New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1902-04-10
OPPOSITION TO BEDELL BILL.
MAYOR Low URGES GOVERNOR TO VETO TIFFANY o1HEfS
PRESENT STRONG OBJECTIONS.
THE MAYOR DISAPPROVES
GOVERNOR ASKED TO WITHHOLD HIS
SIGNATURE.

,rszor Low, as WAS foreshadowed in The Trio-
,,nA YESTERDAY. returned as unaccepted by the
CITY the Bedell bin giving the New orh Zen
-ral Railroad certain privileges in ccnnec''o'l
with improving its terminal facilities Inc
Mayor wrote the Governor letter saying he
had asked for opinions on the bill from Johh r
Dillon and Corporation Counsel RlVes pelore
taking decisive action The letter TO the Gov
ernor follows:
n is with much regret that feel constrained TO
ask YOU To withhold your approval from Assembly
Siip Tn 81 Known as the Bedel bill. the OBJECT
OF which is TO give to the New - 10 sboiit
its Foriy-second-st terminal that are necessary 10
enable 20 substitute electTclty as M ReIi as
for steam This BIZ was Sent 20 Nj n,hicl,
city bill March 10, together with letter VIII
Nan If In. hill This plan as 50 outlined evoked
almost criticism. Mr.. Bedeil accepted lile ol
10y both houses Of the legislature, ard no" a"a'S
Since The bin has been printed. however. it has
awakened little criticism; unfortunately, 100
When looked at with fresh eyes, unfamiliar with
the details Of the problem to he solved the OH 81
pears 10 grant powers far beyond those Iaar
were contemplated when il was drawn Ona q
these circumstances have asked the Sont
Counsel to advise me whether IN ms 9u S f5
these criticisms or any of them are so Wen inuR1
support which have gwen II IN view "a, ~ ' ~
great interests involved. have also askec ilnl ~
TO such features of the bill as seemed TO MIN
especially open 10 question. -, 7,,r,
y
given TO ne by the GeTporauon C b Wr Dillon It
OF the opinion fuTnlsnea 10 MN og b e comments
that the bill in its present shape should noI pc
Judge Dillon that many of the apprehensions eK-
cited by the bill without foundation, pul, Oh
the other hand. he raises the very importani Qt -
ton whether the bill would be et1clert 70
accomplish its purpose in enabling me belieTes
be necessary in order to enable It TO
tion to various defects in the bill. and concludes
that il does not successfully embody the worklls
erailv conceded that the appeal to the court. as
embodied in the bill which was inte9aeg 70 se
/ fully appreciate the responsibility am taxing
IN asking YOU to veto this bill in the absence OF
which no power viii exist TO enable the oI a
of suhstituting electricity for steam. The discus.
sion which this bill has received during me Iasl
ten days has abundantly demonstrated, TOY Sas
the very great difficulty Of the problem when mas
that the first attempt deal with il has not been
successful In the mean while. believe that les, iess
than by taking the chances under this bill 1t Is
quite clear that there are enough 9ppor5anlr ,Sa
attempt made 10 proceed with the desired WoIIi
sts rs careful study Of the problem both Its
PHYSICAL and its legal sides, during the coming
eufhori.ies ] think there IL little doubt that a
plan be perfected and hill prepared Tor pres
entation the opening OF the next legislature as
to which there need be little if any difference OF
result viii be attained more quickly in this manner
than by allowing the pending biz TO become law.
ing bin is not competent confer new franchise
upon any railroad company anywhere wish 10
Il competent do this 1t ought 20 be VETOED with
out regard 70 any other consgerac9a iGF s as oh
rioxious TO every sound principle Nnile i 90 noI
gscf mat some LAWYERS do adds something the
force of the objections to the Bill
Ex-Judge Dillon in his opinion says that the
language of the bill would doubtless be, con
strued by the courts relating to the acqufr
ing OF additional terminal facilities by additions
TO and changes in terminal stations, approaches
and structures connected Herewith, and not a:
granting. or authorizing the grant of, any new
franchises not connected with terminal add
lions, facilities or the approaches to such sta
tons or other or different lines or routes Th'
oct throughout shows that it is dealing pri
rnarily with additions and changes, and not witt
the granting or authorizing the granting, o.
new franchises
Continuing, ex-Judge Dillon says:
The BeGell bin, by its terms, authorizes the com
pany to prepare its plans proxies ana sp r nca
posed. 1t nowhere in express terms authorizes th'
tang aG GS % paoe and any nnabe IN tn,
absence Of specific plan being submitted to me- e
execution OF that plan would involve the construc
ton or operation OF what wou,d De fegaloeG aioS
the constitution.
Corporation Counsel Rives's opinion says tina
the Bedell bill does not authorize a new fran
c.hise. The intention of those who drew the bill
he adds was to limit it to additions or changes
incidental TO an enlargement of terminal facili
ties; and 1t is his opinion that the bill in thai
respect is sufficiently guarded. be says the
proposed changes in the terminal facilities de-
sired by the New-York Central cannot be car
ried out under the so-called Pennsylvania Rail
road bill. Mr.. Rfves adds that ii would prob
ably be wiser II the bill did not become Law
at this time.