The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1897-11-23
RAPID TRANSIT IN COURT.
NEW POINT IN OPPOSITION TO THE
TUNNEL SCHEME.

Ne. Eabriskie Contends That the Appellate pi-
vision Has No Power TO Authorize the Roads
Construction on the Ground That the Com-
rnissien's Plans Have Not Becn Legal
~ Adopted By the Common Council
Before the Appellate Division of the Supreme
Court yesterday, counsel for the Board OF RAPID
Transit Railroad Commissioners made q motion
TO confirm the ~favoring report Of the special com
mission appointed by the court to examine the
scheme for the building of an underground rail-
road by the city, embodied in plans submitted
by the Rapid Transit Commissioners. The mo-
tion was heard by Presiding Justice Van Brunt
and Associate Justices Patterson, Runlsey,
Williams, and InRrahnm. In support Of tho
motion arguments wore made by Edward NJ.
Shepard and Albert b. Boardman. Arguments
against the motion were made by Cephas Brain
erd, Jr., and George Zabriskie. Mr.. Brain
erd represented the opposition to tho
scheme of four persons owning property along
the route Of the proposed road. These
persons are: James Stokes, owning a house and
lot at the northeast corner Of Thirty-eighth
street and Park avenue; Mrs. Clara Pond
Porter, owning her residence at Q Park %avenue;'
tho Young Mems Christian Association, owning
at the southwest corner Of Twenty
third street and Fourth avenue. and the estates
of Roswell Smith and Theodore J.. De Winnie,
owners of the property at the northeast corner
of Fourth street and Lafayette place. Mr..
Zabriskie represented tho following property
owners: Julia A. Shaw. J. Beaver Webb, Morris
Teigcl, Isaac Felgel. and John J. Murphy, own
err of property along the line of the proposed
road in Fourth avenue, Park avenue, and
Broadway. The assessed value Of the property
represented by Mr.. Brainerd is Ss1 1000. Tho
assessed value OF the property owned by Mr..
Zabriskie's clients Is $661 200. The principal
arguments for and against the motion were
made by Mr.. Shepard and Mr.. Zabriskie re-
spectively.
Since they occupied the position of defendants,
counsel In opposition to the motion were heard
FIRST. Mr.. Brainerd made the first argument.
Regarding the plans and estimates OF the Rapid
Transit Commissioners engineer, William Bar
clay Parsons. he said:
ut is not necessary, oven IL we wished. to say
. word in disparaRement OF the ability and pro-
fessional learning Of the chief engineer Of the
Rapid Transit Commission. But we do say that
the engineering portion Of this project does not
seem to be thoroughly and adequately worked
out. In the first place, this has been done by
one man-the chief engineer-Mr. Parsons. 1t
10 q very doubtful proposition on the face OF
It that any one man has q mind broad enough
end thorough enough to comprehend and digest
this entire plan, and work out all it's ramitled
details in advance. There Is the problem Of eS-
cavation. with all the variations Of soil. wet and
uIyt u Qu1ChsHHI W DcuIOCk. NO obpOhCDlSt
engineers say the borings have been insufficient
TO give an approximate idea of the character OF
the soil. and were made by n method which pre-
cludes all test OF the dryness or wetness of soil.
Then follow other problems-the removal of
pipes. sustaining the earth. building walls that
will stand tho pressure and weight and be
protected against all tho dangers of corrosion.
roofing the tunnel, lighting, ventilating. drain.
Of the cars, selection OF power, and all the intri-
cacies ana peculiarities Of the business OF oper-
ating the railroad itself. 1t is almosti impossible
that any one mind. no matter how completely
stored with the science of engineering. though
penetrating and thorough by nature and ripened
cot and present a plan figured out so completely
that there shall be no danger of unforeseen diff
culties making q wreck Of the enterprise when
"For the present plan Mr.. Parsons has had
by subordinates in his office acting under his d.
rections. Great engineering enterprises are not
n saa shea M 1n 5n"' W WEN Il the Is Brand IT trunk iIf Rsi iWsy
Company built he Victoria Bridge across the
81 Lawren ~ o At t M q. 1ha,b they had three &c. con- D
Tho contractors hod their own independent en-
slneer. James Hodges, and the consulting en-.
g!neers were Robert Stephenson and Alexander
when the Britannia and Conway bridges
MIR. Hodgkinson, and Edwin Clark were en-
ployed to mako the calcuiations In the various
tons as to the strengthening OF The iron work
and the arches were completed. as lie testified
before the committee Of the House Of Commons
AV "OhtS NcA w. ~
whose experience in that department was
greater than that Of any other man in England.
dected 1t, examined the second and approved 1t.
Biz John Rennie spent two days at Menai Strait
site, chiefly with u view to the effect of the pro-
posed bridge upon navigation, and a longer re-
Rg 9isdt fhs si.o ms WAS a 3 effeeE Of %9 l6e P GToo Uapti
bridge upon the eddies and currents.
I'm the construction OF our own magnificent
Washington Bridge across the Harlem River
there were three consulting engineers employed.
one Of whom was Prot. Charles B. Brush of the
of his professional life had given attention par
t%ieul6sfly to bridge building and another was
Besides this. Mr.. Brainerd argued at length the
following other points: The report OF the com.
mission indicates, an Inadequate appreciation OF
would impose on the boroughs Of Brooklyn,
Queens and Richmond a liability for at least
detriment. 70, The report, SO far AS it relates
TO the constitutional debt limit. 10 an effort 70
prudent fnaHceering. ll A mora, question il
Involved, in that 1t IL not good business moral
~, Iy, 70 ais re 6 srd ana bs asny ae fbe s amo6 Sas pIan nS
for paying them by assessments. dock rentals
and the sale Of lands: .,s ,,,,o,n,, and o,o.,n,
argument against the motion. His first point
was a complete surprise both, to the Court and
"has no power to authorize the construction
and operation OF the proposed rapid transit
the plans and conciusions Of the board Of RAPID
Transit Railroad Commissioners have never
been legally consented to and adopted by the
Common Council OF the city OF New York"
To prove the point. Mr.. Zabriskie said:
The Rapid Transit law provides that the
Rapid Transit Commission may. upon its own
motion, and must, upon the request of the local
authorities, proceed TO consider and determine
whether 1t Is for the interest of the public and
the city that a rapid transit railway, or rail
ways, for the conveyance and transportation Of
PtSssssseihs f Il Tho FSS o 3 shSHla DC sstHb,is th%1
1t 10 necessary. the law makes 1t their duty to
proceed to determine and establish the route OIL
routes thereof and the general plan of %construc
ton: Ihe law then requires that, after any de
termination by the board of any such route oil
routes, and Of any general plan Of construction
OF such railway or railways, the board shall
transmit to the Common Council a copy OF said
reads:
1T shall be the duty Of such Common Coun,
GU, upon receiving such copy of said plans and
conclusions. to appoint a day, not less than one
week nor more than ten days after the receipl
thereof. for the consideration OF such plans aud
coneluslons; and The said Common Council shall
on the day 80 fixed. proceed with tho considers
ton thereof, and may continue and adjourn such
consideration from time TO time. until a nnRl
vote shall he fukpn ihapppp m hnrainnftar yrn