities in Puerto Rico were able to give to the natives in the way of 

distribution of rations and employment on the roads has been greatly reduced since the 

free distribution of rations was suspended.” 

General Stone’s plan was for Puerto Rico to ship coffee to the United States to be sold 

through the Red Cross, with the proceeds helping relieve the country. The coffee and 

other products, such as crystal sugar, fruits, preserves, cigars, and cigarettes, would be 

sold in coffee rooms to be established in principal cities by the Red Cross. 

(Puerto Rican coffee had primarily been marketed in Spain and Cuba. Following the 

Spanish-American War, Spain established high tariffs that blocked import of Puerto 

Rican coffee. Cuba, which was beginning to grow its own coffee, also erected tariff 

barriers, leaving Puerto Rican coffee growers without an international market. General 

Stone discussed these issues in an article on “Agriculture in Puerto Rico” for the 1898 

Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture [p. 505-514]. He explained that the island 
country was in a depression because of its loss of established markets. The price of 

coffee had fallen 40 percent since the summer of 1898. General Stone added that: 

An additional, and the most serious, cause of the extremely low price of coffee is 

the excess of more than 6,000,000 sacks in this year’s production in Brazil. This, 

together with the comparatively short crop in Puerto Rico, has reduced the income 

of the island planters this year to less than one-third of the usual amount, leaving 

them in debt for previous advances and without means to make a new crop. 

(Planters had so little capital that they had discharged most of their laborers and, in some 

cases, abandoned cultivation. 

(Although Puerto Rican coffee did not have a market in the United States, it was 

“considered among the best in the world” in Europe: 

If it could be favorably introduced here, the increased demand would at once 

advance its price, which would give new credit to the Puerto Rican planters and 

enable them to resume work. 

(The Depression-era American Guide Series volume on Puerto Rico offered an additional 

concern: 

The use of Puerto Rican money was abolished in 1899 and United States currency 

substituted on the basis of 60 American cents for one peso. This necessitated 

readjustment of local values, temporarily to the disadvantage of the Island whose 

economy was based on the peso. At the time coffee was the economic mainstay 

of the Island, which exported 58,000,000 pounds. The coffee planters, 

encouraged by a consistent demand for their product in European markets during 

the latter half of the nineteenth century, had gone into an orgy of coffee 

production. They mortgaged their properties in order to buy more land, and the 

change of currency automatically increased their mortgage burden. [p. 55-56]) 

General Henry, who had been appointed Governor of Puerto Rico on December 6, 1898 

(serving through May 17, 1899), disputed reports of poverty conditions. On May 5, 

1899, the Times reported on a dispatch from General Henry to Acting Secretary of War 

Meiklejohn. Reports of starvation, General Henry said, were exaggerated: “over 

$100,000 a month is spent on roads; over 12,000 men employed; more money is 

distributed direct to people now every month than they have had for years.” He added 

that “nature here is too bountiful” for people to starve. Secretary Meiklejohn also had a 

letter from Philip C. Hanna, Consul in San Juan, reporting on the “successful efforts to 

Americanize the island by the adoption of American methods and regulations, all of 

which appears to be very acceptable to the business men of Puerto Rico.” 

The Times pointed out that these reports were in response to Secretary Meiklejohn’s 

effort to determine if General Stone’s report of dismal conditions and starvation were 

accurate. 
General Stone’s interest in Puerto Rico would continue, as reflected in an article on July 

29, 1901 about the gradual recovery of the island. The article stressed how the U.S.-

oriented Executive Council that governed the island had imposed restrictions that blocked 

foreign investment needed to invigorate the economy. “When the Executive Council 

came into being [in 1900] there were upward of thirty applications for franchises of 

various sorts,” but the only franchise of importance “that have been granted are for a 

railway, issued to Gen. Roy Stone, which is now seeking capital,” plus a trolley line in 

Ponce, and water power rights. 

[“No Roads in Puerto Rico,” November 4, 1898 

“A Lesson in Patriotism,” February 5, 1899 

“Discontent in Puerto Rico,” April 4, 1899 

“For Starving Puerto Ricans,” April 26, 1899 

“Prosperity in Puerto Rico,” May 5, 1899] 

Hurricane San Ciriaco

On August 8 and 9, 1899, a hurricane devastated Puerto Rico. During its 28-day cycle, 

Hurricane San Ciriaco scored the highest Accumulated Cyclone Energy ever recorded. 

Fatalities on Puerto Rico were between 3,000 and 3,500 people, with millions of dollars 

in crop damage. A second hurricane, which struck on August 22, added to the disaster. 

Public and private relief efforts began in the United States shortly after news of the 

disaster was received. On August 18, the Times reported on efforts by the Puerto Rican 

Relief Committee of the Merchants’ Association to ship goods to Ponce for the relief 

effort. The article included this statement: 

The following letter was received by the committee yesterday from the Secretary 

of War: 

I have asked Gen. Roy Stone to confer with you upon the following 

subject, namely: He says that well-to-do citizens of Puerto Rico, while 

without money, are willing to contribute large quantities of Puerto Rican 

coffee of the highest grade, provided it can be sold in the United States 

and turned into money. They might produce large additions to the relief 

fund and at the same time serve as a means of introducing Puerto Rican 

coffee. I hope that you will be able to arrange with Gen. Stone for such 

proceeding—that is, the sale of a suitable quantity of Puerto Rican coffee 

for the benefit of the fund. It seems to me that this being advertised 

widely would lead to a ready market and have a very beneficial effect. If 

this can be done we will arrange for bringing back the coffee on our 

transports as they return from Puerto Rico. 

The association followed up on Secretary of War Elihu Root’s recommendation. (Root 

had taken office as Secretary of War on August 1, 1899.) 
As relief supplies left by ship for the island, General Stone convened a meeting of Puerto 

Rican merchants and plantation owners who were in New York City. The Times reported 

on the meeting at the rooms of the Merchants Association on August 19: 

Gen. Stone called at the rooms of the Merchants’ Association at the suggestion of 

the Secretary of War. His plan, briefly outlined, is to have Puerto Ricans 

contribute a percentage of the crops of coffee of the highest grade, to be 

introduced in this market for the purpose of popularizing it with the coffee 

drinkers of this country, to whom it is practically unknown. It was finally agreed 

that Gen. Stone should prepare a statement of his plan in writing, to be 

promulgated through the proper channels in Puerto Rico for the purpose of 

soliciting or having donated coffee to be shipped to this country on a Government 

transport, to an amount not exceeding 100 bags, or 20,000 pounds for the first 

shipment, this coffee to be of the highest grade of coffee grown on the island. 

 

On August 20, the Times reported the Merchants Association had held a meeting the day 

before with several Puerto Rican plantation owners and merchants to discuss General 

Stone’s plan: 

P. M. Toro, who will return to Puerto Rico this week, agreed to put Gen. Roy 

Stone’s plan announced on Friday through, and arrange for a shipment of the best 

grades of coffee to an amount not exceeding 100 bags. The coffee will be brought 

on transports by permission of the Secretary of War. 

The Times reported on August 24 that the U.S. transport McClellan had left the 

Quartermaster’s dock at Brooklyn with the relief committee’s supplies for Puerto Rico 

the day before. The article noted: 

The Merchants’ Association Relief Committee has sent out a circular to the 

principal coffee planters of Puerto Rico, asking for contributions of the highest 

grades of Puerto Rican coffee, not to exceed 100 bags, or 20,000 pounds, to be 

shipped to the committee in the city, the idea being to popularize Puerto Rican 

coffee in this country. The Secretary of War has offered to bring this coffee to the 

United States free of charge on one of the Government transports. R. H Macy & 

Co. have agreed to sell the coffee in their restaurant, turning the proceeds over to 

the Puerto Rican Relief Committee. The firm of John Wanamaker has also agreed 

to place the coffee on sale in its store in small lots, selling it for the benefit of the 

Puerto Rican fund. 

(Macy’s has become a national department store chain. Today, Wanamaker’s is less well 

known, but at the time John Wanamaker was one of the great department store merchants 

of the era. As Postmaster General under President Benjamin Harrison, Wanamaker 

initiated planning for rural free delivery although the service did not get underway until 

he had left office.) 
In concocting the plan, General Stone was probably not aware that the hurricane had 

devastated the uplands plantations where coffee was grown. The Times reported on 

August 23 that General George W. Davis, the Governor General of Puerto Rico, had 

reported on island conditions in a cable to the War Department. As for the coffee crop, 

he said, “In a few limited areas the coffee is half safe, [but in] remaining areas the crop is 

almost totally ruined.” General Davis estimated that “next year’s crop will not exceed 50 

per cent. [of] average.” 

On September 9, Secretary Root reduced the duty on coffee exported from Puerto Rico to 

Cuba from $12.15 per hundred kilograms to $3.40, effective October 9, with the former 

duty remaining in effect for coffee imported into Cuba from other sources. The article 

added: 

According to a cable message received by the Commissary General to-day 

[September 9] there is not very much coffee in Puerto Rico. Col. Nye has been 

instructed to purchase coffee for the army, and has bought 40,000 pounds. He 

cables that there is not more than 50,000 pounds more fit for use. The new crop 

will not be available before November, and the store and plantation coffee has 

been damaged by water. 

The subject was raised when the Senate Committee on Puerto Rico and Pacific Islands 

held a hearing in Washington on January 22, 1900. Delegates representing the Chamber 

of Commerce of Puerto Rico asked that the United States adopt a policy of free trade with 

the island. Coffee, they explained, comprised more than 60 percent of the island’s 

products. Free trade would result in most of the coffee finding its way to U.S. markets. 

Although Puerto Rican coffee was better than Brazilian coffee, one of the delegates said, 

Puerto Rican farmers would have to receive a higher price than Brazilian coffee or they 

would not produce it. The Times reported: 

The subject was further considered at an afternoon session, when Dr. Azel Ames 

and Julio Larrinago, residents of Puerto Rico, spoke of the political and 

commercial needs of the island. Gen. Roy Stone proposed as a means of 

introducing Puerto Rico coffee of [sic] the United States that a National society be 

incorporated by Congress, the incorporators including the wives of all prominent 

officials. 

The Rambler is unable to determine the fate of General Stone’s plan to import Puerto 

Rican coffee to generate revenue for hurricane relief, but it seems likely to have failed 

because of the devastation to the crop. The loss of its established markets and the 

devastation of the hurricane were major blows to Puerto Rican coffee growers and 

thousands of laborers. As the American Guide Series put it: 

This situation [the switch to U.S. currency], together with the ravages of the San 

Ciriaco hurricane in 1899 which completely destroyed the coffee plantations, was 

a death blow to the coffee economy of Puerto Rico. Losing their properties, the 

planters were forced to migrate to the towns and cities. The coffee workers 
followed them and were forced to squat on the outskirts of urban communities, 

giving rise to malodorous slums still in existence. [p. 56] 

[“Aid for the Puerto Ricans,” August 18, 1899 

“More Aid for Puerto Ricans,” August 19, 1899 

“Money for Puerto Ricans,” August 20, 1899 

“Relief for Puerto Ricans,” August 24, 1899 

“Gen. Davis Reports Distress,” August 23, 1899 

“Puerto Rican Coffee for Cuba,” September 10, 1899 

“Claims of Puerto Rico Heard,” January 23, 1900] 

 

Back to Work

While retaining a strong interest in Puerto Rico, General Stone returned to his post at the 

ORI on January 31, 1899. 

The Times reported on February 6, 1899, that he would participate in the National 

Assembly of the LAW meeting in Providence, Rhode Island. The first day was 

scheduled to be a Good Roads Day, with prominent speakers addressing the topic. 

General Stone was listed as speaking on “Puerto Rican Highways.” The Times did not 

report the details of General Stone’s speech. 

 “Wheelmen’s Annual Meet,” February 6, 1899] 

Interesting and Instructive

The Times published an article on June 24, 1899, surveying books of interest to municipal 

engineers. The article included a long section on roads, noting that the subject of good 

roads and streets “is one which affects the welfare of the community as much as any 

other.” It briefly related the history of the good roads movement, including establishment 

of the National League for Good Roads and initiation of the road inquiry in the 

Department of Agriculture: 

Much good has been accomplished by the Bureau of Road Inquiry thus created, at 

the head of which was placed Gen. Roy Stone, who was the Vice President of the 

National League. A little book by him, “New Roads and Road Laws in the 

United States,” (New York: D. Van Nostrand Company. $1) with excellent halftone illustrations of good and bad roads, is both interesting and instructive. 

[“Municipal Engineers,” June 24, 1899] 

G.A.R. Encampment

In September, Civil War veterans of the Grand Army of the Republic gathered in 

Philadelphia. President McKinley arrived in Philadelphia on September 4, 1899. 

