New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1894-01-21
VETOED By THE PRESIDENT
THE NETWORK AND NEW-JERSEf
BRIDGE ELL DISAPPRONED.
OBSTRUCTION OF COMMERCE. BY THE OoN'
sTRUCTIoN or PIERS IN THE NORTH
,,,,-,.D TIN CTIrp,I1 OBJECTION

sTRUCTIoN OF PIERS IN THE NORTH
RIVER TIE CHIEF OBJECTION
TO THE MEASURE.
Washington. Ian. 2o.-President Cleveland sent
70 the House this afternoon message vetoing
+be New-York and New-Jersey Bridge BILL and
giving the reasons for his action. The message
is as follows:
To the House Of Representatives. ~ ,,r,.
hereby return without M approval House i5i iiI
~ 2 e9ted AH f rTase ComPanies to con
struct and maintain bridge across the hudS"i1
River, between New-York City and the STATE oi
This bin authorizes the construction Of bridge
%ork and New-Jersey the terminus Of which in the
city of New-York shall not be below sixty,siXih-
ST. 1t oontemplates the construction OF DIloge
upon piers placed in the river; mention is made
of a single span crossing the entire river nor Is
within the intention of the Congress 'cthat there
should be bridge built without PIERS. am ny no
invested by the terms of the bill with considerable
concerned would have the right to exact OF the
promoters Of this enterprise the erection Of bridge
spanning the entire river
INTERFERENCE OF PIERS WITH COMMERCE.
Much objection has been made to the location Of
any piers in the river for the reason that they
would seriously interfere with the commerce which
seeks the port OF New-York through that channel.
1t is certainly questionable whether piers
should be permitted at all in the North River at
It seems absolutely certain that within few years
great volume Of shipping VIII extend 70 ,hat
location which would be seriously cmbarrasSe by
such Instructions. appreciate fully the Importance
Of securing some means by which railroad trathc
can cross this river. and one can fail 10 realize
the serious Inconvenience to travel cause! by the
time, It is a plain distate Of wisdom and expediency
that the commerce of the river be not unnecessarily
interfered with by bridges in any other manner.
be questioned, inclu ling the engineer Of the com,
pany proposing 70 build this bridge have expressed
the opinion that the entire river can be Spdnned
safely and effectively by suspension bridge, or a
The company TO which the permission bridge
the river is granted in the bill under considera-
lature Of the State of New-YOrk. which became
either approve or veto the same, on the gun DAY
OF april. ~" 1t may be safely assumed ,hat , the
commerce of he CITY Of Kew York and had in
hdd 6s Sa % E Prn TSs
concerned by PARAGRAPH "a Of thT law er Sais
shall be constructed with a single span oyer The
tween the span and the existing pier headlines in
either State, and that mo pier or tower or other
placed or built in the river between said towers or
piers under this act" In view Of such professional
would be inicrferei with by the location Of piers
m 5se of Vs he d OF 6e to '9 NeW
York 1t seems 20 me- nat Plan necessn t me
avoided. The question Of increased expense of
construction, or the compromise Of conflicting In
notice the bin provides that the c9m lpani,s
no greater pay for transporting the mails across
sf sr 5hs # a3~i RSF f as
guage seems 10 import 20 authorize this bridge
a toll for the carriage of its mails across tho
bridge equal 70 the amount which may be paid per
mile by the Government FOR carrying the mails by
railroads crossing the bridge. II seems TO me II
should not be allowed The expense to the Govern
ment for carrying the mails over the structure
should beyond any doubt be limited TO the com
An exceedingly important objection to the bin
remains TO be considered In 1890 the North River
Congress for the purpose Of constructing bridge
across the North River. the New-York terminus of
the city Of New-Yorks The PROPOSITION to con,
carefully and thoroughly examined at that time
and during the agitation OF the project for A num-
result OF such examination and such discussion
Congress granted permission 10 this company 70
pended from towers on each side OF the river
and In the act specially prohibited the piacihg ot
any piers in the river either OF temporary or oi
a permanent character in connection WIN san
bridge The plan to gTgs fease Nv the engn
GERS OF the company. and II accepted the terms or
a number OF bills were introduced in the Congress
covering The same ssDIs eo %cn ere made by these
officers in every insisting upon a construc-
ton with single span and without piers In the
bed Of the river.
A NEW CHARTER FOR AN UNNAMED COMPANY
The eighth subdivision OF the bill herewith re-
turned provides that any company heretofore Gre
ated for the purpose OF bridging the river may
avail Itself OF the provisions of the act and makes
such company subject TO all It's provisions. rms
of course has reference 10 the North River Bridge
Company, and releases that company from the
prohibition Of the act under which IL was perintteu
10 span the river and permits II to construct piers
in the river 1t seems to me that the Language or
the bill under consideration. so far as II reiaes 20
This particular feature Is equivalent to new
grant 10 that company, differing very materially
from the grant which vas thought expedeht
at the time IL was before the Congress- and removes
the guarantee that In the construction OF ~
bridge there shall be obstructons IN the rye, rye,
such were especially guarded against by tne Dill
originally passed for its ben mt In erect she NEW
charter Is granted n company not named IN tne
bill and for apparent reason Tor fhs "'""r'A"'