The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1897-12-20
Did the Commission Intend TO Evade
the Law?

From recent utterances attributed to
some Of the people connected with the
Rapid Transit Commission. it looks as
though the Commission intended from the
first to evadc the plain requirements Of the
act creating 1t, in respect Of the bond to be
given by the contractors for the work.
Section "a of the Rapid Transit act dis.
tinctly directs the Commission to make a
contract not only for the construction Of
the projected road, but also for Its equip
ment, maintenance. and operation. The
operation Is to DO for o term Of not less
than thirty.fve nor more than fifty years,
and the contractors are to pay, as an annual
rental for the use of the road, the interest
on the bonds issued to provide for its con-
struction, with the addition Of i per cent.
annually as q sinking fund for the payment
of the principal. To secure the city, the
contractors are to give q bond for the full
flment Of their contract, which, 1t is ex-
pressly said, shall run until the end Of the
term for which the contract is made. As
suming the amount Of the bonds issued by
the city to be $35 ,O0O, 900, and the rate of
interest IN them 8 per cent, the annual
rental required would be 4 per cent. on
1886, 000, 600, which comes to $1,400, 900.
and in thirty.fve years would amount to
$40, 600, 600. For securing the payment Of
this sum the bono of Sic, 100000 stipu-
lated for by the Supreme Court is too
small, instead of being too large.
In the face of this plain provision of the
law, President ORR Of the Commission is
credited with saying hat II the bond re.
quired of the contractors is to cover the
period of operation and maintenance Of
the road, it will be impossible to find a
contractor who will give it. Secretary
DELAFIELD is reported as saying it would
undo all the work Of the Commission
and practically end the scheme of rapid
transit. Mr.. BoARDMAN, of counsel, goes
farther, and declares it to be only just
to assume that the law does not require the
bond to cover the full period of the thirty
Eve or fifty years of the lease. at would"
he says, be virtually demanding that the
contractor guarantee the city against loss
in the operation of the road" OF course it
would, and that is exactly what the act
intended it should do.
Knowing, as they must have known from
the beginning, just what they know now,
the Commission has. nevertheless, gone on
with its work and strained every nerve to put
itself in a position to make a contract for the
construction and operation of the projected
tunnel railroad. Did it's members intend
to comply honestly with the provisions of
section 81 of the Rapid Transit act. or did
they intend to evade them by taking as
security for the payment of the $40, 600, 900
rental a BON in a trifling amount! If they
intended to comply, they should have
stopped operations until they got the sec.
tion amended; If they did not, as appar-
emily they did not, they nave been virtu-
ally practising a fraud upon their fellow
citizens, for which no terms Of reprobation
are too severe.
Luckily, neither the Commission nor even
the Supreme Court can ahrogate an act Of
the Legislature; and if, as is now conceded,
the tunnel cannot be built under the present
provisions of the act authorizing 1t, it will
never be built at all. The contract for con.
structing the road Is not divisible from that
for operating it, and the bond that secures
the city against loss in constructing it
must also cover loss from it's operation.