According to an account in the Times on September 5: 
The President walked with uncovered head from the train shed to the street, and 

was cheered to the echo. He acknowledged the ovation with many smiles and 

bows. The party was driven rapidly to the Hotel Walton, and Mr. McKinley 

immediately retired to his private sitting room. 

An accompanying article about Lafayette Post No. 140, Department of New York, 

pointed out that it “has the distinction of having more notable army and navy officers on 

its membership roll than any other post in the country outside of Washington.” The 

article listed General Miles, General Stone, and several others, “all of whom, in addition 

to serving in the civil war, took park in the Spanish-American conflict.” 

[“The Philadelphia Reunion” and “Lafayette Post Leaves,” September 5, 1899] 

The Automobile Club of America 

As the 1890’s neared an end, the horse remained a dominant power source, with the 

automobile still a novelty. The Duryea Brothers had driven America’s first gasolinepowered automobile on the streets of Springfield, Massachusetts, on September 21, 1893, 

just 2 weeks before General Stone opened the ORI on October 3, 1893. (The Rambler 

recognizes that some contrarians dispute the Duryea Brothers’ “first,” but everyone is 

entitled to an opinion, however wrong it may be. He doesn’t want to hear from you.) 

The brothers established the Duryea Motor Wagon Company in 1895 to sell what they 

called the Buggyaut. Their first sale, and the first sale of an automobile in the United 

States, took place in early 1896. 

Given the prevalence of the horse, “America’s love affair with the automobile” had not 

yet begun when a meeting took place at the Waldorf-Astoria hotel in New York City on 

October 16, 1899, to adopt a constitution and by-laws and select permanent officers of 

the Automobile Club of America. Planning for the club had begun in June, when 

temporary officers and an executive committee had been appointed, according to a Times

article on October 17, 1899. Since June, the temporary officers had been in touch with 

Automobile Clubs in France, Great Britain, and Ireland regarding exchange of courtesies. 

The new club would arrange for storage houses, depots for the charging of electric 

vehicles, and a clubhouse for an exchange of views. It also would advocate good laws 

for automobiles and sponsor tours, runs, and contests, all activities it would have in 

common with the LAW. 

The founders of the Automobile Club were wealthy, prominent individuals, giving the 

association an image it would never shake. The club’s constitution allowed for 25 

honorary members, 400 active members, and unlimited life and associate members. 

Historian James J. Flink quoted Motor Age magazine as saying of the membership that 

“the millionaire and socially prominent contingent which gives the club its standing as an 

adjunct to swelldom enjoys membership in the Metropolitan, Union, and other leading 

social clubs.” Flink added: 
Through its membership roster of nationally prominent figures, the Automobile 

Club of America expected to transcend being merely another local organization of 

motorists. The New York club had ambitions to be the national voice and 

conscience of motorists. [Flink, James J., America Adopts the Automobile, 1895-

1910, The MIT Press, 1970, p. 145-146] 

A roster in the Times on October 31, 1899, listed General Stone as a member. 

One of the first issues the club addressed was securing approval for automobiles to 

operate in Central Park. Although General Stone had no role in the matter, at least as 

described in the Times, the Rambler was interested enough in this early controversy to 

pursue it through the Times archives. Those interested (and that should be everybody) 

may consult the Rambler sidebar, “Automobiles in Central Park – 1899.” 

 

[“Automobile Club Formed,” October 17, 1899 

 “The Automobile Parade,” October 31, 1899] 

Parade of Automobiles

General Stone resigned from the ORI on October 23, 1899. The last Times references to 

General Stone during his tenure in the ORI occurred on October 18 and 19, as far as the 

Rambler can determine. The October 18 article concerned the first session of the 

National Carriage and Harness Dealers’ Association at Grand Central Palace. The 

morning session, the article reported, was closed “and care was taken to admit no 

outsiders.” The afternoon session would be open, and the annual banquet would take 

place that night at the Hotel Marborough. General Stone was listed as one of the 

speakers at the banquet. 

During the afternoon session, Randolph Guggenheimer, president of the Municipal 

Council, delivered an address of welcome to New York City saying: 

I cannot conceive, gentlemen, that the time will ever come when carriages and 

horses will cease to be the pride and recreation of the wealthy. However bright 

the future may be of the horseless carriage, especially in the avenues of 

commerce, the horse, which has been one of the first friends and servants of man, 

will remain so until the end. 

His assurances notwithstanding, the convention planned to address the issue of 

automobiles on its second day. The Times explained, “It is said the advent of the 

horseless carriage has paralyzed many of the wagon manufacturing plants in the West.” 

About 400 members attended the banquet at the Hotel Marlborough, with W. W. 

Sergeant, president of the association, as chairman and ex-Congressman John S. Wise (RVa) as toastmaster. The Times summarized: 
Judge William J. Gaynor responded to the toast, “The Patriotic Duty of Business 

Man.” He referred to the work which had been accomplished in Brooklyn, where, 

he said, the interest manifested in the primary elections among business men was 

much more marked than in the Borough of Manhattan. Gen. Roy D. Stone replied 

to the toast, “Good Roads.” I.S. Remsen, John Hassett, and Frederick H. Gowen 

were the other speakers. 

The Times did not summarize General Stone’s remarks. 

Although General Stone was no longer associated with the ORI, he retained his interest in 

roads. The Times would cite him again on October 31, 1899, in an article about a 

pending automobile parade sponsored by the Automobile Club: 

The Board of Governors of the Automobile Club of America met at the WaldorfAstoria last night complete arrangements for the run next Saturday . . . . The first 

run of the club on Saturday promises to be a very successful affair. There will be 

nearly 100 vehicles in line. 

The run was to start at the Waldorf-Astoria at 33rd Street and Fifth Avenue, circle around 

Morris Park, Morningside Park, and Columbia College on the way to Riverside, 

Claremont, and then back to the Waldorf-Astoria. 

“Runs” were a common experience in the early years of the automobile era, just as they 

had been during the Bicycle Craze. They were an opportunity to say “I can afford an 

automobile and driver” in a setting where other motorists were around to help with 

needed repairs. They also were a way of finding out what these new means of 

conveyance could do. 

The article listed the entire membership of the club, including “Gen. Roy Stone.” The 

article noted that Richard Croker, Afred Gwynne Vanderbilt, and Cornelius Vanderbilt 

has been proposed for membership but were not listed as members. Dr. Whitney Lyon, a 

member of the board, explained why: “The gentlemen named were proposed and are still 

eligible, but they have made no personal application. We are not hunting for members 

and in that respect are like Masonic bodies.” (Croker, who dominated the corrupt 

Tammany Hall during this period, had accumulated a fortune in bribes. He engineered 

the election of Robert A. Van Wyck in 1897 to be the first Mayor of the new fiveborough New York City, supposedly dominating the Van Wyck administration.) 

General Stone next appeared in the newspaper’s society column in a reference to the 

automobile run: 

The parade of automobiles, which is to take place in the city to-morrow afternoon, 

is attracting a large amount of advance attention. There is so much interest now 

taken in the development of the automobile that this first parade of the recently 

organized club promises to be attended and witnessed by a large and 

representative throng. 
General Stone was listed as one of the “well-known men [who] will be among the guests 

of the club on the parade.” 

The club had planned the run carefully, as the Times explained that same day in a news 

article: 

All arrangements for the run to-morrow have been completed, and intending 

participants are expected to report to the committee at the Waldorf-Astoria before 

taking the places in line assigned them. While it is expected that all who will take 

part in the parade will come with their vehicles fully charged for the trip, [Club] 

Secretary [Captain Homer W.] Hedge announced that arrangements have been 

made for a renewal of motive power in case of emergency. 

In the run to-morrow the automobiles will proceed at an average speed of eight 

miles an hour . . . . It is expected that many ladies will be among the paraders. 

A private dining room at the Waldorf-Astoria had been engaged along with several 

ladies’ dressing rooms. The parade would be postponed 1 week in the event of rain. 

The Times reported on November 5 that the run had been a success: 

With the exception of one punctured tire there was not a single incident to mar the 

proceedings. 

The article said that “all sorts of horseless carriages were in evidence,” electric- and 

gasoline-powered, outside the hotel along 33rd Street, Astor Court, Fifth Avenue, and 34th

Street: 

At 2 o’clock sharp the band ceased playing and the automobiles started . . . . All 

along the line sidewalks were packed with interested spectators. 

There was some change in the proposed route of the vehicles, because of the hills. 

The procession moved from One Hundred and Thirtieth Street to Seventh 

Avenue, to One Hundred and Tenth Street, to Eighth Avenue, to One Hundred 

and Sixth Street, to the Boulevard, and thence to Riverside and Claremont, as 

originally published in these columns . . . . 

Many frisky horses were on the line traveled, but none of the animals was 

disquieted by the appearance of the machines. 

The group halted at Claremont for a luncheon, after which the procession started 

homeward: 

[Near] Grant’s Tomb Gen. [Avery D.] Andrews took his vehicle to the right of the 

road, and the other paraders passed in review. 
The article did not list General Stone as participating, but The Rambler would like to 

think he had a grand time. 

[“Carriage Makers’ Conference, October 18, 1899 

“Carriage Dealers in Session,” October 19, 1899 

“The Automobile Parade,” October 31, 1899 

“What is Doing in Society,” November 3, 1899 

“Automobile Club’s Run,” November 3, 1899 

“Parade of Automobiles,” November 4, 1899 

“Automobile Club’s Run,” November 5, 1899] 

For Good Roads 

When the Automobile Club met at the Waldorf-Astoria on February 3, 1900, to plan a 

campaign of encourage the legislature to appropriate funds for the Higbee-Armstrong 

bill, General Stone was on hand to make an address, as was his ORI associate, General 

Harrison. The legislature had appropriated $50,000 a year for State-aid under the 

Higbee-Armstrong bill during its first 2 years of operation. A February 4 article about 

the meeting stated that because New York was far behind Massachusetts and New Jersey, 

the club would make efforts “to show that if the commerce is to be retained and 

merchandise brought satisfactorily to the railroads and canals upon which so much public 

money is being lavished the highways must be improved.” The article did not quote 

General Stone. 

The Times reported on March 14, 1900, that the Automobile Club would tender “a 

complimentary dinner” to General Nelson A. Miles,” the hero of the Spanish-American 

War, on April 2. “Gen. Roy Stone, who has been instrumental in agitating the good roads 

project in this State, will also be a guest.” 

The Times’ April 3 account of the dinner did not mention General Stone. The article 

focused on a resolution the Automobile Club adopted urging construction of a 

transcontinental road that followed the “H” pattern General Stone had proposed a few 

years earlier. “The resolutions proposed that the National Government should pay onethird the cost; the twenty-five States and Territories through which the road would pass, 

one-third, and the cities and towns one-third.” Although the article did not say so, the 

Rambler considers it likely that General Stone was the source of the proposal. 

In support of the idea, General Miles discussed the government’s involvement in the 

transcontinental railroad: 

He said that in the building of the transcontinental railroads which had been aided 

by the Government there had been something more than a commercial incentive. 

The co-meeting of the East and West was of patriotic import. He reviewed the 

route suggested and advised that the question of military importance should be 
left out. There were other ample reasons for good roads which must appeal not 

only to the automobilist and wheelmen, but to the farmers of the country. 

The Rambler would not claim that this was the first time a military leader pointed out that 

defense was not sufficient justification for building good roads. However, this sentiment 

would be repeated many times in the 20th century, most notably by General John J. 

Pershing, the hero of World War I, and General Dwight D. Eisenhower, the hero of 

World War II and future President who would do much to bring about the Interstate 

System. The military view has consistently been that if the Nation builds roads to meet 

civilian needs, the roads will satisfy military needs. 

On June 11, 1900, General Stone was at the Schwalbach’s Academy on Flatbush Avenue 

in Brooklyn when the Good Roads Association of Brooklyn and Long Island held its 

semi-annual meeting. The following day, the Times reported on the event: 

The principal address of the evening was made by Gen. Roy Stone, who had come 

on from Washington to speak at the meeting. Gen. Stone advocated the postal 

savings bank system for raising money to be applied to the building of good 

roads. He also discussed the project for a system of great trans-continental 

highways. 

Gen. Stone said that the cost of building these roads would be about $20,000 a 

mile, according to a careful estimate. The National Government could be asked 

to assume one-fourth of the expense of constructing the roads, the States through 

which the roads would pass another quarter of the expense, and the remaining half 

of the cost could be raised by assessing the owners of the land lying for several 

miles on either side of each of the roads. 

During his good roads crusade, General Stone had often mentioned postal savings banks 

as a way of financing road projects. People who did not trust banks, or did not have 

access to banks, would give their spare money to “banks” established in post offices, 

which would invest the funds in county road bonds. The bonds would pay for the roads, 

while the interest paid on the bonds would increase the value of the banks’ holdings. 

