New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1897-09-26
THE CITY iND THE TRiCTIOS CObPiNi.
MUNICIPAL RIGHTS IN THE SIXTH AND EIGHTH
AVE LINES.
To the Editor Of The Tribune.

To the Editor Of The Tribune.
Cir. In view Of the torn-up condition OF the prin-
cipal avenues - thu city, ana OF me pH"'' a''
mont everywhere expressed In faFor OF hlu''''P''
ownership and against street grabbing the state
mon, Of General Coils before the Board OF Esu-
matt. n, thursday .ast that he intends to issue
r.r,,l, ~ the Metropoiltan Street Railway Com
p,nv 10 begin the work Of changing the mouNr
mower on ns Eighih-aye. line on MONDAY aHor"H
abundant food f0r contemplation by thr a''rHe'
citizen. In rho first place. General coins staten
that notwithstanding the fact that Fith-ave''
Fir.v-ninth-st sixth AMI Fourth ayes. the Boule-
y,rd and Tenth-ave are torn up AT the present
time he proposed to let the Metropolitan company
20 ahead and tear up Eighth-ave
In the second place Comm.Ssoner 'oS s''''''
oppar,utly ~ matter OF congratula'oh - '"e
,,,,. .h,, the Elghth-aye. company has signed
la,,r,c,s for the change OF us motive power. and
,r,, the work would commence next Monday morn
tnr The company states. however. That IL pro-
poses 10 confuc It's work to the portion OF the ro"
witch T. north O, Fifty- ninth-st. because OF the
tendency 81 injunction proceedings on the roau
south 81 Firy-nnth-st
:, a., ,,,,o ,b.-. is ON. question in the case south
- Fiftv-nlnth-st which does not exist north OF
Frffy-ninth-st-namely the restriction contained IN
the agreement between the ElShth-aVe. com
many and the ci,y. prohibiting the company from
u.ing ANYTHING but hOrse-po south OF r"'!-
ars,st The most important question in the case.
chase the sixth and Eighth ave lines for the
original cost ~ construction which was some S1'-
90 affects the portion above Ftty-nlh'h-sI as
well As TN, portion which IL south OF tfty-nnth-
-, The annual net earnings from TINS system a''et
-. r,o,iy. mower j. changed. Will probably equal
the original cost OF construction. or the price II
which The city can repurchase IT, In other words
rho roads II repurchased would pay FOR themselves
IN one year
Tho fact should not be lost sight Of that two
offers are pending before the Common 'ounch 20
nav the ci.y secDcr IN cash for these roads. II II
Will exercise its option 20 purchase them II II true
that ,h. Appellate Division .ast June rendered an
opinion In favor OF the Metropolitan company IN
this matter. but II : n"verth"l~ss true that the
question OF municipa. ownership 81 me rl,o ,
has never yet b''h Pi@-'" "P''' - INV Y'' " -''
~, trs ,lynys been assumed that no work would
be done untl me Court of Appeals had passed upon
this question wrich involves municipal ownership
nort,,nt ~ case a. int II is unusual f1r parties TO
he question one way or the other. Indeed. the
Mctr6uo:An company. uu,il recently. has openly
stated that il dld not propose 10 proceed IN the
matter until the Cour, Of Appeals had had an OPP
porturity u passing upon the question finally 49,.
n the Court of Appeals should 'usisdn ne rsnt
eral Term nov the Appelat" Division has been
reversed IN passing upon s'lar tue ean1 ss
upon this subject. In which was involved the right
Of the Third Avenue company 10 u.s. b DoN
and General terms decided the case one way, Dut
the Court OF Appeals reversed tH'ul 'HH u'''ur" J.
the other. . ,.., ,h,.
the Court OF Appeals should do As X did in the
49, Sc Of the Third Avenue Railroad Company. and
rcv.rs. the AbDslatc Division IN the Fighth-aNe.
case The situation would be- presented OF the citys
hring i'm a uosition to assert its rights, but never
fhrl.ss having lost them Dv reason OF It's fai!ure
10 Interfere before the "hdnge OF mouVe-lower had
With the change OF motlve-pOwer on l.lghth-lYe.
Their. viii b. an entirely different ROAD from mat
nantloned n the orig nal contract. ana II may fta-
sor ~, hlv b. snd undoubtedly VIII be, argued by the
Eighth Avenue company that. whereas the CITY
h,I me hight 10 hdy" repurchased the original
rood i, viii have no right To purchase the sub
boon constructed pursuant TO the authority OF me
civ conferred through its statutes. ana Whch II
has acouesced IN allowing 10 be built without DO
t"ctfon ON The part Of any OF It's officials.
Thn Crrnissiorer Of Public Works al the pres
ant limo is Withholding a p"rmt to m" construc-
zion ~ a second underground electrical. ROAD on
Amsterdam ave. which the Corporation counsel
rs o,vissd him the company has unlualinedly the
rtaht 10 cons ruct In the case Of EShth-aVe on me
- hand where the companys rEht IL Doth
Jouh,fI and involved In litigation, ana III which
Inc city los an enormous pecunaTy interest, ne IS
allowing them 10 proceed with their. pcriEit on
aatior.hIavc and construct a road. although. AZ
,e,ts NAV develop the courts VIII decide that
-, 81 y,,ulG have belonged T. the city upon
,a,,,,rrt rf The original cost ~ construction II
~ ..',,,s nd re; been changed by the substtu-
49,, =, f, Glnerent road therefor. and without any
,,rfer.ncn on the part OF the local authorities
-rbe civ in the Elznth-ave charter, mas me
tn,ir,ly ard rnay without any compensation 70
,he con;pnny lay ont an entirely new ronie ana
sSH1 .wyork. Sept q. 1851