The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1875-02-14
The Constitutional Aspects OF tho
Rapid Transit Question.

Rapid Transit Question.
The HERALD, which always seeks to en-
tighten the public judgment on important
questions by drawing forth the views of those
who are most competent to form sound opin
ions on them prints this morning the opin
ions of quite number of the members OF
the Constitutional Commission which pre-.
pared and digested the new amendments We
sent circular to each member Of the Consti.
tutional Commission, requesting his judgment
! as to the bearing of the new amendments ON
the great question of rapid transit and on
the minor question of aid to public charities
the only points as to which there can be q
reasonable difference of opinion as to the
scope and character of the amendments.
Among the answers we have thus far re-
ceived the most intelligent and satisfactory
is that of Mr.. Erastus Brooks, whose
intimate knowledge of our local affairs,
OF which he was the most important repre-
sentative in the Constitutional Commission,
gives peculiar value to his opinions Mr.
Brooks reply to the HERALDs inquiry is alto
gether the most valuable and satisfactory of
any which has yet been received. Mr..
Brooks is one of the best judges of what the
Constitutional Commission intended, and his
opinion as to the Interpretation of the amend
ments has a corresponding value But his
views are not singular; they are strongly
supported by the opinions of the other MEM
bers of the Constitutional Commission who
have answered our inquiries.
It is evident on the face of the question,
that the Constitutional Commission did not
intend to hamper and obstruct rapid transit
in the city of New York. This question had
been widely discussed long before the Com
mission met, and no member could have been
unaware Of its great importance If members
from the rural districts had ignored or tor
gotten it Messrs. Brooks Opdyke and
Townsend would have recalled it to the at
tention of the Commission. It is altogether
incredible and preposterous to suppose that so
important question as rapid transit in this
city escaped the attention Of the Constitutional
Commission or that its members intended to
put distractions in the way of 80 necessary an
improvement. II the amendments, as adopted,
erect q constitutional barrier against rapid
transit in this city, it is quite certain that
nothing of this kind was intended by the ex-
perienced gentlemen who prepared them. 1t
would be surprising and unaccountable if the
Constitutional Commission had overlooked so
important o subject as steam railroads in this
great city, and still more astonishing If, with
the subject before them, they had made it
constitutionally impossible to prosecute such
work. 1t is perfectly clear that the Consti-
tutional Commission could not have intended
to obstruct the growth of this great metropolis
by O constitutional inhibition of the most i'm
portant means of its development If they
have really erected such barrier it is quite
certain they did not intend it This is as
evident from the intrinsic probabilities of the
case as from the opinions which we publish
this morning, of the members Of the Constitu-
tional Commission.
The view OF Mr.. Brooks is strongly sup
ported by that of gentleman whose remote
ness from this city makes him an impartial
Judge. Mr.. Morris, Of Chautauqua county,
who makes the briefest of all the replies we
have received, evinces the clearest perception
of the point on which the rapid transit con-
troversy hinges. Mr. Morris is lawyer, and
he puts the whole controversy in a nutshell
by declaring that ''as public highway for
the benefit of the city," the amended consti-
tuition puts no obstacle in the way of rapid
transit This answer is creditable to the legal
Of Mr. Morr,o hO CT iOht IN
the point on which the controversy hinges.
"A public highway for the benefit of the city
is not forbidden by the new amendments, as
Mr. Morris thinks, and his residence in the
distant county of Chautauqua exempts his
opinion from any imputation Of local bias
It is safe to assume that the Constitutional
Commission did not intend to erect barriers
against rapid transit in the city of New York
The only question is whether they have in
advertently erected such q barrier against
their intentions. On this point the opinion
of MI Brooks is entitled to great considera-
Constitutional Commission was so peculiarly
a representative of our city interests Mr..
Brooks opinion, as will be seen from his
letter in other columns, is quite free from
doubt as to the authority of the city 10 con-
struct road for rapid transit BE cautiously
retralns from expressing himself as to the ex-
pediency Of the city undertaking such work
but on the constitutional question he has no
doubt or reserve. He thinks that rapid
transit road is as entirely within the municipal
jurisdiction, if the Legislature consents, as
the Central Park or the Croton water.
We do not feel bound by the views Of Mr..
Brooks or Of any other member Of the Con-
stitutional Commission, and must be per-
mitted to have our own opinion Certain it
is that, in prohibiting special or local legisla-
ton, the new amendments do not forbid local
legislation for the charters of cities. The con-
IA. :. "A ,yacto ~ fha citiae If the Stafa ra