General Stone usually extrapolated from the experience in Great Britain, which had 

instituted postal savings banks in the 1860’s, to estimate the road building capabilities of 

such a system in the United States. 

(The United States would follow Great Britain’s example in legislation enacted on June 

25, 1910, without the relationship to road bonds that General Stone had proposed. The 

system would remain in effect until being abolished by statute in March 1966.) 

[“Meeting to Urge Good Roads,” February 4, 1900 

“Automobile Club Feast,” March 14, 1900 

“Automobile Club Plans Vast Roads,” April 3, 1900 

“Met to Talk of Good Roads,” June 12, 1900] 
McKinley’s Reelection

In 1896, Governor McKinley of Ohio, the Republican, had defeated the nominee of the 

Democratic Party, William Jennings Bryan, to become President of the United States. 

McKinley won, 271 electoral votes to 176; and 7.1 million votes (51 percent) to 6.5 

million. The fact that the country was still suffering from a major economic downturn 

that had begun in 1893 helped McKinley defeat Bryan, who represented the party of the 

incumbent President, Grover Cleveland. (The Democratic Party rejected Cleveland’s bid 

to be the party’s nominee in 1896.) 

Bryan and President McKinley would match up again in 1900, this time with the 

President’s popularity assured by a return to prosperity (campaign slogan: “Four More 

Years of the Full Dinner Pail”), success in the Spanish-American War, and his new Vice 

Presidential nominee, Governor Theodore Roosevelt, who had distinguished himself with 

his Rough Riders in Cuba during the war. 

The Times reported on August 2, 1900, that Senator Redfield Proctor of Vermont had 

visited Republican National Headquarters. (Proctor had served in the State Legislature, 

as Lieutenant Governor (1876-1878), Governor (1878-1880), and Secretary of War under 

President Harrison before resigning to become a U.S. Senator in 1891.) He was 

confident that Vermont would remain Republican in November, but met with Senator 

Mark Hanna, McKinley’s campaign manager, to discuss the prospects for increasing the 

Republican ticket’s margin of victory. The article added, “Other callers of prominence at 

headquarters were Gen. Roy Stone, Gen. O. O. Howard, and Gov. N. O. Murphy of 

Arizona. Each of them brought cheering intelligence.” 

President McKinley won reelection easily, with 292 electoral college votes to 155 votes 

for Bryan. The President received 7.2 million votes (51.6 percent), while Bryan received 

6.3 million. 

[“Proctor Calls on Hanna,” August 2, 1900] 

Death of General Harrison 

On February 8, 1901, the Times reported the death of General E. G. Harrison, who had 

been prominent in the Good Roads Movement as the head of General Stone’s objectlesson road unit. The short obituary stated: 

Edmund G. Harrison, special agent and road expert of the public roads division of 

the Agricultural Department, died in Washington on Wednesday, aged seventytwo years. He helped Gen. Roy Stone organize the public roads division and had 

appeared before the Legislature of every State east of the Mississippi in the 

interest of good roads. He was born in Hulmville, Penn., and for four years was 

Postmaster at Asbury Park, N.J. 

General Harrison’s son, Charles T. Harrison, would take over the object-lesson program. 
[“Obituary Notes,” February 8, 1901] 

Steel Trackways for Automobiles

General Stone continued to cooperate with the Automobile Club of America in its efforts 

to promote good roads. When the club held its annual dinner at the Waldorf-Astoria on 

April 18, 1901, the Times reported the next day that the theme of the evening was “Good 

Roads.” The featured speaker, General Miles, stated that “the question of road 

improvement seems to me to be the plainest and the most important economic problem 

for this country to consider.” He was confident that “within a very short time the 

example of New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Illinois, 

and California, which have made the greatest progress in road improvement, will be 

followed by the other States.” 

Other speakers, according to the article, included General Stone, who spoke on the 

subject of “Federal Paving.” The article did not quote from his speech. 

On March 3, 1902, the Times carried a brief item alerting readers to the fact that: 

Gen. Roy Stone, formerly Director of the United States Office of Public Road 

Inquiry [the new name of the ORI], will deliver an address at the rooms of the 

Automobile Club of America, Fifth Avenue and Fifty-Eighth Street, to-morrow 

night on “Street Highways.” The entire method of road building will be 

thoroughly explained, and the utility of good roads for automobiles will be clearly 

demonstrated. Supper will be served to members and their guests at the close of 

the talk. 

The Times did not report on the contents of General Stone’s speech, although the 

Rambler will speculate on the content in just a few paragraphs. 

The Times did report that on March 4, 1902 in Chicago, delegates from eight leading 

automobile clubs, including the Automobile Club of America, had met at the Coliseum to 

form a national body that would be called the American Automobile Association (AAA). 

The first president of the new organization would be Winthrop E. Scarritt of the 

Automobile Club. 

(The two clubs would soon turn into rivals, with AAA becoming dominant by 1910. The 

Automobile Club, according to Flink, was never able to shake its image as a club for 

millionaires, despite aggressive attempts to expand its membership: 

Despite its attempts at democratization, the ACA had retained its identification as 

a millionaires’ social club. Harper’s Weekly pointed out in January 1909, for 

example, that “prominent among the active members may be mentioned Colonel 

John Jacob Astor, Cornelius Vanderbilt, George J. Gould, William Rockefeller, E. 

H. Harriman, John T. Havemeyer, August Belmont, C. K. G. Billings, P. E. 
Collier, Paul D. Cravath, Hon. Chauncey M. Depew, J. B. Duke, Alfred I. du 

Pont, Stuyvessant [sic] Fish, John H. Flagler, John W. Gates, Robert Goelet, and 

others.” [Flink, p. 161] 

(Many of those names are recognized to this day, while the use of an online search engine 

will provide information on many of the others.) 

General Stone also received a mention in the Times on April 6, 1902, in a report on the 

Automobile Club’s run to Ardsley. Sixteen automobiles began at Fifth Avenue and 57th

Street for the first run of the season. General Stone was among the many guests along for 

the ride. Because the club was not trying to set a speed record, “The rules of the road 

were well observed, and the entire party arrived at the Ardsley Club in time for 

luncheon.” The trip had taken the 16 vehicles “through Yonkers, and then by the main 

road through Hastings and Dobbs Ferry” (along what became State Route 9A). The 

Times also reported that “the roads were in very good condition.” 

Now, about that speech on “Street Highways,” the Times reported on May 14, 1902, that: 

A committee of the Automobile Club of America has been investigating the 

subject of steel roads, and the club and several of its members have made liberal 

subscriptions for the purpose of building a sample section of steel road 

somewhere in the vicinity of New York.” 

General Stone was chairman of the committee. The directors included Scarritt and 

Charles M. Schwab, a millionaire steel executive who at the time was president of U.S. 

Steel. (Schwab had been president of Carnegie Steel Company when he negotiated a 

buyout of the company in 1901 by J. P. Morgan, who combined it with other steel 

companies into a steel trust called U.S. Steel. Schwab would resign in 1903 and join 

Bethlehem Steel, which became the world’s largest steel company under his leadership.) 

On May 11, the Times society column reported that “General and Mrs. Roy Stone” were 

among those who had sailed the day before on the Lucania, a Cunard Line ship bound for 

Europe. The Stones were headed for Paris to see their daughter, Mrs. Romaine Turnure. 

Her husband, Lawrence Turnure, 43 years old, had died on April 10, at home in Cairo, 

Egypt, where they had lived since his retirement a few years earlier for health reasons. 

He left behind his wife and a son, according to a short death notice in the Times on April 

11, 1902. On May 20, the Times’ society column reported that: 

Mrs. Lawrence Turnure is very ill in Paris. Gen. and Mrs. Roy Stone sailed on 

Saturday to join their daughter. Lawrence Turnure died at Cairo about a month 

ago. 

The Rambler will return to General Stone’s daughter, but for now suffice it to say she 

recovered from her illness and the Stones returned to New York City. 
By July, General Stone was back in New York to begin work on one of his last 

innovative projects, a steel trackway in Manhattan. 

In the early 1890’s, some advocates for good roads thought they could achieve their goal 

faster and at less cost by extending steel rails into the countryside for use by bicycles, 

wagons and, later, automobiles. When President McKinley took office in March 1896, 

his Secretary of Agriculture James Wilson had encouraged General Stone to explore 

experimental road building concepts, particularly steel tracks. 

Martin Dodge, an associate of President McKinley when he was Governor of Ohio, 

claimed that he had raised the idea with Secretary Wilson. Dodge had long advocated 

steel trackways. He believed that the principal advantages in any surfacing material were 

cheapness, durability, and reduction of power required to move a vehicle. Steel tracks 

offered the advantages of cheapness and durability, as well as a smooth surface that 

would not be altered by the weather as earth roads were. 

On September 16, 1897, the Times reported from Washington that the day before, the 

ORI “had made arrangements with the Cambria Iron Works of Johnstown, Penn., for 

rolling special rails for this purpose, these arrangements to go into effect as soon as 

definite orders were received from responsible parties amounting to one mile of track. 

The article described the tracks: 

The directors of the road inquiry and engineers of the iron company, after much 

discussion, have agreed upon a plan of track which promises to meet all 

requirements. It uses no wood in construction and no crossties for support, but 

consists of a simple inverted trough or channel of steel for each wheel, with a 

slight-raised bead on the inside to guide the wheels, each channel resting in a bed 

of gravel, and the two tied together occasionally to prevent spreading. 

Special devices for remounting are provided at each joint. The bearing or tread 

for wheels is eight inches wide, the thickness about seven-sixteenths of an inch. 

The weight of the structure is about 100 tons per mile of single track road, and it 

will be furnished in small sections at the rate of $2,500 per mile. 

While General Stone was in Puerto Rico during the Spanish-American War, Acting 

Director Dodge supervised the initial ORI experiments in steel trackway. Under Dodge’s 

supervision, General Harrison installed 280 feet of steel track on the grounds of the 

October 1898 Trans-Mississippi Exposition in Omaha, Nebraska. After completing the 

exposition tracks, General Harrison built a 150-foot steel trackway at the State 

experiment station in St. Anthony, Minnesota, and a 180-foot trackway at the State 

College in Ames, Iowa, both in September. 

At the Omaha exposition, Dodge demonstrated that one horse on a steel trackway could 

haul an 11-ton load that would require 20 horses on an ordinary road. (The load 

consisted of Dodge in his top hat and other dignitaries and fairgoers standing on a long 

wagon bed.) He also demonstrated that a “horseless carriage propelled by electricity” 
could operate on the steel-track wagon road, and that a bicycle could ride on one track of 

the double trackway. The experiment proved his point that steel-track wagon roads 

would bee cheaper and theoretically more durable than regular roads. It also 

demonstrated that “the power required to move a vehicle . . . is only a small fraction of 

the power required to move the same vehicle over any other kind of road.” 

Dodge considered the trackways a success; he would display photographs of the 

exposition experiments in articles and congressional testimony for many years. 

However, the three experimental trackways built in the autumn of 1898 would be the 

ORI’s only experiments with the concept. The cost of retooling steel plants for 

manufacture of specially designed steel tracks proved prohibitive. 

In 1902, General Stone revived the idea with his own steel trackway design. The Times

said on July 27, 1902, that Schwab had become interested in the idea a “fortnight ago” as 

a way of relieving “congestion of traffic in the down-town streets” while providing “a 

perfect speedway for automobiles.” With the support of the Automobile Club, Schwab 

offered to furnish the steel tracks free of charge. The Times explained the concept and 

the rationale for it: 

The “road of steel” is not to be a steel pavement extending from one pavement to 

another, as seems to have been the general idea since the recent announcement of 

Mr. Schwab’s offer to furnish the material for the road. It is to be two steel 

tracks, each about twelve inches wide, and set at standard gauge. It is pointed out 

that street car traffic in the lower portions of Manhattan often is exasperatingly 

delayed because drivers of heavily loaded [horse-drawn] trucks and other 

vehicles, in an effort to select the smoothest portion of the streets, drive on to the 

street car tracks, which are set at the same gauge as the ordinary wagon. 

Frequently it is difficult for the motormen of the cars to get the drivers of these 

wagons to turn back on to the cobblestones, and as a consequence traffic is 

blockaded, sometimes for several minutes. 

Those who advocate the road of steel say this would be obviated by the adoption 

of the new road. The drivers would not find it more satisfactory to follow the 

street car tracks, because the broad tracks in the middle of that portion of the 

streets reserved for wagons and trucks would be smoother, and there would be no 

interruption, the wagons using the tracks having formed in line, and always to the 

right. 

In the driveways where there is little or no heavy traffic it is believed that the road 

would be popular. The road of steel would insure good roads for a spin, even 

during or immediately after a hard rain. 

