New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1897-11-23
FOR AND AGAINST THE TUNNEL.
ARGUMENT HEARD BY THE APPELLATE
DIVISION ON THE MOTION TO con-
FIRM THE RAPID-TRAN-
IN

Argument the rapid-translt report. recently
submitted 10 the Appellate Division OF the su-
preme Court heard yesterday before that
court which sat specially for the purpose. The
Justices present were Presiding Justice Van Brunt
and Justices Rumsey. Williams. Patterson and
Ingraham The report is to the effect that the
road should be constructed and operated as now
planned. The opponents Of the plan were repre-
scented In court to-day by Cephas Branerd. jr..
Franklin Bartlett Burrill. Zabriskie Burrill; ex-
Judge Horace Russell. Leo c. Dessar and Masten
& Nichols. Tracy. Boardman G. Plat and Par
sons. Shepard & ogden appeared for the Rapid
Transit Commission
Mr. Brainerd who made the first argument
against the road conended that the plans and esti-
mates Of Mr. Parsons, the Rapid Transit Boards
engineer were Incomplete; that the cutting OF tie
tunnel in the way proposed would do immense dam
age along the route to private comfort and private
property and to facilities for doing business. and
that the report OF the Commission indicated an in
adequate appreciation OF the seriousness OF the
project. The report OF the special commission, Mr..
Branerd declared, so far as 1t related to the con-
stitutional debt limit. effort TO avoid the
Constitution. and was contrary to prudent imam
cierng.
George Zabriskie who followed. spoke for two
hours in opposition to the report The points he
made were that the Court had no power to author
lie the construction and operation OF the tunnel
read for the reason that the plans and conclusions
Of the Rapid Transit Commission have never been
legally consented to and adopted by the Common
Council Of the city. and that the particular route
and plans before the Court derived no support from
the popular vote In favor OF municipal construction
the election OF November. 1884 AT q matter OF
public policy, distinct from the constitutional par
rers which he had already discussed, MI. Ia
briske argued the Improvements In progress were
such that the city could not undertake the con-
struction of the projected railway without pre'u-
dice to the welfare of its citizens
L. NJ. Shepard. who made tho motion TO connrm
the report smoke next In support Of the motion.
He pointed out that the Court was considering a
great public question and not merely Il question
as to the rights Of certain property-owners Never
theless Il was a fact that the owners OF only
81 out of $127 10000 worth Of property along
the route objected TO the construction OF the road
He went on to deal in detail with each point In
the report and the objections raised by the oppo-
nents OF the plan TO each. The question resolves
itself into this FORM" he said In closing. IF the
city OF New-York cannot spend 100000 on sys-
TEN OF rapid transit. It must go without IT, The
matter has been got down to the lowest possible
figure. In future years II will never be possible
again to do the work cheapy. 1t will become
more expensive the years 90 by and the city Is
built UP. II this plan fails, i see no nope Tor a
proper system Of rapid transit within the next
generation"
A. B. Boardman also spoke for the notion deal
plan which Mr.. Shepard had omitted In his argu-
ment. When Mr.. Boardman had finished, the
Judges reserved their decision. This s not expected
10 be handed down for several weeks