The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1897-11-22
RAPID TRANSIT UP TO-DAY
APPELLATE COURT TO HEAR AR
9UWENTD FOR AND AGAINST III.

9U1Ed11 FOR AND AGAINST IT.
oppessuts or the Hoie-is.ths-Grouud Think
NJ Will ne Beaton ~ tire Constitutional
0NtectIon. BASED On the Cits's inability, Ow-
tpG e the Debt Limit. TO Raise the Money.
Before the Appellate Division of the Supreme
Court this morning arguments will DO made for
and against the city building an underg round
road T. o Board of Rapid Transit Commissions
ers has a route and tho general
plan for building tho road. A majority Of all
the property owners along the proposed route
disappro' ed OF the scheme and refused to give
their consents to 1t.
In lieu Of those consents. following a provi-
ston OF the Rapid Transit act, the Appellate d.
vision Of the Supreme Court appointed three
special Commissioners to examine the proposi-
tion of the Rapid Transit Commissioners and
determine whether or not the city ought to
build the road. The ,pecial Commissioner re-
ported that the road ought to be built by tho
city. The matter is brought before the Court
to-day on a motion made by the counsel Of the
Rapid Transit Commissioners that the Court
confirm the report OF the special commission.
The Rapid Transit Commissioners will DO
represented by Tracy. Boardmnn & Platt and
Parsons, Shepard s. Ogden. The property own.
era opposed to the scheme will BIO represented BY
Burrin. Zabriskie & Burrlll, Franklin Bartlett,
ex-Judge Horace Russell. Leo c. Dessar, and
SaSotoh ". CiChOih- 1hO NOuTL Will near the
arguments at Ill Fifth avenue, beginning ct
10 A. NJ.
Many of the innumerable reasons why the
city should not undertake this work have been
furnished by TN Sun. 1t has been shown,
Arst. that tho Rapid Transit Commissioners
must prove to the Court, beyond o reasona 10
Doubt. that the city should build the road. Tho
Commissioner will appear before the Court as
piainins In the'aotion. and as such the burden
Of proof falls upon them. Failing In this, THE
Sun has insisted that the Court must deny the
motion. It has been shown that the own
era Of property along the proposed route
viii DO enormously damaged II the road
be constructed. Attention has been called
70 the statements Of uncontradioted witnesses
that during the progress OF construction, not
only the rentals Of AUDITING property will be re-
duced below the fixed charges on tho property,
but that the fee value will DO deprecated be-
yondthe limit Of Its probable recovery. 1t has
been shown that such was the fate Of property
In this city In 1893 and many times sinoo then.
u has been urged that this 10 eminently unfair
70 the property owners.
BY the testimony Of many competent wit
nesses It has been shown that oven II the road
could be built for the lowest figure named by
any Of the engineers. 1t could not possibly pay
the cost Of operation. Figures were produced
% iSSsp fact 'H that s's sho Rapid A'' fransit w coS SnllSd
oioners have carefully avoided both an investi.
anybody in reference to the amount Of trafao
the proposed road 10 likely to enjoy.
slra %SioHI Of ' Ike rosa w as"i tha, the RRsn Ien,se, com.
mot % o carried Idae iL through for even the highest esti.
In support Of this. he f G1aGe w "a t 1so; s 9ESi q
employed BY the Commissioner upon which his
estimate Of total cost, was based, were COM
Rareo Win those OF other engineers invited by
the Rapid Transit Commission to review the
aEures of their own man. There, were four en-
board'e engineer. The latter is a young man
who never before was called upon to consider
every de,ail considered the figures Of the ro-
iority Of instances, they we're much I hiEsh hest tn ma,
those Of the boards engineer.
yolved the city's constitutional power to incur
deot. The city's debt limit Is 10 per cent. of the
SSissa'a only nSlnr tho .f Si sss s dsBSs G 5s'i the s't oie1
4 tSe considered 5sSs a1r.. and Will no ACCOUNT OF
provements.' the figures irs"f show iG that fu the city III;
can incur debt to the extent OF a little more than
Srs;SoS o 60 IT ThS =. city has already paIehassd
S2S:seS; dss; this amount Ht b ssaEEsrsscsed
from $49,O0O,OOQ the margin left, when only
little less than sa7, 900. 900. The lowest ssSs' ssti.
10 $50, oO0. 900: On this basis the road would
cost about ss. 900, 900 more than the city could
BESIDES these sV Works PSI the city S' IS a6out to und Sa.
take improvements which will cost more than
ClOO. DOC. 600. II this were the only reason why
the road should not be built, 1t has been urged
that 1t Is sufficiently strong to Offset any and all
the reasons that may be urged in favor OF IL.
1t has been urged further that, even II the
present New York were able to build the road,
Greater ei Now YORK H%I.u P PttasatfionS has Ssna aIsGp bs ses
called 10 the fact that It will be- the Taxpayers Of
the greater city who win have to pay for this
road II It be built. and that. therefore. tho
Rapid Transit Commissioners have no right
to ask and the court would hardly be Jus.
titled, In directing the present city to un.
dertako o public improvements which will
have 70 be paid for, In part. by people who have
never had the chance to declare officially, as
they have unofficialiy, their unqualified oppo-
eitton, to the scheme. In support of the conten-
ton that the Greater New York cannot pay for
the road. the following figures, showing the
assessed valuation of real estate In, the borrow
ing capacity, and the actual debt and pledged
ohliRations OF the Greater New York are now
submitted:
NEW YORK CITY.
ASsoassd value of real estate. 1897. o.. 7s7. Ise. 7sI
Borrowing capacity. 10 per cent see. OI7s. us. o7e
Total oonds Issued ...S2l0.b37 .7oo
Deduct sinking fund. Sl.e7A, Sg7- 1as. o62. e02
Borrowing margin.....-...... O6O. 0o5, 777
CITY OF BROOKLYN.
Assessed value Of real estate, 1897. 0b89, SIC, 700
--.-
Borrowing capacity. 10 Der cont,.,. 400. gS1 07b