New-York tribune., 1901-04-26
CONCERNING THAT BRIDGE BILL.


Further examination does not set the North
River Bridge bill in a more favorable light, but
reveals additional objections to that remarkable
measure Without Joining in the perfervid exc
crations which are being heaped upon it, we feel
no hesitation in saying that its promoters have
thus far signally failed TO sustain their case.
They have not, in fact. produced even a plau-
sible argument in support of the legislatures
ton in bestowing such privileges upon them. If
they are reservng their forces for the hearing
before the Governor next Tuesday they may be
we'll advised in so doing. but In the mean time it
is proper and indeed necessary TO point out the
singular features of the bill which seem TO make
it exceedingly prejudicial to the public interests.
The bill, by means of the complicated phrase
oiogy requisite in such cases, is cast in general
form, apparently for the sake of avoiding the
risk of local veto This necessarily makes it
an object of suspicion.
The charter now in force and the new revision
which will go into effect next year with Gov
ernor Odell's approval expressly forbid the
alienation of the city's rights in and TO its
| streets, waterfront and all other public places.
and provide that no franchise for the Of
any such property shall be granted except for
| limited periods and under rigid restrictions.
This bill grants the right TO an extremely
reversing A provision of the charter which has
been universally approved and reviving for the
benefit of the bridge company a policy of reck-
| less folly
The charter was intended to secure for the
| city suitable compensation for every franchise
| thus granted to private individuals This bill
apparently limits the recompense to be paid TO
| the city 10 paltry sum by means Of a provision
adroitly framed for that express purpose
| The charter is careful to preserve to the local
authorities full power ''to secure efficiency of
| public service at reasonable rates. wherever
| franchise has been granted, and otherwise to
protect the public interests affected thereby
| This bill apparently requires the local author-
| ties 10 do whatever the bridge company wants
| TO have done for the promotion of It's enterprise
| in the way of permits and consents, while pre-
| scribing no conditions as 10 rates of fare or
| methods of operation.
The bill ostensibly authorizes only an ZAP
proach" extending along West-st. from the Bat
terry to Fifty-ninth-st.; but there is some reason
| to think that it conveys the right to make con-
| nections to all parts of the city.
| 1t would be ridiculous to pretend that q
| scheme Of such magnitude was rushed through
| the legislature in the final hours of the session
| in recognition of and obedience TO strong pub
| lie demand The obvious truth is that it was
| able 10 command influences of another sort
| What were those influences: Until they have
| been explained the community will inevitably
suspect their legitimacy, and that suspicion will
not be alayed by the assertion of officer of
| the company that it has expended a great sum
of money for purposes which he declines TO
| divulge
These and various other points need TO be
thoroughly investigated, and we have no doubt
| that they will be, with or without the cheerful
| assistance of the company. Its representatives
at the hearing on Tuesday will have an abun-
| dant opportunity to correct every misapprehen-
| sion and show that they are entitled to the Ex-
| ecutive signature which they solicit.