New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1896-03-08
FAVOR OF RAPID TRANSIT.
THE COMMISSIONS REPORT.
MEssRs. coUDERT. SHERMAN AND GEL
SHENEN INDORSE THE PAR
SONS PLANS.

THEY DECLARE FOR THE BROADWAY ROUTE AND
THE UNDERGROUND sYsTEM-A MOTION FOR
THE CONFIRMATION OF THE REPORT SOON
TO BE MADE IN THE APPELLATE DIv1s-
ION OF THE SUPREME coURT-AFTER
THE APPROVAL OF THE PLANS
A CONTRACT is TO BE
OFFERED 10 BIDDERS.
Tho renort of Frederic r. Coudert, George Sher-
IAN and w H. Gelshenen. the commissioners
.,nointed by the Appellate Division of the Su-
nrsme Court to pass upon the question whether
or NOT the plans for an underground railway pre-
,ared by the Chief Engineer of the Rapid Transit
commission should be carried out. has been pre-
sented. II favors the Commissions plans
Under the law. the consent Of the local authori-
ties having already been secured 1t Will be no"
necessary to secure the approval Of the supreme
Court 20 the report Of It's Commissioners fur'her
nrogress IS described IN Section =, OF the Kappa
Transit act amended May 2 1898, as follows:
when the consents of the local authorities
and the property-owners. or in lieu thereof. the
authorization of the said General Term OF the
sunreme Court upon the report Of Commissioners
shall have been obtained, the Board OF hapia
Transit Railroad Commissioners shall at once
oroceed to prepare detailed plans and specifca-
films for the construction OF such rapid transit
railway or railways in accordance with the gen.
oral nlan OF construction, including all devices
and appurtenances.
"The plans having been prepared. the Board
may then enter into contract with any person.
| firm or corporation for the construction OF any
road or roads TO be paid for by the city, the con-
tractor constructing the road 10 equip. TO main
tain, and operate it at his own expense for not
less than thirty-fve nor more than fifty years.
upon terms and conditions determined by the
| Rapid Transit Commissioners
SUBSTANCE OF THE REPORT.
The Commissioners in their report say among
other things:
The report made by the Board Of Rapid Transit
Railroad Commissioners appears 70 nave pe en-
Competent and duly authorized officials assisted
by engineers Of emnence and eXperener Mere
| AVOIDED an opportunity to be heard before mat
Board and to present sven specsl
or the general welfare of the citizens. Inc pan
Ioaa qnasr b 5e one Which oered
the greatest adyantages to 'ns Dtended by his
plan only 10 supply the present and Pressing
necessities OF popua on but also to tnFhis aaei
the growing wants Of the city, 1t has been as as
s sna be eTepefy that nothing in
the past experience OF the ctys grown 20
IN
nerty and the certainty that any system not more
than adequate to-day would be inadequate at an
| on the hearing before the Commissioners a num-
Der OF counsel appeared and offered objections;
upon what seemed 10 them and their clients pecul-
lar hardships TO certain portion OF our popuia-
ton II the road finally adopted The prin-
cipal contest. however, was sustained by owners
Broswa pTOPer a w5o MIRA Sh nd e s to
rsrtain features OF the controversy by MI ps
MeSSrS.
man. g.. 49, 5000 49,. ,.o,,r
Commissioners deemed 1t their duty not TO close
inc doors upon any testimony proofs calculated
question The fact that several thousand pages of
closely written evidence were taken before t t
Will show that the parties were not precuded from
the opportunity TO develop and establish their re-
spectye claims Sen gu veTv much aided in are
irving at a decision by the exhaustive manner IN
which the hearing was conducted by the counsel
both sides.
AUTHORITY OF THE COMMISSION.
| Your Commissioners believe that some confusion
vhoh NAV account for the appearance in the record
OF seemingly irrelevant testimony has arisen from
misconception of the authority OF the Commission
ers They do not understand their function to ex-
tend 10 the selection of route or the adoption OF
q plan different from that selected by the Rapid
Trarxit Board OF Commissioners. They have de-
clned TO assume the right TO examine the schemes
tina, might pausbly be urged for THIS important NJ
appeal most forcbly to their imagination or TO ther
!aasment The language OF me G1Ur' so Ismoved
snv do1bt mon this point, even If the were
not plain The question Is not whether mere may
be some other method OF rapid transit whcn wouIu
Be preferable to the one submi'teo put de,ermned
RAPID Transit ibst sasment the bes
s Sn o 1' pan shou as be ' consered Rapd
Your Commissioners have kept this proposition In
view and have sought TO impress us bina'hE ,Vii
upon the parties appearing before men en- cc
some only with moderate share OF succeSs
IT, then the construction and operation OK 'n 10
road A likely TO result in pubic benem, a1v hv
promote the general interests OF the community ~ ~
furnishing additional safe and convenient means o.
rapid transit without such disadvantages az wou,a
1t to Be their duty under the law TO give th nd,
sanct!on to the route proposed and to declare 'ha
The road ought 10 be constructed and operated
Il, should not be assumed. however that these
Commissioners have considered the judgment OF
to the expediency, feasibility advantage OF she
plan adopted by them. Their decision Goes "9t
might be open patent grave Objee!io ms
circumstances might so have changed ina. ,, ,ns
supreme Court Commissioners might 1eei pounu
20 mold that their plan should not be carried in.o
ses IN hodns h Sa sf" n" RAPID
earss Commission COT has given as 1t has here nr
S IT wa, cpsanxsd sy aW TO pero
~ sone presumption that such work was intci-
good ''0''''
That rapd-transt facilities In addition TO those
cii, Sraed by the elevated roads needed by the
xammzens OF Ncw-York Is scarcely open question
curing The morning or afternoon hours on the sur,
zee roads or elevated trains need not be Informed
which viii enable them to reach h't their homes and
ssssness places respectively with approach 10
Eop.e OF New-York TO expect that at some time
.,ne future they may during any hour OF the day
''nout incurrng the hardships and even indgnites
Sssr hich they must perforce submit The urgent
domain 81 Conjecture IL co @as and
ossnszsnv"ss want Even the courts take judicial