The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1872-05-21
THE RAPID TRANSIT SCHEMES
Arguments Before the Governor at Albany Yas,
terday-what Commodore Vanderbilt Pro-
poses to Do if His Bill Be Signed.

ALBANY, May 20, 1871
hearing took place before the Governor today
in reference to the bill for rapid transit In New
York city. Judge George I. Curtis and John Mo.
Donald appeared for the Central Underground and
Chauncey M. Depew for the Vanderbilt scheme.
Judge Curtis said the bill promoted by CommoI
dore Vanderbilt gave him most extraordinary
powers, as he doubtless would, If 1t became law.
furnish the whole Of the money required, and asso,
ciate with himself members OF his own familys
which would give him entire control Of the road;
and enable him to bequeath and devise to anyone
he pleased for the term of one hundred years.
Further, the bill gave him such power az would
enable him to the lines OF the Central Undert
ground Railroad they would run practically over
the same route in some places, there not being
sufficient room for both lines and the Underground
Railroad, under their charter had power to con!
struct curve line under the City Hall Park which,
would be interfered with If the Vanderbilt bill be.
came law He maintained that under the charter OF
the underground road the line OF route laid down
became the vested property of the corporations
and the other side had power to interfere in anv
way. In addition to that, there was no clause Al
the bill for the protection of the public and
practically, the bill would enable Commodore
Vanderbilt to dig ditch several miles long
and keep 1t open for three years and half
IL ne WSucu. he QuOteU from several cases to
show that If the bill were signed there would be no
power to compel Mr.. Vanderbilt to associate any4
body with himself; and, therefore, on publld
grounds as well as in consideration OF the rights
vested in the Underground Company, he argued the
bill should not receive the Governors signature.
Mr.. Mcdonald said the Vanderbilt line had copied
the bill of the Central Underground Railroad so aE
as related to the company, without any protective
clauses to the public He argued that the proposed
in a q
safeguards could not be applied underground, as on
railroads above ground, to prevent accidents.
and lease holders on the proposed line, and prey
sented protest signed by $50 out of the 500 prop
Ty Hd9 S reDevna sseeu2s against I
He argued that the proposition to erect
yentilators from the proposed road above ground IN
the Bowery would not a only take up large portion
stantly emitted there would prove detrimental I'd
storekeepers and property holders. .
charter for the Central Underground Railroad wa9
passed by the Legislature in 1885, but apsed, as No
steps were taken to execute the work, and in 1850
1t was renewed, but from that time to the present
nothing had been done, with the exception OF dig,
ging trench and hole, for the simple reason
to carry out the work. lie argued that the Gen.
trail Underground Railroad was simply CONF
bination Of three bankrupt railroads, who sought
to get station on Broadway In order to float
their bonds in the London market whereas he was
authorized to give pledge on the part Of Commo.
would associate with himself men Of standing, and
money would be Immediately forthcoming and
work carried on as speedily as the most skilled en
there was a great demand for rapid transit
In New York city, which His Exceency, as well as
e s y IN so
piled, and he very much questioned whether as
a matter of law, the Central Underground
charter by not constructing its road before the
present time. AS to the remarks which had
been made In reference to Commodore vanderbs
not build an underground railroad, and people
such a speculation. Proof of that existed
in the difficulty experienced by the Central Under.
ground Railroad Company in getting Innds ana M. ha
Vanderbilt line was brought to bear for no other
reason than that If portion Of the road was
bonds in the London market The Central UNDER
ground Road Company had filed what they called
construction plans, after the vanderDlit plli naa
and he argued that if the plans as originally filed
were adhered to there was plenty Of room ior ooth
His Exceency, having very carefully examined
both plans assisted by the engineers, said the en-
gineer of the Vanderbilt road now before them had
arranged for return Of the trains at their destina-
ton by means of q transfer table and SWITCH
which obliterated the necessity OF the curve
alluded to by Mr. Curtis, and II 1t were practicable
to adopt that course in the of the Central I'M
foreground Railroad he thought they would have TO
torego their right to the curve as he did not seq
that they could appropriate the whole space OF the
City Hall Park to the exclusion Of every other plan.
Mr. Curtis argued that they were entitled to that
under the charter, and that II this bill was signed
the routes would be coincdent
His Exccllency replied that some very extraordi.
nary powers were conveyed under their charter,
and II 1t were before him at the present
time he doubted whether it would not
be as much open to attack as any
charter he knew of. He did not consider that as
Governor Of this State he should be justified in
allowing them to assume entire control OF the space
OF the City Hall Park, to the exclusion of every
other railroad, and in conclusion, his ExcellenCY
referred to the fact that at the time the
bill was passed by both branches Of the Legislature
there nothing the file in the Registers Office
to show that the Central Underground Railroad
Company proposed using the whole space on the
east side of the City Hall.
Decision has been reserved.
TIT DOM AM q AnuQI 10 nnNurMrI0M