New-York tribune., 1895-12-28
FIGHTING OVER FRANCHISES.
ALL THE APPLICATIONS FOR FRAN
CHISES MAY BE REJECTED.
SOME INTERESTING ARGUMENTS BEFORE The
RAILROAD COMMITTEE OF THE BOARD
NEW YORK

RAILROAD COMMITTEE OF THE BOARD
OF ALDERMEN.
There was a large crowd of Brooklyn taxpayers
present evening in the City Court room IN the
City Hail. at the hearing given by the Railroad
Committee of the Board of Aldermen relative 10
the application of the Brooklyn City Railroad COM
pany for a franchise TO construct railroad III
Livingston-st.. from Court-st. TO Flatbush-ave'
Alderman Colsen. chairman Of the committee. called
the meeting to order shortly after o'clock. and
Messrs Cary, Walkey. Hess Haubert and Presi-
dent Wallace. of the Board Of Aldermen, we're
present.
When Alderman Colsen asked If any one appeared
for the petition W. c. Tru representing the Brook
lyn City Railroad. stated that Charles A Collin as
counsel for the company, would be present in few
minutes. f. c. Beatty, who said that he repre-
sented property the south side OF LIVING
ton-st owning property valued at over one miiiioh
dollars. objected first because the assents secured
by the Brooklyn City Railroad Company from prop
erty-owners on Livingston-st were not genuine.
Further. he said. that If the petition should be
granted. the company will never build the roau'
Livingston-st he said, formerly street OF
homes, but since three four big drygoods frms
had built extensions their in the north side
the street it principally storage place Tor
wagons and shipping place for goods and was no
longer a thoroughfare. The signatures obtained by
the railroad from property-owners were secured
upon the stipulation by the company that the road
forty or fifty feet and that there shall he a space
of fifteen feet left between the outer rail and the
curb line of the north side of the street The taking
of a strip of property forty fifty feet wide from
the south side of the would practically be
confiscation of the property as would leave less
than fifty feet of land There was another insur-
mountable legal objection which prevented the road
going through and this was ordinance which pro-
vides that railroad shall be constructed there
The committee, he said should consider the ques-
ton of the road going through the street as Is at
present. He said that the railroad had acted in
bad faith in enGeavCring secure the consent OF
propertyowners.
Charles A. Collin. speaking for the Brooklyn
Heights Railroad said that the congestion of traffic
in Fulton-st. something that must be met at
once by some carefully considered plan AS BROOK
lyn grows this congestion will grow. 1t was with
desire relieve this congestion OF traffic that this
application made. Relative to the charges of
bad faith. Mr. Collin said that the interests OF the
roads and the of the public Identical
1t was the desire and intention of the company to
turn aside traffic of Fiatbush-ave. into Living
ton-st. and thus relieve the traffic in Fulton-st.
This plan would give relief at once, and If the
property on south side OF the street Is taken 1t
| will be paid for He admitted that the company
had agreed not TO lay tracks until the street was
| widened.
James c. Church got in some very severe raps at
| represented lie said that the statement that the
| road wanted 10 benefit the public by relieving tae
! the East River and Atlantic Ocean Railroad Com
| pany filed application for a portion OF Living
| ston-s there never was whimper or a lisp as 10
the necessity of relieving this congestion In f'on-
st. II part and parcel or schene 10 get =
| franchise which they never Intended to use. IL
was underhanded attempt TO prevent rlval
company from securing franchise when was
needed to enable them to make necessary con
necons in the lower part or the city. MI Churcn
| suggested that possibly tle Brooklyn city road
owned some property on the south side Of Living
ston-st which they could sell 70 the city ari then
| lease IL from the city at a nominal rental .
Edward NJ. Grout said that he appeared ior ell
| ents owning property the north side OF LIVING
| ston-st who had given their consent TO the Brook
| lyn city road on the condition that the street IS
| widen He asked that the committee give the
the Nassau road. The brooklyn city road offered ,
per cent gross receipts and. if any other road
offered the same or more, was wiling 10 compete
| at public auction.
| The hearing this application was then closed,
and the committee considered the application of the
| Brooklyn Heights and the Brooklyn city and
| tending their lines NO necessity for reading the
| names of the streets applied for" said Alderman
Cary "NeaTy every street in rr the city Eo. ncuisd
| Brooklyn Heights Company. and 5. 5. VIZ 1ouse
| for the Brooklyn City and Newtown Company.
p. II. Flynn. who sat near his counsel, SD that
| company reduce its fare to five cents and would
reduce the fare on its cars to four cents II the
| asked-for franchises were granted
"Wiil you agree TO compete with other roads IS
| to the lowest rate OF fareY' asked Mr.. Tru.
"Yes, SIR" MI. Fiynns reply.
Then three or four owners Of property on Monroe
owner in Leonard-st put in an earnest plea against
roads on those streets and the hearing clos d.
The committee held short secret session. but re-
| fused afterward to say what they had decided 20
| do. From what could be learned however II Is
probable they will report in favor of rejecting all
| the applications submitted.