New-York tribune., 1902-07-26
MR. CANTOR'S REASONS.

Mr.. Cantor has not explained his sudden
change of opinion concerning the Pennsylvania
tunnel franchise. of which. in its present form,
he is now the chief opponent: but since the ad-
verse vote on Wednesday he has clearly stated
his objections. So far frankness goes, there
fore, he is entitled TO credit, but we cannot say
that the reasons which he assigns for his hos
tility are impressive Mr.. Cantor is satisfied
that this tunnel is simply to be used to carry
freight through TO Montauk Point which
would seriously endanger our commercial III
''terests:" but his only acknowledged ground for
that belief is that "if the tunnel were intended
"for passenger traffic the NewYork Central
road would be found vigorously opposing It,"
1t seems TO us that his hypothesis is an exceed
ingly small basis for so large conclusion.
There has been great deal of irresponsible
talk for many years about a vast port at Mon
tauk Point but the economic feasibility of such
a scheme has naver been demonstrated, nor do
we believe that since the days of Austin Cor
bin ii has made particle of progress toward
realization. But even If it were the desire of
the Pennsylvania company. as Mr.. Cantor i'm
agines il TO he. TO carry nothing but freight
through the tunnel. the means OF frustrating
that desire would seem to have been securely
reserved 1t is distinctly provided in the agree
ment between the company and the Rapid
Transit Commission that 1.-The railroad is 10 be
diligently and sklfully operated with due re-
gard to the convenience of the travelling pub
'1ic." Would the convenience OF the travelling
public be duly served II the travelling public
were wholly excluded from the tunnel, as Mr..
Cantor is sure It would be? Doubtless his re-
ply TO that question would be in the negative,
but he might say that there would be no means
of redress; in which case we should invite his
attention 10 the provision that "the rights of the
'city are TO be enforceable by action for specific
performance or mandamus or otherwise"-a
remedy which we think would not be invoked
In vain.
That is one way in which the city would re-
tain a hold over the company after the fran
chise had been granted, and it is not the only
way. Mr.. Cantor objects to grant which, be-
ing in perpetuity, would, in his opinion, put
the city forever at the mercy of the railroad
The respects in which this bestowal of perma-
nent privileges differs from others unwisey
made heretofore have been clearly pointed out
many times that further repetition seems
hardly worth while; but there is one feature
OF the arrangement which perhaps has not been
sufficiently emphasized in answer to the con-
tention that the Pennsylvania people would be
free to do as they pleased. The franchise is
permanent but the rental is readjustable every
twenty-five years. Is the company likely TO
adopt the policy Of betraying the public vel
fare and exciting the just Indignation OF the
people, in full knowledge of the fact that after
a comparatively short interval 1t must come TO
terms with the city, or, If they cannot agree
with the Supreme Court? 1t appears TO us that
a franchise which is permanent in one sense
but renewable in another preserves to the mu-
nicipal authorities large measure Of power to
defend the city's interests.
We are glad that Mr.. Cantor, representing
the opposition TO which he so Unexpectedly
gave his support, does not dsdain argument,
since fair consideration of the case should
cause him to change his mind, and we do not
blame him for resenting the threat that the leg
islature will be asked to deprive the aldermen
of their control over the franchise That was a
foolish outbreak which probably has not led the
sagacious officers of the Pennsylvania COM
pany to put higher value the services of
their special New-York counsel.