The sun., 1898-03-12
TUNNEL BONDMADE EASIER
DIVIsIoN HAS MoDI-
FLED ITS TERMS.

Instead OF Requiring Bona or SIS, 900. 900
for from rs TO so Years. Contractors MAY
Give One or alA. 900. 900 During Construc-
tion ana n Containing Ono or 81 200. 900.
Tho Appellate Division of tho Supreme Court
rendered a decision yesterday upon the applica-
tlon of the Rapid Transit Railroad Commission
for rchonrinR upon the question OF the Sl5..
10000 bond which Justice Van Brunt declared
should bo exacted from any contractors who
might undertake to build and operate the under
ground railroad. Tho application for q
rearRument upon this point was consid-
cred in conjunction with another appica-
tion made by Lawyers George Zabriskio
and Cephns Brainerd. ,Ir., on behalf of
tho property owners who oppose the whole un-
dcrground scheme. They seek to have an order
entered in accordance with tho decision OF the
Court. which confirms the report of tho Courts
special commission in favor of the building of
the road, but would make that decision null by
requiring that the Rapid Transit Commission
stipulate with the Court that 1t will require of
the contractors a bond of $l5.ooO.0oO to con.
tinuc through the whole period of thirty.five to
fifty years. through which the contract to build
and operate tho road must run.
The Court did not accede to tho request for
reargument, but decided to modify tho terms
regarding tho bond to be required In a way
which may mako 1t possible for contractors to
give the security which tho Court thinks neces-
sary to protect the citys interests and cover tho
uncertainties as to the real cost of doing the
work. 1t has been admitted by all concern ed
that 1t would be impossible for any one to get
bondsmen for $15.0OO,OoO on an undertaking
that will run through thirty-ave years.
The Court decides that such a bond need not
be given, but that in Its stoad the Rapid Transit
Commission must demand bond for s., ,O0O.-
600 to run through the whole term, and one for
$l4, 100000 to run during the period Of con-
structing and equipping tho road. This bond
may be made up Of number of individual un-
dcrtakings, none to be for less than $500, 900
and each to be secured by tho bond sman quail
flying in double the amount of the undertaking.
In the application for the rcHrgument the
counsel for the Rapid Transit Railroad Commits
sion questioned the right OF the court to require
OF them any stipulation regarding the bond. be-
cause the Rapid Transit statute has made it the
duty OF that commission to fix the amount at
its own discretion. Upon this point the de-
As the court has tho authority absolutely to
refuse to confirm that report for any reasons
which might seem to 1t to justify such action, 1t
is difficult to why it has not the power to re-
uuire that certain things shall be dono which, in
its Judgment, are necessary prerequisite to its
confirmation OF such report. 1t was the exer
Council and the General Term in sS4 whom
consents were given for the construction of the
street, which resulted in the present receipt by
the city of a sum annually exceeding in amount
the interest upon three or four times the then
claimed value OF the franchise, and the imposi-
tion upon the company Of the obligation in
spect to repairing the streets and keeping the
same FREQ from snow and ice. Prior to the con.
irmation OF the report of its Commissioners in
that case, tho General Term eXacted the execu-
ton of an agreement upon the part of tho
poration to conform to these requirements. and
after the execution OF such agreement the
port OF its Commissioners was confirmed. There
would seem. therefore. to bo no doubt in regard
to the power of the court, and the only question
remaining to be considered is as to whether
there should be any modification in reference to
the amount of the bond required by the original
decision"
The decision then discusses the proposition
made by tho Rapid Transit Railroad Commits
sion that the bond should not exceed $T,5O0.OO0
to secure construction. and that further security
should be taken by Withholding from tho
tractors a part OF the money due until the work
was done, and decides that such n method would
be bad because II would be onerous for the con-
tractor, and besides would not give the greatest
amount of security until the work was
nearing completion. whereas the greatest
stages OF the work. when its possible abandon.
ment might entail great losses upon tho city.
The opinion written by Presiding Justice
Van Brunt and conCurred in by Justices Rum
sey and Patterson Justice 1ngraham dissents.
taking the ground that the report in favor Of
building the road should not be confirmed at all.