The article added that General Stone had made a “careful and thorough study” of the 

concept and “said recently that the studies of engineers and the experiments so far made 

tend to simplify the construction of these roads, and especially their foundations, to the 

last degree.” The two issues that Dodge, and now Stone, had to resolve were whether the 
rails had to be built with cross-ties, as railroad tracks were, and if not, how they would be 

kept in place. The article continued: 

“It is needless to tie the rails together,” he said, “or to use cross-ties or other 

supporting devices. The rail is a simple channel with flaring sides, turned down 

into a narrow bed of gravel, broken stone, or vitrified clay, which is drained at 

every low point. The rails are strongly spliced by a channel piece closely fitting 

underneath the joint, the whole forming practically a continuous plate on a 

uniform bearing. 

“A single track will serve for most country roads; the turning out is easy, the earth 

road, being little used, is not cut up, and never heavy with mud, except when the 

frost is coming out.” 

Speaking of the comparative cost of the road, Gen. Stone said: 

“The amount of metal required, if the plates are twelve inches wide and a quarter 

of an inch thick, including splices and bolts, is nearly 75 net tons per mile of 

single track. The average price of steel of late years is perhaps 1 cent per pound, 

and at this price the percentage of profit is still very large, so that it may be safe to 

assume $20 per ton as a future price of the metal. At this rate the steel roads will 

not cost more originally than stone roads do on an average, and the expense for 

repairs will be practically nothing during a lifetime.” 

Gen. Stone is enthusiastic over the prospect of securing the introduction of the 

road in New York City, and says he feels certain if it is given a fair test in those 

localities to be designated by the City Engineer the city will find it profitable to 

place steel roads in many of the streets, particularly where traffic of trucks and 

other freight vehicles is heaviest. He declares that the steel track is a new 

highway system which settles the great “road problem” that has so long agitated 

the country, and settles it in a manner which pleases every one concerned—

farmer, teamster, bicyclist, and pleasure driver. 

Schwab’s steel mill was working on the slabs for the experimental tracks. City Engineer 

George B. Olney had designated the location for the experiment: 

One of these, he said, will be in the vicinity of the Battery, probably on 

Greenwich Street, where traffic is very heavy. Another will be on lower West 

Broadway, probably, and a third on Seventh Avenue, probably between One 

Hundred and Sixteenth and One Hundred and Twentieth Streets. This will furnish 

a test of the road under varying conditions. In the down-town districts the heavy 

trucks and vehicles will have an opportunity to try it, while in Seventh Avenue, 

the popular driveway, the automobiles and light carriages will give the road the 

test of conveyances of their nature. 
By the time installation began in November 1902, none of Olney’s candidates received 

the steel tracks. Instead, the tracks were placed on Murray Street between Church Street 

and Broadway. On November 30, the Times reported that Schwab “is about to lay a track 

of parallel steel plates twelve inches wide and flanged at the edges with ridges that shall 

act as guides for vehicle wheels.” If the experimental installation was a success, “it will 

be repeated on the high roads in different parts of New York State.” 

A brief reference in the “Automobile Topics of Interest” column in the Times on 

December 14, 1902, indicated that the installation had been completed “last week.” The 

tracks were “laid upon beds of concrete about a foot thick, which in turn rests upon a 

layer of granite paving blocks.” The double steel track had been placed in the center of 

Murray Street, “and as there is a slight ascent from Church Street to Broadway, vehicles 

going in that direction will have the right of way.” 

A few days later, on December 18, the Times reported that General Stone had conducted 

tests on the section the day before. The Times summarized the “remarkable” 

experiments: 

It was found by actual experiment that a tractive force 60 per cent. greater was 

required to draw a load upon the rough stone pavement than upon the track, or 

that, taking the power necessary to draw the load upon the pavement as the 

standard, exactly 371⁄2 per cent. of it was saved by using the rails. In starting the 

load the advantage in favor of the rails was even greater, as but one-half or onethird of the usual force was required. 

The tests, which were conducted on a Wednesday, “were materially impeded by the 

interference of passing vehicles on the narrow street, and by the presence of the usual 

curious jostling crowd which quickly gathered and of itself, nearly blocked the street.” 

Additional tests were likely, including tests with automobiles, but would be scheduled on 

a Sunday when traffic would be less inconvenienced. Tests were being devised for when 

the steel tracks were slippery with mud or sleet. The article added, “Gen. Stone has 

invented a form of rail with slight rectangular depressions about three inches square and a 

quarter of an inch deep, for use where there is much ice and sleet, but this has not yet 

been given a trial.” 

The Ideal Road 

On January 26, 1903, the Times reported on General Stone’s presentation during the 

automobile show at Madison Square Garden, sponsored by AAA, the Automobile Club 

of America, the American Motor League, and the National Association of Automobile 

Manufacturers. (The American Motor League, the first automobile club in the United 

States, had been formed in 1895 with members such as the Duryeas and other early 

automobile pioneers. According to Flink, it was “premature” and “failed to get off the 

ground,” but would survive into the early 1900’s. [Flink, p. 144, 156-159] The National 

Association of Automobile Manufacturers had organized on December 3, 1900.) 
The Times reported that the sponsors of the show “placed themselves on record in favor 

of the popular movement for the improvement of the highways.” During the Automobile 

Club’s dinner on Saturday night at the Waldorf-Astoria, “no less than six of the eight 

speakers made this topic the subject of their speeches.” The other two speakers, “referred 

to the subject during the course of their remarks.” Speakers included State Senator 

Armstrong, who spoke on the Higbie-Armstrong bill, Colonel Pope, who spoke on 

“Improvement to Highways,” and State Engineer and Surveyor Edward A. Bend whose 

topic was “The Construction of Roads in New York State.” 

In addition, General Stone, one of the speakers, “described the results attained in building 

steel roads, and advocated a plan for the building of such roads by the National 

Government.” He explained how the Automobile Club had initiated the experiment in 

May, that with Schwab’s help had obtained the steel, and with city support had laid a 

block of steel track on Murray Street, next to Broadway. He explained that the 

Automobile Club had additional material to lay tracks on other roads in the upper part of 

the city in the spring. The article continued: 

The Murray Street road was laid in wet and frosty weather, but it seems 

abundantly firm, and appears to give satisfaction to the users; loaded teams which 

toil up to it find their “occupation gone” when they get fairly upon the rails, while 

the lightly laden strike a trot when they come to this stretch. It was feared that 

horses might slip on the plates, but when the wheel are on them the pull, even up 

the 2 per cent. grade, is so light that there is little tendancy to slip; on steeper 

grades, however, it will be necessary to roughen the rails for horses; that is, to roll 

them with depressions which will catch a horses’ toe-calk, but will not let a wheel 

drop into them. 

The article explained that the city’s highway department was considering use of steel 

trackways on “various lines where heavy trucking exists, or where it could be drawn from 

other streets to the relief of streets and avenues now congested.” The Dock Department 

was considering installation of steel trackways on the piers that are quickly destroyed by 

the heavy traffic. Meanwhile, the State engineer wanted a steel trackway “from the 

Ulster state quarries to the Hudson River to carry the ten-ton loads which now ruin every 

other kind of road there.” At the same time, the OPRI was asking for steel to install in 

the District of Columbia while New Jersey was considering a steel trackway across the 

Hackensack Meadows. The article added: 

. . . and from over the sea comes an inquiry from the Public Works . . . of London 

City. Germany is already in our lead, in this regard, having fifty miles or more of 

steel road which is “reported in great favor with drivers: and on which from “three 

to five times the loads of the best stone roads can be hauled.” 

General Stone had high expectations for steel trackways. If the Murray Street and 

planned Canal Street installations gained the support of trucking interests, he said, “and 

steel rails should be laid on routes that will draw the trucks away from the car lines and 

carriage avenues, the traffic capacity of the great thoroughfares will possibly be doubled 
and one great source of friction in daily life removed, while the use of automobiles in the 

city will be vastly facilitated.” He continued: 

It will be credit enough, however, in the great future which awaits the 

development of automobile travel to have devised or developed the idea road for 

the new vehicles and so hastened the day when they shall have freedom of 

movement throughout the land and, through that freedom, reach their natural 

expansion of use and usefulness. Such an ideal road is a wheelway like that in 

Murray Street, but without the wheel guides on heavy grades, to prevent the 

slipping of wheels in wet weather—the roadbed graded nearly flat, with no 

ditches and only shallow grassed gutters and with the space between and outside 

of the plates all well laid down in grass. 

On such a road there will be no dust or mud, no glare from sunlight or reflected 

heat, while the road itself will suffer no wash from rains and no wear of any kind, 

and if it is bordered with hedges and without trees no serious accident would be 

possible to any motor at its highest speed. It will be like driving over a fine lawn, 

except that the power required will be almost inconsiderable. 

Such exclusive automobile roads will be especially needed about New York, and, 

fortunately, there are localities where they can reach out in four or five directions 

from the city for a distance of twenty to fifty miles with comparatively little 

obstruction. Without going into any details at this moment, I venture to ask the 

attention of the automobile manufacturers and users and of suburban property 

owners to the possibilities of this development. If the proposal meets with favor 

among those interests, the study by a competent committee of the question of 

routes, ways and means, and legislation required cannot be too soon undertaken. 

But the club will have its crowning credit if it should help to develop a plan 

through which new ways and means become available for the general and prompt 

construction of good roads for all vehicles throughout the country. 

General Stone explained why a single track would be sufficient for country roads: 

On many stone roads the travel confines itself to a narrow wagon track and the 

grass has grown over the rest of the surface in the hard macadam. On the steel 

roads the travel will be still more strictly confined; the grass will grow up close to 

the rails, and the turf will be firm enough for all light vehicles to turn out upon 

and for the occasional heavy ones that will be going against the townward traffic. 

The idea may “seem like the impossible,” but it was simply a financial problem, and one 

that “ought not to be too great for the financial ability comprised within this membership, 

together with that now interested in steel manufacture.” He said: 
We may take it as an axiom that the farmers generally will not tax themselves to 

build good roads, even though they could tax the cities, too, as they should do, 

neither will they readily borrow the necessary money under present conditions. 

He thought States could issue bonds at the lowest rate of U.S. government bonds, 2 

percent a year, with a State guarantee. He suggested two ways to ensure marketability of 

the bonds. He summarized the first way: 

In wiping out the National debt the Government is gradually taking away the 

basis of National bank circulation, and a new one must soon be found that will be 

broad, safe, and permanent. If at the same time that basis could be of such a 

character that its mere creation promotes and assures the National wealth and 

prosperity, it would give additional security to the circulation as well. 

Nothing could fill these conditions like such an issue of road improvement bonds 

as I have described, and if accepted for that use the market for hundreds of 

millions of them at par or a premium would be made. The Government 2 per 

cents. [would] command a large premium for the same purpose. 

The second was postal savings banks. He asked, “What could be more appropriate than 

the investment of the farmers’ spare money in road improvement?” It could be 

accomplished easily at little cost to the government. “It could all be done through the 

Post Office force and would involve no appreciable expense or risk to the Government.” 

The Times article concluded with the words of General Stone: 

And looking at the grand result, what could be more beautiful in its beneficence 

than practically letting the farmer build his own roads with his own money and 

still have that money safe at interest for his own benefit, while the roads are free 

to the world forever? 

A great campaign of education and legislation for good roads is now beginning, 

and the field is full of energetic recruits, but as a veteran I may ask, with 

deference to the old campaigners, whether it may not be easier to carry out such a 

plan as I have outlined than one which involves hard-won State and National 

appropriations and the general increase of debt and taxation. 

The World Stands Still 

On February 1, 1903, the Times printed a long article by General Stone on steel 

trackways. It covered many of the points from his recent speech. The article began: 

A radical change in methods of roadmaking throughout the world appears now to 

be probable, and it would seem quite time that some change should be made. The 

whole Christian era, with all its advancement of arts and sciences, has seen no 

improvement in this particular art. The best stone roads of to-day are no better 
than the ancient Roman ways or the prehistoric Peruvian roads; not so good, in 

fact, for, while their surface is the same, their foundations are inferior. It may be 

said, therefore, that in a concern so vital to the general well-being of the human 

race as its primary means of communication, the world has practically stood still 

for twenty centuries. The fact challenges the intelligence of this progressive age, 

and it is not surprising that the nations are waking up to it, and that some of the 

talent heretofore employed in the perfection of rail and water ways is now 

devoting itself to the improvement of common highways. 

The value of steel trackways had been demonstrated in other countries: 

Germany, which country leads in this field at present, has over fifty miles of steel 

roads in various forms as to rail and foundation laid in 1901, and these roads are 

reported as being “in great favor among drivers,” while official tests show that 

from “three to five times as great load” can be moved thereon as with the same 

effort on a stone pavement. 

The desirability of these roads has been questioned, but Spain has had a short 

steel road in successful operation for ten or twelve years, running from the City of 

Valencia to its seaport, and under a travel of 3,200 vehicles daily, careful 

measurements shows [sic] only a small fraction of wear in that period, while thin 

plates laid across a bridge in Canada have stood four times as long under heavy 

traffic. 

