New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1896-03-27
Defending RAPID TRANSIT PLANS.

ADDRESSES BY MEssRs SHEPARD AND BOARD
MAN BEFORE THE APPELLATE COURT
Argument was heard yesterday and briefs were
submitted IN the appellate division OF the Supreme
Court N support OF the report OF the RAPID Tran
SIT Inquiry Commission watch recommended the
building 81 the underground road. The question Of
cons,tutonaty raised by ali the lawyers. who
representing property owners Auditing the Inc
Of the proposed road. filed briefs In objection Ed
ward NJ. Shepard made the argument yesterday.
The briefs put In FOR the Commission prepared
by Parson Shepard & Ogden and Tracy, Board
man & Plat.
Mr. Shepard began with brief history Of the
Rapid Trans: and the appo ntment OF the
Commissioners by the Genera! Term May O.
1895 He told OF the work done by the Commission
and reviewed the testimony presented at It's many
meetings The growth OF population above the
Harlem rendered necessary system OF rapid
tmnsit and the good certain to be accomplished
far exceeded any possible damage that could
be done TINT he hoped the Court would give all
possible weight the report OF the Commission.
Referring to the statements by George Zabrskie.
representing Henry Hilton and other OF
property valued at Sls,No.co Mr.. Shepard said:
Mr.. Zabrskic has either a very great magma
ton a defective recollection when he permits
himself TO make the rambling and reckless state
ment he presented TO this court Tuesday. He
then referred Engineer Parsons as young and
accurate and understated."
Mr. Shepard told OF the taken by the Com
missioners at stage OF the proceedings before
them and dwet at length upon the qualifications
OF the engineers who had testified. He contra
dicted Mr.. Zabrskle's estimate OF $O.OOOWo as the
cost OF the road and said that. as n matter OF
fact, the actual cost would be about S3S.Co0o or
100000 He conceded that the proposed road
would be found inadequate TO the demands on
Counsel answered the objections Of the property
ow ners by declaring that the road would benefit the
property They refused thtir consent 10 the build
nC OF the road because they were advised thit IN
giving consent they would surrender their claims TO
Compensation for rights or easements which miSht
Do taken fIc admitted that the construction OF the
road along broadway would In. ricrc for a time
with business but declared that II would not inter
ierc then had ne coms,rncion OF ae ole lie
vSuii ainng Troaf9ny STANDS in precisely the posi-
ton Of q shopkeeper who has ssn projecting into
the street. In Tho position or any ono having
nay window projecting into the street. by grantng
tho license the cry ala not deprive ltsrli o. the
right 10 use lis own property
As 20 the plea that prorerty-o~ne had already
streets he yaid that four days aftor some OF the
most depressing testimony Wa given before TIE
ComInsson the Roosevvit bq,ldims at I1,s,eenth-
mark for broadway property. Mr.. Shepard closed
by reminding the justices that they were not she
were asked 10 decide the constitutonalty ~ the
Rapid Transit act and the policy Of the Commits
Mr. Shepard spoke for nearly two hours. He was
followed by Albert IL. Eoardman, also OF counsel for
the RAPID Transit commi ion 49,. O.,
q Elihu Root, counsel for Robert Goeet, the Cheml-
cal Bank and others contended that under the act,
even IL The court should confirm the report 1t would
undertaking Since the vote taken In 1894 the
plans had been changed. and that could not
legally be held as having Deen east for the present
Counsel put In briefs and decision reserved.