New-York tribune., 1901-05-01
NO DECISION ON BRIDGE.
LONG HEARING ON BILL. BUT NO WORD
AS To GOVERNORS ACTION.
LARGE DELEGATION OPPOSES MEASURE
WITH BRIEFS AND ARGUMENTs-PRoN
Uses OF IT'S SUPPORTERS
IBr TELEGRAPH To TIE TRIBUNE

New-York and New-Jersey Bridge bill. "and L
shall give careful consideration to what has
been said about it." Thus the Governor terrni-
mated the hearing. and he afterward said;
shall not make my decision upon the measure
known tonight
For four hours the Executive Chamber hsd
been courtroom in which Senator Rainess
bill authorizing the Nev-York and New-Jersey
Bridge Company TO construct approach 10
the great bridge contemplated. along West-st-'
from the Battery to Fifty-ninth-st, had been
on trial for its life. The large room was crowded
with persons interested in the fate OF the bill-
Seated at his big desk on the east side Of the
room Governor Odell. who had listened pa
tiently hour after hour 10 the arguments on the
measure only interrupting the speakers with
questions on two occasions.
The questions OF the Governor must have tndi-
Gated somewhat the queries that were in his
mind about the bill Both OF these questions
in relation 10 the legal character OF the
marginal wharf property of the city. whether II
could be regarded as part of West-st- The sup
porters OF the bin argued that it was not a
part of West-st-. but a strip Of land merely ana
therefore that the consent Of local authorities
under the constitution. not necessary TO the
construction Of a railroad upon it. On the other
hand the representatives Of the city present
argued that it was "a marginal street. and
therefore the consent Of the city authorities was
necessary to the building OF railroad upon H.
The Governors questions led many present 70
think he believes the Dock Department is the
local authority controlling this land
Ex-MAYoR HEwITTs OPPOSITION
Those who appeared against the bill were
President Alexander z. Orr and Edward NJ
Shepard, representing the Rapid Transit COM
mission: Controller Coler. President Gugsen-
heinler Of the Courcil, and Corporation Counsel
WhaIen representing the city authorities A
Foster Higgins, John H. Stcrin and stephen W.
Corey. representing the Chamber or Comrneree'
William T. King, Henry w Goodrich. Arthur J.
Baldwin and Frederick w. Hinrtchs. represent-
ing the Merchants Association; Horace E. DEM
ing. Of the City Club; Adolphe Openheyn and
John De Witt Warner. OF the Citizens Unions
William Mcconnell and L. J. Callahan. OF the
New-Yorlx Board Of Trade and Transportation
H r Kunhardt W. V. Nichols and c. A Gris-
com. tr, a committee from the Maritime Asso-
cia+ion Of the Port of New-York, sent a strong
protest against the measure
It will be observed that the city authorities.
the non-partisan Rapid Transit Commission and
4ba greatest commercial bodies of New-York in
terested in the development OF it's trade with
the Western States over any Hudson River
bridge felt forced nevertheless. by the nature OF
the enactment 70 appear before the Governor
and protest against his signing the bill What
seemed especially a harmful feature OF the bill
in the eyes of most of those who opposed was
it's provision that the franchise granted for the
construction Of an approach should be a per-
petual one.
A letter was submitted from ex-Mayor Ahram
s Hewitt in which he said that careful con-
sideration was given. while he was Mayor, To
the proposal TO build elevated road on the
marginal street along both the East and North
fHA ME
but that it had been demonstrated that such a
track could not be used for freight 10 any ad-
vantare Engineers of the Dock Department in
reports showed ''conclusively that an elevated
structure designed for the receipt and delivery
OF freight along the marginal streets would en-
tireIy fail TO accomplish the end in view" In
concluding his letter. Mr. Hewitt further said:
The granting of irrepeaIable privileges or ot
any, franchises which do not come under the d.
rect supervision and control Of the city authOri-
ties will be certain to work irreparable mischief"
CAPITALISTS READY TO INVEST, HE SAYS
The chief speaker IN behalf of the bill was ex
Governor George T. Werts OF New-Jersey.
speeches in its favor were also made by Senator
Rafnes. Burton N Harrison and Albert Hen
scbe1. James s. Clarkson. president of the New
York and New-Jersey Bridge Company. was
present but he made no speech There was
alsc present H. r. Dumont. who. II has been
said has sought industriously TO interest capt-
taIists in the bridge enterprise
Senator Raines who made the first speech for
the bill. criticised the commercial bodies Of New
York for opposing the act, although they we're
willing TO expend S63. 100000 on barge canal
In his opinion. the bridge would bring far more
commerce TO New-York than barge canal.
Senator Raines also read letter. which he de-
cIared was written by Charles ]. Canda to Con-
troer CoIer in relation 10 the bridge project. in
which Mr. Canda so Mr.. Raines stated. said:
am informed that YOU have stated to In
huential parties that there is no money behind
the bridge project; not a cent l have stated to
YOU and I now repeat il, that when you and
sbaU have agreed upon the terms under which
the city may grant the approaches required L
shall Immediately give you the evidence that
capitalists are ready 70 undertake the construc-
ton
Controller Coler, in reply TO this statement by
Senator Raines said that as a member of the
Sinking Fund Commission he had always op-
posed the granting of this bridge approach or
like franchise TO a private corporation He had
the impression after talks with those desirous
of obtaining this franchise that the Hanover
RATIONAL Bank and Mr. Krech, of the MercanyiIs
Trust Company. might be the capitalists referred
TO as behind the bridge enterprise, but he had
found upon investigation that he was mistaken
DECLARED INADEQUATE
Ex-Governor Werts made a carefully prepared
argument in favor of the bill. He gave history
of the New-York and New-Jersey Bridge Com
pany from the day of it's Incorporation and also
an account of legislation at Albany and at
Washington in its favor. He described the bill
as one of international Importance. and argued
il should not be considered wholly from the
point of view of New YOrl<'s interests He then
dwelt with especial emphasis on an argument
that the land TO be taken along the river front
of New-YOrk was not q part OF a street. The