Experiments in the United States had been “on a small scale and with insufficient 

means,” resulting in “nothing determinate.” The Murray Street installation was the first 

good test in the United States. General Stone reprinted a letter he had sent to the 

chairman of the Automobile Club on December 20, 1902, saying, in part: 

The steel wheelway in Murray Street . . . has been favorably received and is 

bearing constant testimony to the excellence of its method. Many drivers, not 

informed of its character, still avoid the steel plates, thinking they may cover 

some electric or other conduit, but those who use them pronounce them perfect. 

The time was ripe to consider other installations in the city “having in view the three 

great objects to be attained—first, the ease of freight movement; second, the relief of 

carriage travel; and third, the clearance of way for the street cars.” New York City, he 

explained, had a street network planned for “a four-story city” that was now “growing to 

three or four times that height, without any increase of the street surface.” The solution 

was to separate “the various classes of travel which now impede each other, and the 

separation must be voluntary, since it cannot be enforced without great friction.” If 

freight could be restricted to roads with steel wheelways, the cost of shipping could be 

reduced, but these vehicles would also be removed from car tracks and carriage streets: 

The principal car lines, which are now cut down from their normal speed of about 

eight miles per hour to an average of about four miles in rush hours, and which by 
adding more and more cars have only added to the congestion and actually 

reduced the capacity of their services, would be able to do vastly more business, 

with less cars, while at the same time the carriage and motor travel could 

correspondingly increase both in volume and speed. 

In his February 1 article, General Stone predicted that the increase of motor vehicles 

“will increase the demand for special roads, and in turn such roads will increase the 

demand for motors.” Areas in the vicinity of New York City would be perfect for such 

roads: 

These special roads would benefit every interest concerned, both public and 

private; they would extend the suburban limits of the city and develop new 

residence districts of the highest class, and they would largely relieve the public 

roads of motor travel, while adding the usefulness and popularity of motor 

vehicles by freeing them from a speed limit on a good stretch of distance. 

As for paying for the roads, General Stone explained that “special weakness of our 

system of government [was] that we cannot compel a present sacrifice to secure future 

benefit.” He continued: 

People who govern themselves will not apparently tax themselves to build the 

roads which they know they need, nor will they generally consent to borrow the 

money and tax their children’s children to pay it, although they could hand down 

to them not only the roads themselves, but the savings of generations in their use. 

Although “direct aid to road building” was now being advocated in Congress,” he 

thought that the United States “could give more efficient aid indirectly, and give it 

through such means as would, moreover, secure most important benefits to the whole 

country in addition to good roads.” Government bonds at 2-percent interest would solve 

the problem. (He did not reference postal savings banks in this article.) 

That same day, February 1, 1903, the Times carried an article about General Stone’s 

article. General Stone’s article “is an interesting and valuable contribution to the 

literature of good roads,” but a clarification was necessary: 

Lest it should be assumed that the author of the paper referred to, being the 

inventor and patentee of the system he advocates, is actuated therein by 

considerations of personal advantage, we are authorized to say that his interest in 

such patent or patents is dedicated to the public, and that he expects no further 

advantage from the use of the system than will come to him as a citizen and 

perhaps the user of wheeled vehicles. 

In the newspaper’s view, the building of roads suitable for automobiles was of “especial 

interest.” It continued: 
Fortunately, what is a good road for the motor vehicle and the bicycle is also a 

good road for the road wagon, the heavy truck, and the farmer’s wain, and the 

good roads argument is too well known and too unanswerable from the point of 

the public interest to need repetition here. 

The article stated that the Murray Street steel wheelway “has greatly facilitated the 

hauling of heavy truckloads from the river to the comparatively level streets running 

north and south along the backbone of Manhattan, and in a wider street [than Murray] its 

value would be proportionately greater.” 

The planned expansion of steel wheelways ran into an obstacle, as reported in the Times 

on March 29, 1903: 

The Committee of the Automobile Club of America on steel road experiment has 

abandoned the plan of laying steel rails in upper Seventh Avenue, as originally 

planned last Fall, on account of the letting of contracts for the repaving of that 

thoroughfare, and it is now proposed to use the rails remaining after the laying out 

of the experimental stretch in Murray Street, to lay out a straightaway track on 

private property on Long Island. A site near Creedmore has been selected, and if 

the necessary arrangements can be made a kilometer course [0.62 miles] will be 

laid out. It is desired to test the suitability of the rails for fast driving, and also to 

see whether it is necessary to make any allowance for expansion and contraction 

in a long stretch. 

Lifting the Burden of Bad Roads 

On April 28, 1903, General Stone was in St. Louis for the National and International 

Good Roads Convention in conjunction with the dedication of the Louisiana Purchase 

Exposition. Although the Times did not quote his speech, the Rambler likes the speech as 

a summing up by General Stone of his experience. The following excerpt from his 

speech, titled “Good Roads and How to Get them,” is from “Portrait of a General”: 

Ten years ago three great leaders were fighting their separate battles for good 

roads in the United States. Colonel Pope in the East, Judge Thayer, of Iowa, in the 

West, and Isaac B. Potter [of the LAW] all along the line. They had little faith, 

however, in a national movement; and they had seen too many State conventions 

fail to materialize. In fact, so forlorn a venture did it seem that, although a goodly 

number signed my call [for a national convention in October 1892], I dared not 

ask for a dollar toward the expense of calling or holding the convention, and had, 

therefore, the high privilege of financing it alone. 

My success in assembling that convention was due to the press of the United 

States; its happy outcome was due to the newspapers of Chicago, which gave 

columns and pages to its proceedings, in the midst of all the news of the 

dedication of their great “White City” [as the Columbian Exposition was called 

because of its imitation marble architecture]. 
With this grand send-off our National League for Good Roads, organized there, 

was able to raise $10,000 for a year's campaign, and that campaign, among other 

things, brought about the organization of the Office of Public Road Inquiries at 

Washington [as ORI was called in 1903], and all the great work accomplished by 

it in ten years. 

Comparing the conditions of today with those of ten years ago we see the progress 

of the country most strikingly displayed. But progress in road sentiment is 

perhaps more marked than in any other line. The convention of 1892 was called 

by a few private enthusiasts, with fear and trembling for the result; this 

convention was called by a multitude of high officials in perfect confidence of the 

Nation's interest and participation. In 1892 our delegates were self-appointed; 

here they are appointed by municipalities, States, and public bodies. In that 

convention we dared not whisper "National aid to road building" save in secret; 

now we can shout it on all the highways and byways. At that time a majority of 

the people of the United States had never seen a good road; today, through 

National object-lessons and good roads trains [a Dodge-era innovation], it is a 

familiar sight to nearly every one. Then, even State aid was denounced as a 

dangerous experiment; now it is being generally adopted. In those days to borrow 

money for good roads was denounced as “robbery of future generations,” today it 

is accounted a blessing and especially to them. 

Since 1892 an entirely new force has appeared in the good roads field and one 

whose influence can not now be measured or bounded. Already the automobile 

industry is one of the most active and powerful in the land, and its representatives 

fully realize that its ultimate success is bound up with that of road improvement, 

for in France, where the roads are good, it leads all other manufacturing industries 

in size and profit . . . . 

How to lift the burden of bad roads without putting a burden of taxation in its 

place is the question for this body to discuss and determine, and on that question 

every delegate must carry such light as he can home to his neighbors. And here, I 

may be pardoned for saying, as regards the estimate of the annual loss by bad 

roads, which I announced officially some years ago and which has been derided 

by many wiseacres who are perhaps not to blame for what they don't know, it was 

the result of a thorough digestion of well-ascertained facts, the boiled down 

experience of 10,000 intelligent farmers in all parts of the country, honestly 

applied to the census returns and their official data, and I would not to-day 

discount it nor abate it one dollar from its enormous total of six hundred millions. 

He endorsed Federal-aid, saying "The people are ready for a measure of this kind, and it 

will give us good fighting ground." He also summarized his reasons for supporting steel 

track roads, bonds guaranteed by the Federal Government, and the use of postal savings. 

"The youngest of you here will never see the work half done, and we veterans will scarce 

see a beginning," he said. Then he concluded: 
But whatever may be the fate of my proposition, good roads are coming whether 

by easy ways or hard. Federal aid is in the air; our young statesmen are eager to 

promote it, and our oldest no longer have the cold shivers when it is mentioned. It 

has reached the very top. Within this month, a President of the United States 

[President Roosevelt] has said what no President has dared to breathe in almost a 

hundred years—that the Federal Government can and should “cooperate” in the 

building of common roads. For these brave words every advocate of road 

improvement in the land, and they are millions upon millions, will join me in 

saying, “God bless the fearless man who uttered them.” 

Long Island Motor Parkway 

The Long Island project was expanding. On June 14, 1903, the Times reported that 

General Stone, backed by the National Association of Automobile Manufacturers and 

AAA, “has developed an extensive plan for an automobile speedway on Long Island.” 

General Stone had initiated the proposal by writing to the National Association 

explaining the value of special roads for automobiles “and that the sport and industry 

never can attain proper development without them.” With the association’s support, he 

prepared his plan: 

The plan is to start from the eastern landing of the Blackwell’s Island Bridge [now 

known as the Queensboro Bridge-59th Street Bridge], near the Court House in 

Long Island City, run the line between Jackson Avenue and the Long Island 

Railroad as a sunken and inclosed road so as to allow of full speed from the 

outset, and then to continue nearly parallel to the same avenue, following, if 

practicable, the right of way of the abandoned Oliver Charlick Railway to the 

Flushing Meadows, passing beneath the North Shore Railroad and the Corona 

Electric Road at the point where they descend upon the meadows; thence across 

the meadows along the line of the old Long Island Central Railroad, known as the 

“Stewart” Road, and following the line through its long summit, cutting to 

Creedmore and Floral Park. There the line will touch the Belmont Park race 

course. From that point it is planned to take the speedway across Hempstead 

Plains and along the southern foot of the Bethpage, Half Hollow, Brentwood, 

Ronkonkoma, Coram, and Dix’s Hills, keeping the middle line of the island 

between the heights and the plain as far as the heights extend, and then straight 

through the level pine woods to Good Ground, and so on to Montauk Point. The 

location, it is believed, will secure a perfect alignment, easy grades, and cheap 

construction, while it would serve for branching north and south under equal 

conditions. The total distance would be 112 miles. 

The speedway would include a double track of steel, with 10 feet between tracks and the 

same distance outside of them, making for a 40-foot roadway: 

Outside of this would be the hedges and a wire netting fence to keep out animals, 

and beyond the fence would be a row of trees on each side. All highways are to 
be carried over the motorway by raising them five feet and sinking the motorway 

to the same extent. The entrance to the motorway would be by gates from the 

important highways, and these, of course, would be tollgates. Between midnight 

and morning, the road could be used for freight vehicles for farm and garden 

service, and when it is desired to use the speedway for formal races all other 

traffic would be kept off by merely closing the gates to it. For the benefit of those 

who do not own motor carriages or trucks, motor coaches could be licensed to run 

at low rates of fare, and this, together with hotels and inns at the terminals and at 

the tollgates, it is believed the project would be given a decided public interest. 

General Stone estimated that the road would cost $15,000 a mile. It would be self 

supporting, with an estimated 3,000 vehicles presently in the corridor. Further, the afterhours trucking at a speed of 12 miles an hour, “would extend the available garden district 

of the island to double its present length, and, counting on a width of five miles, would 

lead to the clearing, fertilizing, and cultivation of 200 miles now barren.” The article 

concluded: 

 

The cost of operation would be the taking of tolls and the care of the grass and 

hedges, little or no repairs being required for many years. 

As best the Rambler can determine, the Long Island automobile speedway was not built. 

Moreover, the Murray Street installation does not appear to have been duplicated. The 

best the Rambler can say is that the steel track concept was outdated. In the 1890’s, 

when General Stone, Dodge, and others were promoting the idea, traffic volumes in rural 

areas were low. As traffic increased, and especially in city congestion, the use of steel 

tracks was impractical. Whatever the reason, steel roadways did not catch on. 

Although the Long Island speedway conceived by General Stone was not built, the 

concept was a precursor of the Long Island Motor Parkway. William K. Vanderbilt, Jr., 

the wealthy auto racing enthusiast (George Vanderbilt, mentioned earlier, was his uncle), 

and several wealthy friends had thought of building a private automobile road for racing 

on Long Island in 1902, from Long Island City to Montauk Point, but the idea didn’t 

result in construction. In 1904, Vanderbilt launched the Vanderbilt Cup Races on the 

public roads of Long Island. 

