The New York herald., 1879-03-08
BROOKLYN BRIDGE.

EXPERT TESTIMONY CONCERNING ITS DEPRECIAT-
ING EFFECT ON REAL ESTATE IN NEW YORK
cITg--JoHN STEPHENSON ON THE STAND.
Another session of the Assembly Subcommittee
on Commerce and Navigation held yesterday at
the Metropolitan Hotel. all the members being
present. The opponents of the bridge regarded the
testimony taken az the strongest yet presented in
support of their objections Among other witnesses
Mr.. John Stephenson. the great builder and Mr..
Michael Coleman deputy tax collector. called
and examined ona number of topics german to the
great work 1t Is sought to stop.
The first witness called was Mr.. George H. Pen.
niman. who testified that he was the owner of cer-
tain wharf property above the line of the bridge;
that he was engaged In the importation and manu-
facture Of India goods. He had heard many cap
tains engaged in the India trade assert since the
bridge begun. that they would never again make
charter parties unless clause inserted to the
effect that in coming to New York they would not
be required to go above the bridge. Mr.. Penniman
said he the owner Of lnseed oil works at the
foot of Grand street. River but that his factory
had been closed for two years account OF the de-
preston of business II this resolution the part
of captains in the India trade was adhered to. he
said he did not know when no would open the fac
tory again. Mr.. Penniman. gave some testimony
concerning tho height of certain ships spars.
CENTRE OF TRAFFIC..
Mr. s. Wise, clerk in the Finance Department was
next called. He testified concerning the tramway
traffic at the New York terminus of the bridge. The
railroad lines that that point. he said. had 567
cars which in their daily trips would pass. all told.
about six thousand times front of this terminus
The completion of the bridge would. in his opinion.
seriously interfere with travel in New York and
from Ie tla
travel by the Fulton ferry which is four times as
great as by any other. would be lessened by tho
bridge.
Mr. Joseph A. Perry of the Union Ferry Company.
next called He thought that the present accom-
mediation wasquite sufficient for all needs but ad-
miting that increased ferry facilities would increase
the danger of collision on the river.
Mr.. Harvey Farrington testified that he thought
the bridge would be used by people living beyond
the approaches and doing business ON the west side
of Manhattan Island.
Mr. Stephenson testified that he had been in the
building business in Twenty seventh street since
1882. He was examined concerning the capacity OF
and methods OF propelling them On the first
head ho rather indefinite. The capacity Of car,
genuously volunteered the statement that the
Third avenue road they began to think they were
getting full when they had taken up eighty passen-
proposed more especially with reference to 'endess
chain" roads, he said that he knew Of but one road
that used it; this road in San Francisco. Cal;
the rate Of speed, he said about the same
Us that attained with horses: years
ago he had built cars for such another
and Rio Janeiro. Brazil. but for some reason
the road did net succeed on the "endless chain"
plan and he was constructing other for the
road. for drawing which mules were to be used.
1t having been intimated that the endless chain plan
would be adopted to draw the bridge. aud
further that the structure had capacity OF holding
eighty cars, witness was asked what he thought OF
the plan and he answered that he could not conceive
Of any mechanism that would be powerful enough to
draw forty cars. Finally. Mr.. Stephenson, in
to direct question: said that in his opinion.
il the bridge finished it would not be gen.
orally used by trucks or pedestrians. The terrini
Of the ferries, he said. the radal points for
traffic and not in this generation could these centres
be disturbed The time might come when they would
be abandoned for others. but that time in the opin
ior Of witness. was generations OIL
Captain Walsh OF the City Hall police precinct. was
next called and questioned concerning the traffic be-
the proposed New York terminus OF the bridge
titled about the confluence of the trainway lines ut
that point and was excused.
TIE STANDARD OIL coMpANY's POSITION.
Mr.. Richard g. veit, OF the Standard OIL Company,
was next examined. He stated that previous to the
construction OF the bridge most of the oil OF the
company shipped ut Hunters Point, but that
since the cables had been put i'll position the bulk OF
the business had gone to Weehawken, New
Jersey The extra expense to shipowners
| made weehawken the favorite place. Many
OF the owners had not have their ships
sent to Hunters Point he said that during the past
few years the tonnage OF the ships used In the oil
trade had been gradually increasing. When asked
/
whose owners had requested not to be sent to Hum
ters Point he mentioned the John Pryce. 1896 tons;
the Yorktown. 1855 tons; the John Kenny. 1858
tons, and several others. These, he said. not
the largest vessels in the trade the larger vessels
he sad preferred to load at Baltimore and Philadel
phia; this departure from the old rule of coming to
New York. he said was due, in his opinion, to the
bridge; the bulk of the Standard company's busi-
ness had not, however, decreased, but this might
have been due to general increase in the oil.
OPINIONS OF A REAL ESTATE EXPERT.
Mr.. Michael Coleman. Deputy Tax Collector of New
York, next sworn. He examined particu-
larly concerning the effects OF the bridge real
tate values along the water front the East River.
He said that since the bridge had been begun prop
erty from its line up to about Twentythird street
had declined in value about 81 500 U00 general de-
probation OF about forty per cent For the first
four years complaints ut the Tax Office have been
very frequent and always accompanied with PEE
titions for y reduction OF taxes. The Fourth
and Seventh wards particularly
affected; the property below the bridge he said.
cept ia few has maintained its value and Is
about the same as it was thirty years ago; some
OF the property above the bridge has recently sold
less than its market value thirty years ago. Con-
cernng the changes in valuation from year to year
Mr. Coleman said that ninety cent of the property
above the bridge was assessed the same in 1874;
that since that time no general change has been made
by the Tax Commissioners in the rates, notwith-
standing that many holders have been forced to sell
for half the amount OF the assessed valuation.
After the examination OF Mr.. Coleman the COM
mittee adjourned to meot again this morning.