New-York tribune., 1901-12-28
THE GRAB PROBABLY DEFEATED.


The scheme 10 give the Metropolitan Street
Railway Company a franchise TO run its Union
line trolley cars over the Central Bridge which
has recently been haiting in rather encouraG-
ing manner now seems 10 be beaten, so far
as this administration is concerned. Some weeks
ago il looked as II the ordinance would slide
through the Municipal Assembly without much
trouble. but the opposition which The Tribune
from clear sense OF duty, has done its best TO
incite suddenly became formidable enough 10
cause the companys agents great anxiety. On
Thursday. ar a meeting of the Board Of Alder
men, several sharp and true utterances were
heard in denunciation Of the proposed grant
and renewal OF the discussion yesterday
developed lively controversy which resulted
in at least a temporary defeat for one Of the
most selfish schemes record. even in this
city Of prodigal gifts 10 corporations at the
expense OF taxpayers.
1t is 10 be regretted that the job has not
until recently received the attention II deserves,
for there may be still time enough left for
reconsideration OF yesterdays vote. But we
are glad TO learn that representatives of several
civic organizations have taken the matter up in
earnest. that II was specifically put before the
Mayor yesterday. and that he promised in case
the ordinance reached his hands 10 give
hearing if the opposition could promptly agree
upon a date. The opportunity ought 10 be
eagerly accepted, If occasion demands. and the
facts presented to the Mayor in the clearest
possible manner. The general issue was we'll
stated in The Tribune yesterday by Mr.. Denis
A. SpeIlissy, OF the Franchise Tax League. who
said:
I an astonshed that taxpayers do not make
some definite stand against powerful corpora
tions which are eating away municipal reve-
srs--
against them. The great companies which
slowly but surely gain every advantage against
the city which they seek must be brought under
control. Had our local legislators retained half
the franchises which have been showered gratui-
tously into the laps OF greedy. selfish corpora
tons. the rate OF taxation in this city would be
vastly lower than il is to-day.
In this case, as we have repeatedly urged.
there are special considerations which make
the proposed betrayal of public interests pecul-
iarly obnoxious. The building OF the Central
Bridge was authorized on the express condition
that it should be forever protected from every
such invasion is now threatened. and the
duty Of the city government TO protect II Is not
less binding because legislation removing the
restriction was afterward covertly procured
Some persons whose own immediate comfort
is their first thought have advocated the sur
render Of the bridge because they ind il incon-
venient 10 change cars. Their selfish plea does
| them no credit and ought to have been rejected
without moments hesitation. even II It had
| not been morally certain that the company
would provide itself with a bridge excepting
| for its expectation OF obtaining one as a gift
| from the city; but the presumption that it
would build If IL had 10 leaves no possible
! excuse for the sacrifice it demands.
AS we have said. the opposition declared in
| the Board Of Aldermen yesterday was for the
time being efecrual. and we hope It cannot be
overcome during the next few days But the
company is resourceful. and ii would be a
great mistake if those who have been planning
for final appeal 10 the Mayor should resolve to
do nothing further until it becomes clear that
the last resort must be employed. They ought
rather TO make the most without delay of this
unforeseen chance and render it as difficult as
possible for the aldermen 10 reverse them
selves. We doubt if such somersault can be
brought about If IL is known that the whole
community is looking on