The 1906 race in October attracted 250,000 spectators, many of whom surged into the 

roadway to get a better view of their favorite racers. When one of the spectators was 

killed and others injured, Vanderbilt and his friends decided to build the private auto road 

they had talked about a few years earlier. It would include several ideas General Stone 

had included in his proposal, including crossroads separated on bridges and limited 

access throughout. Construction began in 1908 and was completed in 1911, with the road 

eventually extending 45 miles from Nassau Boulevard to Ronkonkoma. When races 

were not underway, the parkway operated as a toll road for general traffic, as General 

Stone had suggested for his proposed steel trackway. 
In 1910, the annual Vanderbilt Cup Race resulted in the death of two driving mechanics 

and injuries to several spectators. The outcry resulted in the end of the races, but the 

Long Island Motor Parkway remained open for public use as a toll road. [Kroplick, 

Howard, and Velocci, Al, The Long Island Motor Parkway, Images of America, Arcadia 

Publishing, 2008, p. 7-14] 

[“Miles on Good Roads,” April 19, 1901 

“Automobile Talk on Good Roads, March 3, 1902 

“National Automobile Club,” March 5, 1902 

“Automobile Club Meets,” March 8, 1902 

“Automobile Club Run,” April 16, 1902 

“Automobilists Advocate Steel Roads,” May 14, 1902 

“Society at Home and Abroad,” May 11, 1902 

“What is Doing in Society,” May 20, 1902 

 “Steel Tracks for Wagons,” September 16, 1897 

“Proposed Steel streets for New York,” July 27, 1902 

“Automobile Rails,” November 30, 1902 

“Automobile Topics of Interest,” December 14, 1902 

“New Steel Road Tested,” December 18, 1902 

“Motor Vehicle Makers Organize, December 4, 1900 

“Favoring Good Roads,” January 26, 1903 

“Use of Steel in Building Wagon Ways is Advocated,” February 1, 1903 

“Steel Wagon Ways,” February 1, 1903 

“Automobile Topics of Interest,” March 29, 1903 

“Automobile Topics of Interest,” May 10, 1903 

“Speedway for Motorcars,” June 14, 1903] 

The Final Years 

General Stone remained active in his final years, as reflected in the Times. An article on 

January 29, 1902, reported that he was a director of the Union Terminal Company of 

New York, which had been incorporated the day before. The company, with a capital of 

$100,000, intended to “construct and operate an electrical tunnel road between nine and 

ten miles long between New York and Kings Counties.” A followup article on February 

7, 1902, indicated that the company had filed plans with the County Clerk. The company 

counsel, Appleton D. Palmer, described the project: 

Beginning at the intersection of Montrose and Varick Avenues, Brooklyn, the 

tunnel will run in a diagonal line under private property to the East River, under 

the river in steel tubes, then across the Island of Manhattan on the line of 

Fourteenth Street, and after that under the North River to Hoboken, straight under 

the hill on which the Stevens estate and mansion are located, through Bergen Hill, 

and finally to a point near the Hackensack River and close to the westerly 

openings of the Erie and Lackawanna Railroad tunnels. Mr. Palmer said that the 

depth of the tunnel would be from 50 feet to 100 feet, varying within those limits. 
There are to be two branches, one beginning at Fourteenth and Hudson Streets 

and extending down the latter to College Place, thence to Greenwich Street, and 

thence down to Battery Place and around Bowling Green; the other beginning at 

Fourteenth Street and Broadway, going up the latter to Madison Square, 

diagonally across that, up Madison Square to Forty-second Street, and under 

private property to the Grand Central Station. 

The connection to Grand Central Station was “merely advisory” and “would depend upon 

whether or not the Central desired such connection.” 

The tunnel was intended principally for freight, but passenger trains would be run as well. 

In addition to stations, the line would include connections with wholesale mercantile 

houses “the idea being that these establishments can load and unload their goods directly 

from the underground road and thus save themselves all the expenses of truckage.” 

As with past proposals of this type, some cynicism was called for: 

When the attorney was asked whether the New York Central or any other railroad 

was behind the plan, and whether the scheme was designed to offset the 

Pennsylvania Railroad’s project to build a North River tunnel, he replied that no 

railroads had as yet negotiated with his employers, but that he expected to receive 

propositions, as it could not fail to be seen that the scheme would be of advantage 

to the roads. 

This discussion suggests that the Union Terminal Company may have been intended to 

entice railroad companies planning similar lines to buy the company to eliminate the 

competition. Investors would profit from the sale, rather than from return on construction 

of the tunnels. The Rambler has been unable to track further details on the company. 

On January 18, 1904, the Republican Club held its annual meeting at its new home on 

West 40th Street for its election. A brief article the next day indicated that 31 residents of 

the city and 61 non-residents were elected to membership, “it being a noticeable fact that 

the friends of Gov. [Benjamin Barker] Odell [Jr.] largely predominated in the additions to 

the membership.” One of the new non-resident members was “Gen. Roy Stone of 

Morristown.” 

On May 8, 1904, the Times contained a social article on life in Morristown. One of the 

items: 

Gen. and Mrs. Le Roy Stone have returned from New York, and are at Mrs. 

Stephenson’s on South Street for a few weeks. 

The article did not explain why the Stones were staying with Mrs. Stephenson or who she 

was. 
The following year, on August 6, 1905, the Times reported that General Stone, who was 

suffering from “a complication of diseases,” was “dying at his home, in Mendham.” The 

prospects for recovery were not good. “All hope of his recovery was abandoned to-day 

by the attending physicians when he became unconscious.” Mrs. Stone, her daughter, 

and son-in-law (more on the daughter in the next section) were at the General’s bedside 

in his final hours. 

The following day, the Times reported that General Stone had died at the Phoenix House 

in Mendham at 1 am on August 6: 

He had suffered from a complication of diseases. Gen. Stone’s condition was not 

considered alarming until Wednesday, when he began failing rapidly. Yesterday 

he sank into unconsciousness, from which he never rallied. 

In describing his life, the article stated: 

Gen. Stone was born in Steuben County, New York, where his father, Ithiel V. 

Stone, had a large estate, sixty-eight years ago. 

After graduating from Union College, he went to Pennsylvania to manage his father’s 

estates in Sheffield and Warren Counties. He soon joined the Union forces in the Civil 

War, providing “brilliant service” in the early campaigns in Virginia: 

For gallant services in the Peninsular campaign, and particularly at the battle of 

Gettysburg, Gen. Stone was breveted a Brigadier General by President Lincoln. 

At Gettysburg Stone was severely wounded in one of the most dashing attacks 

made in the whole war. 

The article also summarized his service during the Spanish-American War: 

Gen. Stone served on Gen. Miles’s staff as a Brigadier General and Chief of 

Engineers. With a troop of cavalry in Porto Rico he made a bloodless 

reconnaissance that extended nearly all over the island, and with no other force he 

captured several cities. After the Spanish war Gen. Stone became very much 

interested in Porto Rican affairs and worked very hard to assist in the 

development of the island. 

Regarding his civilian activities, the Times reported: 

[He] was connected with many important works, including the blowing up of Hell 

Gate and the removal of the bars in the New York Harbor. 

Gen. Roy Stone was one of the pioneers in the movement for good roads, and it is 

largely due to his efforts that New Jersey possesses so many fine thoroughfares. 

He also advocated the use of steel in the building of wagon ways, and watched 

with considerable interest the experiment in Murray Street a few years ago. 
His body was to be transported to Washington for burial in Arlington National Cemetery. 

“Portrait of a General” describes the burial, which was not described in the Times. 

(The Rambler has tried to find information on General Stone’s involvement in blowing 

up the Hell Gate rocks, but has been unable to learn more than the statement in the 

obituary.) 

[“Electrical Tunnel Road,” January 29, 1902 

“Plans for a Big Tunnel,” February 7, 1902] 

“Activity in Morristown,” May 8, 1904 

“Gen. Roy Stone Dying,” August 6, 1905 

“Gen. Roy Stone Dead After Brief Illness,” August 7, 1905] 

Lady Monson 

General and Mrs. Stone had two children, one son named Richmond who died of typhoid 

fever several years before General Stone’s passing. The Rambler has been unable to find 

information about Richmond Stone. 

General Stone’s daughter, who was born on June 5, 1865, is another matter. She was a 

fixture in the New York social scene as Miss Romaine Stone. Although the Rambler 

cannot be sure of Miss Stone’s first appearance in the Times archives, he found at least an 

early reference on April 28, 1886, in an account of several weddings. Miss Stone, then 

20 years old, was a bridesmaid at the wedding of Miss Marie Louis Case, the daughter of 

Watson E. Case, to Mr. Henry Costar Emmett at the residence of the bride’s parents. The 

bridesmaids, Miss Stone and Miss Kittie Emmet, “were charmingly attired in white.” 

Thanks to the archive, the Rambler can provide a sense of the social world Miss Stone 

enjoyed. In the “Society Topics of the Week” column on October 30, 1887, the Times

reported on a social week that was “one of preparation rather than of fulfillment.” It 

explained: 

Long Island and New-Jersey have had their turn now, and at Orange and 

Hempstead what are known as the Hunt balls of the Essex County and 

Meadowbrook Clubs took place on Friday evening. It seemed rather unfortunate 

that both these organizations have chosen the same night for their dances, but the 

entertainments really did not conflict so seriously as various reports would make 

it appear. The Meadowbrook Club set, although small in number, is said to be 

fine in quality, and is entirely sufficient unto itself for enjoyment . . . . 

At the Meadowbrook cotillion “the event partook more of the nature of a small and jolly 

private dance; the pink coats of the huntsmen as at Orange giving an added dash of color 

to the scene.” A new star had emerged in recent years, despite a misunderstanding about 

her lineage: 
The new beauty, Miss Romaine Stone, was present and of course, attracted much 

attention. She is a dark brunette, with remarkably handsome eyes and perfect 

features. She has been in Europe for some time and is well remembered as having 

been a belle at Narragansett Pier and Bar Harbor some few Summers ago, when 

she was not yet out. Miss Stone is not, as has been supposed, a daughter of the 

late Gen. Stone, of Bartholdi statue fame, but of another Gen. Stone. 

Although the Times did not go to the effort of explaining who this mysterious other 

General Stone might be, he was at the time a civil servant in New York City, known to 

some extent but not an honored figure. The other General Stone, General Charles P. 

Stone, had been a celebrated figure in the city until his death on January 24, 1887. This 

General Stone, an 1845 graduate of West Point, had left the U.S. Army in 1856. 

Working in Washington at the outbreak of the Civil War, he was identified as the first 

volunteer officer to the Union cause. Quickly rising to the rank of General, Charles 

Stone’s Civil War career was derailed following the Battle of Ball’s Bluff in Loudoun 

County, Virginia, on October 21, 1861. Coming after the embarrassing defeat of the 

Union Army at Bull Run on July 21, 1861, also in Virginia, this second defeat in what 

northern residents thought would be a short, glorious victory over the rebel forces, 

aroused public and political outrage. Stone was arrested amid public outcry over the 

defeat and held for 6 months without trial. He would be restored to active duty, but never 

had another opportunity to distinguish himself during the war. 

Historians have identified him as a scapegoat unfairly assigned the blame for a 

communications breakdown among the leadership, but his actions after the war restored 

his reputation. He served as an engineer in Egypt (1870 to 1883), on the Florida Ship 

Canal (1883), and as Chief Engineer for construction of the foundation and pedestal for 

the Statue of Liberty designed by France’s Frederic Auguste Bartholdi and dedicated on 

October 28, 1886. 

Miss Stone, along with our General Stone, attended the Patriarch’s Ball, “third and last of 

the season,” at Delmonico’s on February 13, 1888. According to a Times account the 

next day, it was “the last gasp of the season’s festivities,” but also “the best attended and 

most pleasurable.” The article did not indicate that General Stone was accompanied by 

his wife. 

Miss Stone was also identified as attending an exciting polo game at Newport, Rhode 

Island, on August 2, 1888. “Capt. Hitchcock was beaten again at polo this afternoon, his 

team only taking 2 out of 8 goals.” The Times assured readers that the Captain was not at 

fault. “His men were not up to the scratch, and one of them, Mr. Agasaiz, while being a 

good rider, was always sure to miss at a critical moment.” (The Rambler knows the 

feeling.) 

Miss Stone’s social activities continued in Lenox, Massachusetts, on September 14, when 

she attended a ball given by the Sloanes “at their elegant cottage here.” It was “the most 

brilliant social event of the season . . . attended by all the society people staying in town.” 

Mrs. William D. Sloane was the former Emily Vanderbilt of the wealthy Vanderbilt 
family, while her husband was a member of the Sloane merchant family (W & J Sloane). 

Together, they were fixtures of the social world for decades. 

The following day, the Sloanes gave an “elaborate party” that was considered the 

“greatest event” of a busy week. “Wealth and beauty were not wanting to make it the 

most brilliant affair which ever took place in Lenox or, perhaps, in this State.” Miss 

Stone was among the beauties. 

