New-York tribune., 1896-05-26

respectfully deny that it has been guilty " Of he 9na sur
sestion that il ignored the question OF cost on the
contrary that question far more than any otheI "
@pson Sapsf the what f the deemed be the
overwhelming consensus Of eon'9ften! expert 9p,
Commission and the Appellate Division The &c, Com, n,
mission spared pairs 10 ASCERTAIN the ant,, ii
definitely ascsrained and prices fxed The snsnssr s
t me s nsTs as to be @
TssSdori Ts,s Hs # e s%sS Hs
spent six weeks in practical INVESTIGATION o, &C. COS,
imum Quantities sfter receiving the report Of Of,
Messrs Cooper and Pteley. this commissslon; IN IN
the opinions Of other experts Messrs. Octave Cha,
mute Charles Sooysmith. Thomas {. CIarke ana
ben Mam were a ge5emen sm %T o the st dstncno
had large experience in important WORKS n,e Al o
and Messrs Sooysmith and Clarke had themselves
been contractors for great rhey eyd Of
frmed the report OF the chief engineer ana VI
Messrs. Fteley and Cooper.
COST OF THE PROPOSED LINE.
The Appellate Division has assumed that the cost
was estimated al about s50.0O0C0o But the COST as
estimated was less than $@cO.0O including more
than 100000 OF interest. The experts added to the
unit costs. which Included all known elements with
out any exception). percentage for safety ranging
from per Sen to % per cent % rSue an
Elm-st route and for other routes. The plan OF
cons rucon on Broadway adopted BY the Board ssorl
the plans originally submitted to the experts But
the estimates were based upon unit COSTS the as
the experts. except Mr. Hewitt and Mr. Chanute.
ed Sf19re ne s eOap pd 10 he
prsctea Slity with margin of safety for doing the
work. within the amount allowed by law v:h,a Mr; ~
leave Colorado where he then engaged but he
sent in writing his opinion to the same efTec
The directors OF any great private unuertakns
would have entertained no doubt upon this evl,,
ds1Se s a % nsde h aroDoseS sSq Toad
could be built within the money which the Board
s M snoun rns OF
Ssnaectioa With the CONSTRUCTION Of
Hndel shs @ 81 % e n wSTs
Baltimore London and Glasgow. While the CON-
OF cost by study and the opinions OF experts It
was also. consulting responsible parties who CON
and they confirmed The opinions OF the Commis-
SONS experts upon the question Of the probable
The Commission ventures to refer to the question
OF details It IS true that working s details for for the the
oml's;on was that he lay rs9uiTed ,her PrePara,
haG on Obsns s Of the the It %
the Commissioners most necessarily and wisely
s9 the Rapid oard could finally discuss the
subJect with proposing contractors As the con-
a great rental therefor during period Of at least
thirty-fve years. the details must. In the nature
Of The case, II they are prepaie inteligenty and
Contractor The absence OF working details did
ctst had to be determined. and determined. for
the general plan and to fit any scheme of details
With might properly. come within: the: general
N sonnsston with the protsctiqp Of the city
by The Legislature, 1t must be borne in mind that
the the sSnE not a SO o
tractor..who should be subject to the conditions
and limitations fixed by the Legislature and who
should give ample security.
c.:n- ;;:r,ur,EyRs To TIN, COIrRT q. r - ~
The Board defers to the opinion Of the Court as to
the safe debt limit of the city. But the Board must
dCtse the justice TO point that before the ques
tiop was submitted to the people In November 1884,
this question was carefully considered In the ad-
dress which the Board made 10 the people on October
g. 1894 the whole question of the debt limit the de-
mands for further expenditures and the increase in
taxable value were discussed snd clearly presented
The legislature and the people Of the city having
rapid transit purposes, rather than for other pur
poses. this Board had considered that general ques
tian Of policy as settled Nor does the Board under
issue bonds which would have taken precedence
ths eeSTt deemed i wise a9eroys he PlaR
eefisiing law is possible, We might perhaps, bring
through contracts with existing companies. No ex-
ifing company has made any overtures to us In this
powef.ess to act. II such overtures be made. we
shall be glad TO give them prompt consideration.
Mr.. Boardman, one Of the counsel to the Com
mission said, after the meeting, that nothing
could now he done under the law regarding
rapid transit road 1t now remained 10 be seen
what propositions the elevated road had TO offer.
The Board was ready to meet in a friendly spirit
any propositions the road had to make. taking
care however, to see that the interests Of the
city are guarded. All the employees of the Board
had resigned or been dismissed, and the ex-
penses Of the Board hereafter would be very
small.