The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1896-03-27
TIE BApID TRANSIT LAW.
1mE own uNr 70

- ANFh " hntWcA hEom AnohN " NO
Argument was had yestsAto Their Vaults
submitted In the Appellate, y and briefs were
d. "u-Ceme Court In support . Division l.of the
sNpn--sltcnnri-A-ot the report Of the
Rapid TraNs,S Ce..s Iission which
the building OF the underground road. Edward
M. Shepard made tho argument. The briefs
put in for the Commission were prepared by
Parsons, Shepard % Ogden and Tracy, Board
man d Plat.
Mr.. Shepard opened with a long history Of the
Rapid Transit acts and Of tho appointment OF
the Commissioner by the General Term on May
o, 1895. He told of the work done by the Com
mission, and reviewed the testimony presented
At its many meetings. The growth OF popula-
tion above the Harlem rendered necessary q
system OF rapid transit, and the good certain to
be accomplished 80 far exceeds any possible
damage that could be done that he hoped the
Court would give all possible weight to the re-
port OF the Commission. Referring to the state
monts made by MIR. George Zabriskie, repre-
senting Henry Hilton and other owners of prop
erty valued at IL 200. 900. Mr.. shepard said;
Mi Zabriskie has either a very great imagl-
nation or . defective recollection when he per-
mits himself to make the rambling and reckless
statement he presented to this court on Tuesday.
He then referred to Engineer Parsons as young
and Inexperienced, and said that his figures
were inaccurate and understated."
Mr.. shepard told OF the care taken by tho
Commissioner 1T every stage in the proceed
inRs before them, and dwelt at length upon the
qualifications of the engineers who had testified.
He contradloted Mr.. Zabriskie's estimate OF
100000, 900 as the cost OF the road, and said
that, as a matter OF fact. the actual cost would
be about $3S, 900. 900 or $50, 900, 900. He con-
coded that tho proposed road would soon DO
found inadequate to the demands on IL. lie
brushed aside the objections OF the property
owners by declaring that the road will benefit
the property. They refused their consent to the
building of the road because they we're ad Vised
that In giving consent they would surrender
their claims to compensation for rights OF ease
ments which might be taken. The absence OF
some interests as opposing, no held TO be very
significant, and referred TO the fact that consent
had been given by the two Aston estates. larger
owners OF property on Broadway than any SIN
gle owner or association OF owners opposed.
He admitted trat the construction OF the road
along broadway would interfere for a time with
business. but declared that 1t would not inter-
fere more than had the construction of the cable
road. In speaking of the damage likely TO ensue
TO vaults and cellars. he said:
stands In precisely the position that II shop
or in the position of any ONE having u bay win
DOW projecting into the street. By granting The
license the city did not deprive itself OF the
right 20 use its own proper,y.".
As to, the practicability Of the plans. Mr..
nent as a civil engineer and well known as
contractor, stood ready to build the road for
firms had expressed their intention to bid for
the contract. He said further that the con-
when a a Commmission had been APPOINTED nedpb, v shs
He then took up the constitutional questions
raised. and said that the road would certainly
come under the standing of u public use" OF 8
city use rs contem plated by The statute.
" A street Is q public use and so is u railroad
In Il street. How absurd 1t is TO maintain that
y makes such a great din ererec merely to have
the railway underground. \ sewer Is under
ground. but the construction OF IA sewer is IA pub
lie work. The proposed road Is as clearly a pub
III work Aa n GekyRF Aph II il ilnFfARtlv / N fpl |
and constitutional to take private property to
satd sn IL; II o wen Tith ne so before m.t th me Commission .
tion merely to prevent the continual tearing up
OF the Broad way pavement. When the road is
completed II VIII never again be necessary 10 /
take up the pavement, except for the purpose OF
la Ing a new pavement.
may follow; No doubt therc will hc corruption.
IHerhap,s i is siwsEs the case that in u vast pub
nore public works be underiaken? il such
somewhere. Mere possibilities of corruption
Oh stG 3Ss mot, not be !. permitted TO prevent the building
The inhibition against giving or lending of the
money or credit of any county. city. town, or
Q, individual was the next taken up by Mr..
VT is not true" lie said. that the Rapid
Transit law conteinplnt+s the max ing OF a Eft
OF public money or credit. IL is simply busl-
pr" quo and not a iiit.F" "N '""
u " III COhLTutIoE " Dc given pOsSObolOu |
Of the road ~ asked Justice Ingraham.
Certainly" said Mr.. shepard. but only for
1t /, the same thing as giving the ferry COM
panies franchises to run their boats for a num-
Yes. but we do not give the ferry companies
Soc. oOO.0O to operate their boats" said the
"The franchise is the same as money" re-
sponded counsel. The courts have, settled that
Ss.ooO.oo the privilege is the same as the
money. But the ferry franchise Is not given
involves Il ,h Is l sss on Of q e HSn moGsy 4 fof rS @ eitS pu Mhtss
Is just as lawful as a contract, involving the use
Mr.. shepard referred to various Constitutional
questions. that had been raised. One OF these
" %"e n %%s4 t aso r IS sSs a pS Of the oa Chamber ss a
member of the Commission. Another was tho
refere ndpm, which it was alleged infringed
He dismissed them, briefly saying that they
amounted to- little or nothing; AS to the plea
the prospect OF three years Of open, streets, he
said that four days after some OF the most de-
mission the Roosevelt building. at Thirteenth
street was sold at a figure which was a high
water mark for Broadway property.
Mr.. shepard concluded BY reminding the JUS
tices that they were not the guardians Of the
decide on the constitutionality of the Rapid
Transit act and the policy OF the Commissioners
Mr.. Shepard spoke for nearly two hours. He
was followed by Albert, Is. Boardman,, also OF
mission. Mr.. ,Boardman said that he would not
devote much time to the constitutions questions
raised, because, Of course. the decision OF the
Appellate division would doubtless be referred
TO the Court OF Appeals. Speaking of the need
OF some scheme OF rapid transit, Mr.. Boardman
began to quote figures, and when Presiding Jus
tice Van Brunt told him 1t was unnecessary. he
referred back to the question of the selection of
20 choose Broadway, because 1t was only for a
broadway route that capital could be secured.
Our opponents here" he, said In conclusion,
"are not really afraid that the cost OF the road
cause they believe that II can be built we'll
within that sum. That Is the reason, they are
here, They do not want their vaults interfered
with. Their activity at this late date Is due to
their knowledge of the fact that some of the
best contractors In the country stand ready TO
do the work."
In reply to Mr.. Boardman. Elihu Root, coun-
sci for Robert Goelet, the Chemical Bank, and
others. said that under the provisions Of the
statute that absOlved the contractors and held
the city liable for damages there would be no
lack OF contractors willing to do the work. He