The “second greatest event” was at the “finely finished clubhouse” of the Lenox Club the 

night before the Sloanes’ grand ball. Miss Stone was among those in attendance. Earlier 

that day, she was at the center of a unique event: 

A very novel and enjoyable picnic was given by Mr. Arthur Dodge on Thursday 

in honor of Miss Romaine Stone and Miss Hurst. The party consisted mostly of 

young people whom Mr. Dodge invited to a picnic of six or seven covers on the 

mountainside two miles from Pittsfield. The company enjoyed the day in the 

woods exceedingly, spending the time in climbing over rocks and up the steep 

side of the mountain to its summit, where they could overlook a large expanse of 

country. 

Miss Stone continued her social whirl by attending a party on September 19 thrown by 

Mrs. Flora Whitney, the wife of President Cleveland’s Secretary of the Navy, William 

Whitney. She held an archery and lunch party “on the beautiful lawn of her cottage” for 

250 guests: 

The weather in the morning was threatening, but the sun came out about 1 o’clock 

and the air was clear and warm enough for the comfort of the guests. The ladies 

who engaged in the archery contest were dressed in gay and becoming costumes, 

as were the large number of other ladies who had come out to see the contest. 

The list of “cottagers present” included Miss Romaine Stone. The article did not state 

whether Miss Stone was one of the archers. 

An article dated October 17, 1888, reported that Miss Stone attended the wedding of Miss 

Lilian Carnochan and Livingston Crosby at Grace Church. 

The Rambler came across Miss Stone again in an account of the first “of a series of three 

match races between the seventy-foot sloop Titania . . and Katrina” under the sponsorship 

of the New-York Yacht Club on June 18, 1889. 

She also attended a reception and cotillion given by Mrs. William Astor at her residence 

on Fifth Avenue on January 22, 1890. It was, the Times reported, one of “the most 

brilliant events of this season’s social history.” The article pointed out that less than 100 

“regrets” had been received for the 600 invitations. 
Another name that the Rambler encountered in many of these articles was Turnure. For 

example, the article about Mrs. Whitney’s party on September 18, 1888, contained this 

note: 

Mrs. Lawrence Turnure has issued invitations for a ball on Saturday night. It will 

be one of the most select events of the season. 

Mrs. Turnure’s husband Lawrence was a well-known banker at Lawrence Turnure and 

Company in New York City. He and Mrs. Turnure were prominent in social circles. (At 

one time, according to a society column in the Times, Mr. Turnure and his brother David 

“were considered the handsomest men in Wall Street.”) The couple had two daughters 

and three sons, one of whom was Lawrence Turnure, Jr. Perhaps—and this is mere 

speculation on the Rambler’s part—Miss Stone met Mrs. Turnure’s son at the ball. What 

is not speculation is that the Times’ “Society Topics of the Week” column contained the 

following item on January 26, 1890: 

The engagement has just been announced of Lawrence Turnure, Jr., and Miss 

Romaine Stone, a daughter of Gen. Roy Stone and one of the beauties of the past 

two seasons. Miss Stone made her debut first at Narragansett Pier some summers 

ago . . . . She is a tall and dark brunette. 

On March 30, the society column reported the latest on the pending marriage: 

Mr. and Mrs. Lawrence Turnure and family will soon sail for London, where the 

wedding of Lawrence Turnure, Jr., and Miss Romaine Stone will be celebrated 

next month. 

The wedding would be delayed, as reported in June: 

It is now definitely announced that Lawrence Turnure, Jr., and Miss Romaine 

Stone will be married in London on July 7. 

Their wedding and two others “will be novelties to the many Americans abroad,” 

according to a May 11 article. “Many New-Yorkers will go over especially to attend one 

or more of these weddings.” 

The Times carried a marriage announcement in the July 18 edition: 

Turnure-Stone.—On the 15th inst., at St. Paul’s, Knightsbridge, London, by the 

Right Rev. Henry C. Potter, Bishop of New-York, assisted by the Rev. Montagu 

Villiers, M. A., Vicar of St. Paul’s, Lawrence Turnure, Jr., eldest son of Lawrence 

Turnure of New-York, to Romaine Madeline, daughter of Gen. Roy Stone of New 

York. 

Why the marriage had been delayed is unknown, at least to the Rambler, as is whether 

General and Mrs. Stone attended the ceremony. The next reference the Rambler found to 
the young couple was a report that they were back in New York in early November 

enjoying fine weather at the resort of Tuxedo on election day. 

The marriage would last almost 12 years before Mr. Turnure passed away on April 10, 

1902, after a long illness: 

A cablegram announcing the death at Cairo, Egypt, yesterday, of Lawrence 

Turnure, a son of the late senior member of the firm of Lawrence Turnure & Co. 

of 50 Wall Street. Mr. Turnure retired from the firm about eight years ago on 

account of ill-health, and soon thereafter went to Cairo, where he had since made 

his home. The cablegram gave no particulars, but his relatives here believe that 

his death, while unexpected at this time, was due to an aggravated attack of his 

malady. He had long suffered from consumption. Mr. Turnure was forty-three 

years of age. He leaves a wife, who was Miss Romaine Stone, and one daughter. 

(The Times had noted on May 2, 1899, upon the death of Lawrence Turnure, Sr., after an 

18-month illness following a stroke, that, “All the members of his family were at the 

bedside last night, except the oldest son, Lawrence, who is in Cairo, Egypt, where he has 

resided for several years.”) 

As noted earlier, Romaine soon became ill, prompting notice in the Times on May 20, 

1902, that General and Mrs. Stone had sailed to join their daughter in Paris. 

The nature of the illness is unknown, but a year later, the Times reported on May 21, 

1903, the happy news that “Mrs. Turnure, daughter of the American Gen. Roy Stone,” 

would shortly marry Lord Monson. “Lord Monson is a nephew of Sir. Edmund Monson, 

British Ambassador in Paris. He is Controller of the Household of the Duke of SaxeCoburg and Gotha.” The article provided additional details on Lord Monson: 

Augustus Debonnaire John Monson is the eighth Baron of his line. He was born in 1868 

and succeeded his father in the peerage in 1900. He is private secretary to his uncle, Sir 

Edmund Monson, and is an Honorary Attaché to the British Embassy in Paris. 

Lord Monson’s seat is Burton Hall, Lincolnshire. 

The society column noted the announcement on May 22, referring to Mrs. Turnure as “a 

great beauty.” The column added: 

Her wedding to Lawrence Turnure, Jr., took place some years ago in London. 

Mr. Turnure died two years ago after a long illness. His health had been poor for 

quite a period, and he and Mrs. Turnure lived in Cairo, Egypt, occasionally 

coming to this country. All visitors to Cairo will remember how charmingly and 

well the Turnures entertained. 

Lord Monson received a brief mention on May 31: 
Baron Monson, who is to marry Mrs. Lawrence Turnure, Jr., the daughter of Gen. 

Roy Stone, is quite a young man, and belongs to several well-known London 

clubs, among others to the St. James and the Bachelors. 

More details on the pending marriage emerged in a column on June 21, 1903: 

It is said that Mrs. Lawrence Turnure, Jr., who was the beautiful Romain [sic] 

Stone, first met Lord Monson, who she is to marry very shortly, at the residence 

of Lady Newbrough. As has been stated, Lady Newbrough and her sister, Mrs. 

Chauncey of Brooklyn, were originally from Louisville. They have made a great 

social success in London. Mrs. Turnure has been considered one of the most 

beautiful women in New York and American society. For the past few years she 

has lived almost continuously abroad. Her late husband, Lawrence Turnure, Jr., 

was very delicate and this necessitated her living in Cairo with him. The 

Turnures entertained there a great deal. Mr. Turnure died about two years ago. 

Gen. Roy Stone has gone over for the wedding of his daughter, which will be very 

quietly celebrated. 

The wedding took place in Paris on July 1, 1903, as reported the following day in the 

Times. The wedding “was an interesting international event which was largely attended 

by members of the Diplomatic Corps and of the British and American colonies.” The 

civil ceremony took place at 1:30 at the British Consulate, with General and Mrs. Stone 

“witnesses in behalf of the bride.” A “brilliant reception followed at the British 

Embassy,” after which the couple left for Burton Hall. 

The society column reported that General and Mrs. Stone had returned from the wedding 

on the Oceanic, arriving on October 14, 1903. Lord and Lady Monson visited the Stones 

in Morristown in December, having arrived on the Oceanic. Staying at the Boldings in 

Morristown, “Lord and Lady Monson intend making many pleasure trips in the country 

and will make their headquarters in Morrisown.” 

Lord and Lady Monson went to Montreal early in 1904, and left for Florence, Italy, in 

late February to join Lord Monson’s mother. The United States apparently made a poor 

impression on Lord Monson, as reflected in this headline in the Times on February 20, 

1904: “Lord Monson Doesn’t Like Us.” The brief article stated: 

Lord Monson has not been favorably impressed with his visit in this country, and 

considers Canada far preferable to the United States as a place of residence. 

Why that might be, the Rambler is unable to state. 

As noted earlier, Lord and Lady Monson returned to the United States to be by General 

Stone’s side in his last days in August 1905. On August 13, 1905, the Times reported that 

they would sail for Europe shortly, noting of Lady Monson that, “As Miss Romaine 

Stone she was a great beauty.” It also mentioned her first marriage to the late Lawrence 

Turnure, Jr. “who died in Egypt five years ago.” 
In later years, the Times would continue to periodically report on Lady Monson’s 

activities, usually with a mention of General Stone and her first husband as a reference 

point for readers. For example, on March 21, 1907, the Times reported that, “A son has 

been born to Lord and Lady Monson at their country seat in Kent, England.” (John 

Rosebery Monson was born on February 11, 1907.) The short notice reminded readers 

that Lady Monson “is a daughter of the late Gen. Roy Stone of New York, and was once 

a belle of Newport.” 

Lady Monson was cited as likely to attend the coronation of King George V on June 22, 

1911 at Westminster Abbey. King George had ascended the throne upon the death of his 

father, King Edward VII, on May 6, 1910. The Times reported on March 26, 1911, that 

many Americans were traveling to London for the ceremony, but few would get in. “The 

only other Americans who will be present at the coronation will be those who have 

married British peers, and who are as peeresses of the realm entitled to an invitation.” 

Peeresses included Lady Monson who was the “widow of Lawrence Turnure” and “a 

daughter of the late Gen. Roy Stone, U.S.A.” The Times article included portraits of 

many of the peeresses, including Lady Monson (the only image of her that Rambler came 

across in the Times archive). 

Many Americans attended the chief party given by the Duchess of Marlborough at 

Sunderland House, as reported on May 28, 1911. Lady Monson was among those in 

attendance. By July, heat was driving visitors from London, including Lord and Lady 

Monson who “left London for the country after a week’s visit to Cora Countess of 

Strafford.” 

On March 14, 1912, Lady Monson was among the Anglo-Americans “who paid their 

devoirs” at the Court. The Rambler, who is deficient in British royal doings, believes this 

means she was presented formally to King George. 

Following the sinking of the Titanic on April 14, 1912, and the loss of 1,517 lives, the 

British took pride “that the officers and crew did their duty in a manner worthy of the 

best traditions of the British merchant marine service.” An article, datelined London on 

April 21, 1912, explained that it was never doubted in England that the male passengers, 

mostly Americans, “would prove equal to the strain” and follow for the most part the 

concept of women and children first. However, “militant suffragettes” denied that the 

experience contradicted their view that the age of chivalry was dead. While Mis [sic] 

Sylvia Pankhurst [a leading suffragette in England]. . . did not want to minimize in any 

way the gallantry displayed,” she pointed out, as the article summarized, “it must be 

borne in mind that it was the universal rule in cases of shipwreck that women and 

children should be saved first . . . . There was no special chivalry attached to it.” Many 

women in England disagreed with that view. They, including Lady Monson, had 

contributed a total of $35,000 dollars to a fund on behalf of the dead. 

That same day, the Times reported that the latest craze in London was the study of 

German. “This is being taken very much ‘au grand serieux’ (in all seriousness) by 
several Anglo-Americans.” The first name cited as adopting the craze is the former Miss 

Stone: 

Lady Monson took it up directly she came to town in the early part of last year. 

She was in Paris on June for “a dinner and opera party” thrown by Miss Gurnea, who was 

identified as Lady Monson’s cousin. 

Lord and Lady Monson were in London for social engagements in December 1912: 

Lord and Lady Monson have been paying a series of shooting visits during the 

last few weeks, but are now preparing to return hospitalities at their place near 

Lincoln. Lady Monson has invited quite a large party of friends to stay with them 

at Burton Hall for the Lincoln color ball, which is really a hunt ball. A pretty 

custom prevails for this affair. The lady patron of the year is expected to choose 

the colors to be worn at the ball by an eminent portion of the community, so that 

their toilets shall not clash with the pink of the hunt coats worn by the men. 

