New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1896-04-10
TT MEETS LITTLE FAVOR.
GENERAL OPPOSITION TO THE BRIDGE
TRANSIT PLAN
r,ry AND BRIDGE OFFICIALS NOT WHOLLY IN
FAVOR OF SENATOR PAGES MEASURE AL
LOWING ELEVATED ROAD TRAINS
TO CROSS THE STRUCTURE

The bill introduced AT Albany Oh NeuHeeudy
nv Senator Page and Assembyman Audett au-
thorizng the running of trains from the elevated
railroads OF New-York and Brooklyn the
Brooklyn Bridge did not meet with an especially
cordial reception in Brooklyn yesterday. 1t was
Thoroughly discussed throughout the city. but
while its underlying aim was unanimously ap-
nrovel. rem arkably few persons could be found
who were willing to admit that the trainers Of
the measure had displayed discretion or sound
Judgment in the plan proposed for binding the
bargain between the Bridge Trustees and the
,ficers of the elevated roads. or for making the
necessary alterations in the terminals
Brooklynites earnestly desire transportation
facilities such as should be furnished between two
NJ the largest cities in the Nation at the opening
Of the twentieth century. They will refuse to
endure much longer the grossly inefficient and
shameful lack OF rapid transit accommodations
which they are now obliged to tolerate. But
the more conservative citizens OF the City of
Churches yesterday declined 10 forget entirely the
means while seeking the end. They said almost
10 a man that they would unalterably oppose the
transfer Of the railroad privileges Of the Bridge
10 a private corporation in any case. and espe-
cially for a period covering half-century.
Another feature OF the measure which incurred
disapproval was the section which compels the
Bridge Trustees to assume the responsibility of
extending the Bridge, both in New-York and
Brooklyn. in order to make the necessary connec-
tons with the tracks of the elevated roads. Why
this work should not be done by the roads them
selves did not appear plain 10 most Of the thought
iul men who gave the subject much attention.
II was also pointed out that the bill was open
to the severest criticism where 1t provides that
the rental shall be equal to the average net
earnings derived during the three years preced-
ing December /. 1895, from the operation of the
railroad Of the Bridge. These three years were
shown TO be unusually poor ones in the mat
ter Of receipts. The rental reckon1d upon this
basis would be about 5000 900 a year. Many
other adverse criticisms were hurled at the bill
BY persons who had read It's provisions care
fully.
TT NOT THE MAYORS BILL.
Mayor Wursters attitude toward the bill Is
shown in the following interview which he gave
10 Tribune reporter yesterday afternoon:
1t would not do for me to criticise 1t. as 1t
will come fore me officially. | have no right
to discuss 1t now and must refrain from COM
meniing upon II. am heartily in favor Of the
general aim of the measure and hope to see
feasible plan presented for rapid transit be-
tween the two cities. Whether the bill is salts
factory in its details 1 do not know. because
/ have not studied 1t. l wish 10 deny that TINS
is my bill Some of the newspapers have SAID
that it was framed with my advice. and after
consultation with Brooklyn's Corporation Coun-
SCI. This is not so. and l do not yet know the
main features Of IL. A copy Of 1t was sent to
me some time ago but have not yet looked
at it. intend % read 1t tonight. but shall
not give out my opinion upon 1t because II
would not be proper for me to do So.
TRUSTEES AGAINST IT.
Naturally enough, the Bridge Trustees de-
nounce Senator Pages bill in the most forcible
language. The section of the bill compelling
the trustees TO make the connections between
the Bridge and the elevated tracks was the most
obnoxious TO the trustees.
Clarence A. Henriques had the following to
say about the measure:
In the first place. an in favor Of any step
which will facilitate the public in getting across
the Bridge without change of cars. But am OPP
posed 10 this bill because. in the first place the
Of this structure to any private corpora tions. ee-
waited or otherwise Secondly the rental under
this proposed arrangement would be about $3bO,-
600 per year. That is the average net earnings
Tor the three years prior to December i, 1879
These three years were particularly bad years,
owing TO business depression and for other causes
IN the shape Of improvements on the Bridge. max
Ing the net earnings even smaller than usual.
Now. then. they propose 10 nave all inc roadoed.
all our new cars, our shops cables. locomotives.
our new electric plants terminals. and. after
we have spent hundreds Of thousands OF dollars
IN Improvements they propose 10 pay us accord
ing to our earnings for these three bad years.
wnen We have in sight. that is. in about eight or
zen zen months. annual net earnings Of at least
*sooOOo That would mean clear profit % 5000
wv per year for the elevated companies IL this Dill
should 90 through and they would reap the ben
eht Of all our improvements without paying one
cent toward them. Can the cities afford 10 make
mem this handsome present?
The worst feature Il the bill TO my mind.
however, Is the clause compelling the cities to
construct an extension al Tlllary-st on this side
o, me river, and for 1000 feet along Centre-st.
new forK. FOR which the elevated companies pro-
pose pose 70 pay rental Of per cent per annum on
the tolal cost Of construction This expense
wouia run Up to hundreds Of thousands and per-
maps % millions of dollars and the cities of New
York and Brooklyn would 20 into the business Of
bu!ii'ng extensions for these companies and then
besides give them the Bridge
uenounce ms Dill as n monumental and bare
Iaceu atteinpt 10 deprive the cities OF a large
amount OF revenue under the puise OF a desire to
accommodate The public. The loss 10 the cities
would be at least half a million dollars a wear II
ne ae sievated companies want extensions let them
DuIu thelr own; the cities should not go into
tha' business They will never get the Bridge on
tnese terms so long as can fight It, and pro-
pose 70 see that the cities are not robbed have
neser IN all my life seen bill which such an
example u monumental cheek and audacity"
OPINIONS FROM EXPERTS
PRESIDENT James Howel. was at first inclined
70 say nothing. but he reluctantly made the fol-
lowing statement
III feasible scheme could he devised. I
should approve OF having both surface and ele-
vailed roads cross the structure, but II both
systems cannot be accommodated on the
Bridge, ] should favor giving the privilege to
the one which car most conveniently do the
work. because | believe that The public would
nave better accommodations. This Is altogether
sh engineering problem. and / cannot saw
whether the elevated companies plan is thor
oughy acceptable"
i. I. G. Martin the chief engineer. ard SUPER
sntendCnt Of the Bridge, can see little good in