New-York tribune., 1902-03-25

wanted to see Corporation Counsel Rives at his
office in the 'Staats-Zeitung" Building, but he
told them he would them at the Mayors
office. The Mayor busy in his inside office
while the conference was on, but he came out
at the close and shook hands with the Pennsyl-
vania officials. receiving the thanks of Mr.. Cas-
satt for his courtesies. The hurried trip from
Philadelphia by Mr. Cassatt and his colleagues
account of their desire to see the
amended bill before II went to Albany. After
the conference Mr. Rives said that the amend
ment given above satisfactory TO the
Mayor, TO the railroad officials and presumably
to the Rapid Transit Commission.
LOWS NOTE TO ODELL.
In his note to the Governor transmitting his
memorandum. the Mayor says:
give my reasons for thinking that on the whole.
the Rapid lransit commission should have al least
so much oversight OF new underground ROADS as 10
insure a consistent and comprehensive system Of
prevent disastrous interference with the develop
n ent Of the subway system constructed at the
It ems to me that this result can be obtained @
Rapid transit Commissom' referred to- in my
memoranduIn, or Of supplementary bill, such as
hand YOU herewith. amending Assembly bill No.
loi5 just accepted by behalf of the city.
This second method of procedure has not been the
ests concerned. but personally think that II has
l shall be greatly obliged If you Will at your
discretion transmit one or the other Of these meas
emergency measure asking for prompt action on
one or the other
In his memorandum to the legislature the
Mayor says in part:
@ va @ S m an tho to
River. in tunnelling under the surface of Manhat-
to Queens Borough. The effect OF this project If
consummate ted, would be to give TO the boroughs OF
the West and South. and TO provide most desirable
communication between the boroughs of Manhattan
and he o1y- Of he nj
city OF New-York are beyond estimation.
WHY 1T SHOULD BE PERPETUAL
No in this community is more ayerse 10 the
perpetual franchise than am ], but candor compels
be drawn between such franchise the Pennsyl-
vania Railroad desires and that. for example, for
period for which the latter franchise is granted,
the city decides operate the railroad itself the
city takes the entire railroad. In the case of the
Pennsylvania Railroad tunnel on the other hand:
franchise the city would acquire what would be
OF comparatively little value without the outside
railroad systems connecting herewith; while the
railroad would lose what would be vital to II after
five years the use Of such facilities. This is
why. from the point OF view OF the Pennsylvania
a perpetual franchise Except upon such basis,
the Pennsylvania Railroad Is, and has been from
thel beginning perfectly frank in stating that the
While the bill provides that a franchise may be
granted in perpetuty for such a purpose. 1t care
fully guards the right Of the city 10 readjust the
AT intervals of not more than twenty-five years.
The city is thus assured Of the periodic opportunity
10 profit by Increase in the value of the fran
chise such time may easily bring. The city is
also assured Of the right and opportunity 70 attach
such conditions 10 the grant as public interests may
require.
Under the circumstances. I am Of the opinion
that perpetual franchise In such case may prop
ery be granted. for the city Is not deprived OF the
opportunity profit by it's increase in value II IS
only deprived Of the opportunity Of using the fran
ChiSe itself at the expiration OF limited grant.
Gnasmuch g the project in contemplation involves
a tunnel under the North River for its completion,
which tunnel lies outside Of the City's control on
tirely, and inasmuch that portion Of the enter
prise which the city does control is so vital to the
Pennsylvania Railroad Company thar II cannot
afford 10 enter upon the undertaking except upon
the grant of a franchise In pcrpctuity. ! am or the
opinion that this IS a case In which good Judgment
justifes exception to the general rule