Yellow and gray are the choice for the coming function, and the members of the 

various house parties are carefully planning their gowns, so that the wearers of 

each color shall be evenly divided. 

Lady Monson is bringing out one of her husband’s nieces, Miss Phyllis 

Chetewynd, at the ball. “Getting her hand in for the thing,” as she says, referring 

to when her own daughter, Miss Margaret Turnure, shall make her debut. 

After war with Germany broke out in August 1914, Lady Monson was on the advisory 

committee of the American Women’s War Relief Committee, which as of August 19, 

1914, had raised a fund of $72,000. 

On May 17, 1922, the Times carried an article announcing that Lady Monson’s daughter 

Margaret was betrothed to Thomas Richard Bevan of Royston, Hertfordshire. Miss 

Turnure’s uncles, George Evans Turnure and Dr. Percy R. Turnure, “are both well known 

in this city,” while her “mother was Miss Romaine Stone, a daughter of General Roy 

Stone, who was prominent in society both here and in London.” The brief article added, 

“Lady Monson was very active in Red Cross work during the war.” 

The marriage took place on July 17 at St. Michael’s Church, Chester Square, in London. 

Lord Monson gave his stepdaughter away. The Times added, “Prince Alfonso and 

Princess Beatrice of Spain attended the wedding.” Sadly, in the Rambler’s view, the 

article did not explain why. (Princess Beatrice was a member of the British royal family 

and a granddaughter of Queen Victoria. She married Prince Alfonso in 1909 despite his 

family’s objections to the wedding because she refused to convert to Roman Catholicism. 

The marriage-for-love cost him his place in the Spanish royal court.) 

General Stone’s wife Mary died on September 28, 1925. The death notice in the Times

indicated that she had died “at the residence of her daughter, Lady Monson, Burton Hall, 
Lincoln, England.” It added, “Mary N. Stone of Morristown, N.J., widow of General 

Roy Stone,” was 82 years old. She was to be buried at Arlington National Cemetery 

alongside her husband. 

On June 4, 1931, the Times reported that the Honorable John Rosebery Monson, the only 

son of Lord and Lady Monson, was to marry Miss Bettie Northrup Powell, whose parents 

lived at Journey’s End, Chevy Chase, Maryland. The engagement was “of especial 

interest in New York” because Miss Powell and Mr. Monson “have many relatives in this 

State.” 

Miss Powell “was descended from two of the oldest and most prominent families in 

Central New York.” Her grandfather, William Brown Smith, had been one of the early 

settlers of Onondaga County and the founder of Lakeside Farms, “long internationally 

famous for their show horses and Holstein cattle.” She also was a granddaughter of 

Edward A. Powell, “banker, agricultural authority and philanthropist.” One of her 

ancesters was Cotton Mather, the influential 17th century New England Puritan minister 

who is associated with the Salem Witch Trials. 

As for Mr. Monson, the article explained that he was half American: 

His mother is a daughter of the late General Roy Stone of Mendham, N.J., and 

Mrs. Stone. Her first husband was the late Lawrence Turnure of New York. She 

is a Lady of Grace of the Order of St. John of Jerusalem. Mr. Monson’s father, 

the ninth Baron Monson, was Controller of the Household of the late Duke of 

Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. During the World War, he was Commissioner of the 

British Red Cross in Italy. 

Miss Powell and Mr. Monson “met in the Summer of 1929 while traveling in the Yukon 

and again last Summer in the Balkans.” At the time of the article, he was in the United 

States visiting with Miss Powell and her family in Chevy Chase. After marriage, they 

planned to divide their time between London and the family estates in Lincolnshire. 

The wedding took place on August 4, 1931, in Christ Church, Beachwood, New Jersey. 

An article on August 6 provided a few additional details about the lives of the young 

couple. Miss Powell’s father, Lieutenant Colonel E. Alexander Powell “is the author of 

many books on international affairs.” As for the groom: 

He was graduated recently from the Inner Temple, London . . . . The engagement 

of the couple was announced last June and the wedding was planned for the 

Autumn. Mr. Monson came to the United States recently for a visit with his 

fiancé and while motoring through New Jersey several weeks ago, met with an 

accident which necessitated his remaining in this country longer than he at first 

intended. The date of the wedding was advanced in order that the bride could 

return with him to England. 
The article added, “Mr. Monson is a grandson of the late General Roy Stone and Mrs. 

Stone of Mendham, N.J.” It did not indicate whether Lady Monson was able to attend 

the wedding, but the Rambler hopes she did. It also did not mention General Stone’s 

advocacy of the New Jersey roads on which his grandson’s crash took place. 

On August 23, the young couple arrived in New York, staying at the Montclair, before 

leaving for Quebec. They would then sail for London. The couple had one son, John 

Monson, born May 3, 1932. 

On October 11, 1940, the 9th Lord Monson died at Brighton Hall at the age of 72. “He 

had been suffering from heart trouble for some time,” the Times explained. The article 

did not mention Lady Monson but added: 

His son, John Rosebery Monson, who becomes the tenth baron, is a staff 

lieutenant at the War Office. The younger Monson married an American girl, the 

former Betty [sic] Northrop Powell in 1931. She is staying at present in 

Washington with their two sons, and a daughter. 

The late Lord Monson’s wife, the former Miss Romaine Stone, passed away on January 

1, 1943, at the age of 77. A brief obituary appeared in the Times under the headline: 

“Dowager Lady Monson.” (A “dowager” is a widow holding property from her deceased 

husband, according to Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 11th edition.) The two 

paragraph article described Lady Monson’s life in these terms: 

London, Jan. 1 (U.P.) – The Dowager Lady Monson, the former Miss Romaine 

Stone, daughter of the late General Roy Stone, U.S.A., died today at her home, 

Burton Hall, near Lincoln. The Stone family lived at Mendham, N.J. 

Lady Monson, whose husband died on Oct. 11, 1940, was the widow of Lawrence 

Turnure of New York when she was married to Lord Monson in 1903. When a 

young woman she was prominent in society circles here and in London. During 

the First World War Lady Monson was engaged in British Red Cross work in 

Rome, where her husband was stationed as Commissioner General of the British 

Red Cross in Italy. 

Her son, the 10th Lord Monson, passed away on April 7, 1958, at the age of 51. Services 

were held at Lincoln Cathedral followed by private cremation. (The Cathedral Church of 

the Blessed Virgin Mary of Lincoln was built in the years 1185-1311 and was considered 

the tallest building in the world through the mid-16th century, surpassing even the Great Pyramid 

at Giza until the lead-encased wooden spire was blown down by a storm in 1549 and was not 

rebuilt.) His wife Bettie would remarry, marrying Captain James Arnold Phillips on 

February 12, 1962, becoming Mrs. Bettie Phillips. She passed away on May 10, 2003. 

John Monson, the son of the 10th Lord Monson and his wife Bettie, became the 11th Lord 

Monson upon the death of his father. He had married Emma Devas, daughter of an 

English painter, on April 2, 1955. They had three children, Nicholas John (born October 
19, 1955), Andrew Anthony John (May 12, 1959), and Stephan Alexander John (January 

5, 1961). 

The 11th Lord Monson continues to serve in the House of Lords as a Crossbencher. 

According to the Crossbenchers’ Web site: 

Peers in the House of Lords who do not take a party whip (ie. they are not told 

how to vote by a political party) sit on the Crossbenches. They are known for 

their independent, non-party political stance . . . . Due to their independence 

Crossbenchers do not adopt any collective policy positions. They speak in 

debates and vote in Divisions as individuals. 

Thus, sayeth the Rambler, ends the begats. 

 [“A Day of Many Weddings,” April 28, 1886 

“Society Topics of the Week,” October 30, 1887 

“Closing the Season,” February 14, 1888 

“Again the Yellows Win,” August 3, 1888 

“Society’s Sway at Lenox,” September 15, 1888 

“Society Events at Lenox,” September 16, 1888 

“Mrs. Whitney as Hostess, September 20, 1888 

“Society Topics of the Week,” January 26, 1890 

“Society Topics of the Week,” March 30, 1890 

“Society Topics of the Week,” June 15, 1890 

“Married,” July 16, 1890 

“Society Topics of the Week, November 9, 1890 

“Lawrence Turnure Dead,” May 2, 1899 

“What is Doing in Society,” May 3, 1899 

“What is Doing in Society,” May 20, 1902 

“To Marry Lord Monson,” May 21, 1903 

“What is Doing in Society,” May 22, 1903 

“Of Whom Clubmen Gossip,” May 31, 1903 

“Told in Her Boudoir,” June 21, 1903 

“Mrs. Turnure Weds Lord Monson in Paris,” July 2, 1903 

“What is Doing in Society,” October 15, 1903 

“Society at Home and Abroad,” December 13, 1903 

“Lord Monson Doesn’t Like Us,” February 20, 1904 

“Society at Home and Abroad,” August 13, 1905 

 “Son for the Former Miss Stone,” March 21, 1907 

“Few Americans Will See the Actual Coronation,” March 26, 1911 

“Party at Sunderland House,” May 28, 1911 

“Heat Sends Visitors Away from London,” July 16, 1911 

“Presents Americans at Court in London,” March 15, 1912 

“Suffragettes Deny Chivalry on Titanic,” April 21, 1912 

“Society Folk Study German,” April 21, 1912 

“Paris Brightens as Season Grows,” June 23, 1912 
“London Glows over Big Costume Ball,” December 8, 1912 

“American Women Have $72,000 Fund,” August 19, 1914 

“Miss Turnure Engaged,” May 17, 1922 

“Miss Turnure Weds T. R. Bevan in London,” July 19, 1922 

“Died,” September 30, 1925. 

“Bettie N. Powell Engaged to Marry,” June 4, 1931 

“Monson-Powell,” August 6, 1931 

“Notes of Social Activities in New York and Elsewhere,” August 24, 1931 

“Lord Monson,” October 12, 1940 

“Dowager Lady Monson,” January 2, 1943 

“Deaths,” April 10, 1958 

The Rambler on General Stone 

In talking about the proposed Grand Road of America, General Stone said: 

It is often easier to do great things than small ones of the same kind, and what the 

Government undertakes in this regard should be something big enough to excite 

the imagination and stir the pride and patriotism of the country—something that 

will put us in respect of roads as far ahead of other nations as we have been 

behind them heretofore. 

Although he was referring to the greatest symbolic object-lesson road of them all, these 

words could apply just as well to General Stone’s philosophy of life. As early as his 

service in the Civil War, we see a decisive, fearless individual taking on every challenge. 

Through July 1, 1963, when he led a valiant battle that held off the Confederate advance 

and was incapacitated by injury, his Civil War experience had been one of bold strikes, 

rapid decisionmaking, and strong leadership. 

These same characteristics were evident in his post-war years as he took on big projects, 

tackled risks with new ideas, invented devices for transit and steel trackways to address 

major problems, and earned the respect of those he worked with. These projects did not 

always result in success, but he continued to show bold initiative even in his last years 

when he sketched a steel track speedway for Long Island that, had it been built, would 

have been a major accomplishment. 

His contributions to the Good Roads Movement, however, are his monument. Once he 

became committed to the cause, he was a tireless advocate, researcher, and disseminator. 

His body of work – exhibits, object-lesson roads, publications, research, speeches 

throughout the United States, tabulation of data, and testimony in the U.S. Congress and 

before State legislatures around the country – on a budget that ranged from $8,000 to 

$10,000 a year is remarkable enough that it seems impossible. The wide range of ideas 

he conceived and promoted in his Good Roads advocacy reflected his active, fertile, 

ingenious mind. 
General Stone did not expect to live long enough to see his work come to fruition; he 

understood it was the work of several generations. But he never lost his enthusiasm or 

his certainty of its success. He laid a foundation for the coalition of forces that not long 

after his death would result in creation of the Federal-aid highway program in 1916. The 

program, based on the State-aid programs he thought should be the model, survives to 

this day and has helped to create the greatest road network and the most mobile society in 

history. 

Neither the Times archives nor other sources tell us about General Stone’s personal life. 

What his wife’s life was like or what she thought of her husband’s activities, we cannot 

say. We know that they lost a son, Richmond, to illness, but that their beautiful daughter 

enjoyed social and personal success. The Rambler, who always likes a happy ending, 

believes the evidence shows that General and Mrs. Stone loved their daughter and were 

proud of what she accomplished despite the physical distance that circumstances placed 

between them. In turn, she gave them two grandchildren, and was a support and comfort 

to her mother in the years after the General’s death. If children are a reflection of their 

parents, Lady Monson tells us that General and Mrs. Stone were loving, caring, 

thoughtful parents. 

On October 3, 1893, General Stone launched an inquiry that goes on to this day as we 

continue the search he began for best practices.