New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1899-01-22
TUNNEL FRANCHISES.

Senator MarshallS bill. intended to exempt
from the twenty-hve-year limit of the city
charter the franchise sought by the Long Island
Railroad Company for a tunnel under the East
River is one likely 10 awaken vOciferOus Oppo-
sion from the professional enemies of soul
less corporations. Ii by no means follows that
there Is not merit in the proposition. The pro
vision setting bounds to the life Of franchises
IS one of the most benehcent features of the
charter. When corporations are allowed to
make use Of public property to carry on their
business they should certainly do so under reg
ulations safeguarding Ia the people the income
belonging TO the growing value of the privileges
conferred and also the reversiOn of the prop
erty unencumbered after n reasonable time.
Public rights should not be indefinitely alien
hted. Nevertheless there may be exceptional
cases where the charter rule would operate un-
reasonably and even make impossible improve
nents which would be of the greatest value to
The city, and the projected Long Island tunnel
appears TO be one of them
For years the people Of Brooklyn have desired
10 rid themselves Of the dangerous and insight
" surface tracks in Atlantic-ave. At the same
time the Long Island Railroad has desired bet
ter access 10 Manhattan. Finally plan was
made which seemed satisfactory TO all parties
The level Of the railroad tracks was to be
changed and the line extended beyond the Flat
bush-ave. station and through q tunnel under
the East River. This scheme is one Of the
greatest utility 1t would give the railroad
terminal in the heart Of this city. but in doing
so IL would open a new and much-needed route
10 one OF the most desirable suburban regions
about the metropolis and provide another link
between the two chief parts Of the city for which
there is such demand that the city itself is
preparing 10 spend large sums for several new
bridges Just the plan seemed about 10 be
put into execution the charter was passed. with
.ts twenty-ive-year franchise requirement,
and Immediately the scheme suspended.
THE company said. with much FEASIBILITY. that
q could not afford To spend the money TO tunnel
the East River only 10 surrender all rights In
,ts own railway terminals after twenty-five
years II neither wants 10 give up the tunnel
which Il pays for to the city without cOmpensa-
ton or surrender IL on a valuation and have
somebody else become the owner of an essen
fal part of its transportation system. There
fore II seeks to be freed from the charter re-
EtrictiOn.
An underwater tunnel franchise differs In
many respects from street franchise. In the
latter case a corporation acquires the right TO
use a public way. II Is valuable 10 the cor
poratIOn because II IS public way filed with
traffic This traffic gives the road business, the
public ownership of the street saves vast ex-
pense for rights OF way even II such rights can
be acquired over private property at any price
tunnel under the harbor, however. uses moth
ing that the city has made. Its owner does not
gain access 10 some stream Of traffic created
by others. or avoid paying for private lands by
securing a public grant. The tunnel builder
asks for use Of unoccupied property under
water. not because he wants the property but
because II is a barrier in his way. tunnel
uses up nothing Of value 10 anybody else but
eonfers benefit in return for a mere permission
10 occupy space which is unappropriated, only
Cess than the and air. Therefore the city