New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1899-10-25
RIDGES. BIT NO JOBS.

We regret to note that some OF our Long Isl
and friends misunderstood our views about the
nroposed Blackwell's Island Bridge, and COM
main that we oppose the extension to them or
adeouate transit facilities Such is not the
case We are heartily In favor of giving Long
Island more bridges, provided It be done hon
estly If we were inclined to take narrow
view Of the situation and oppose East River
bridges so as to keep money and people In this
borough we do not think that Long Island
would be in position to point the finger OF scorn,
after all the opposition that has there been
made 10 all plans for rapid transit on Manhat-
tan Island for no reason but fear that some
traffic might be diverted from Brooklyn and
some money spent here that Brooklyn wanted.
But we do not have any prejudice against
building up Long Island. We believe that the
right policy for New-York is to build up all
New-York. and long before consolidation we
were urgent IN advocating tunnels and bridges.
on the theory that all roads out Of Manhattan
Island are also roads into IT, our sole objec-
ton 10 Commissioner Sheas plan for n Black
wells Island bridge Is that II contains elements
Of johbery which should he shaken out before
It is allowed TO proceed. Then let It proceed,
and as rapidly as possible
The available limits within which It is pos
sible 10 build bridge to Queens County are
not so narrow that a law Of nature compels
the location coincdent with the claims under
the expiring Raney franchise. There Is no
use of the citys locating itself upon law
suit II those claims are Of doubtful validity, as
has been limited in defence OF Mr.. Shea, or Of
paying n large sum TO private persons for a
paper right, which would lapse Of itself before
any nctual work would be likely 10 be done by
the city to infringe on II. The purchase Of the
Uhlman franchise for the bridge 10 the Eastern
District has often been quoted as n precedent
but It Is a bad precedent There Is no reason
in morals. and ought to he none in law, why
the public should have to buy back from
private holders permisslons TO use public prop
erty for public purposes which have never
been improved. These permissions II is true,
under the decisions Of our courts, are vested
rights. but they are given solely for the pur-
pose Of being improved within reasonable
time. and not he held simply for speculation or
for carrying on a dog in the manger policy.
While they are in legal force they have to he
respected but there is no reason why any pub
lie officer should give them one days grace.
1t is perfectly possible for Mr.. Shea to make
bis bridge plans to benefit the people on both
sides Of the East River just as much, and for
all practical purposes Just as quickly. without
giving the holders Of the Rainey franchise n
claim on the taxpayers for something the tax
payers gave them freely-gave them as step
in bridge building. not for an obstacle TO be
removed years after at great expense when the
city desired TO erect the structure that the
grantees had failed to build or begin 10 build.
This franchise is almost dead. II will die
while the city IS engaged on preliminary work
and before construction need begin on the spot.
Let the interests Of Long Island he considered,
and at once. But let not their interests be
made the excuse for spectators 10 defraud the
taxpayers by blind and wasteful bargains.