New-York tribune., 1903-04-11
CITIZENS UNION ON BosTwIcK BILL.
Questions the Mayors Position-Defnes Its
Own Stand OF the Subject.

To the Editor of The Tribune.
Sir: The Union begs to correct misrepresentation
Of its position TO the Bostwick bin.
For example: morning paper has stated. on
each OF three days. that City Chamberlain Gould
took the Mayors bill to Albany-a piece of half
information
Mr.. Gould treasurer of the Union) has assured
that he took the bill for delivery to Mr.. Whit
only a messenger and at the request or
the Mayor, telling the latter that he (Mr Goud)
going to Albany for other purposes
Again: This morning the Mayor is reported as
having stated with reference TO the tax and sep
arate contract amendments
/ Immediately arranged for conference with
Mr.. Orr the Controller and Mr.. r. Fulton Cutting,
and at that conference amendments were agreed
upon covering satisfactorily both these points.
The clauses thus amended were among those
which had already been condemned by the Citizens
Union in resolutions So far the result of any
conference satisfactory to Mr.. Cutting that. as a
member ex-oficio of this committee and present at
its meeting after the Bostwick bill had been
introduced he Joined in its disapproval OF the
amendments in question obnoxious to the Unions
objections to the former draft And finally MI
Cutting member OF the conference at which
Senator Elsberg asked to press his own DILL
advised that the Bostwick bill too radically
defective-even he willing to waive his bIs
right 20 precedence-to be used a basis for
amendment. but should be killed instantly
The separate contract amendment referred to
was TO Section "a, and originally read:
The board may. by separate instrument III VIII
ing executed and delivered at or before the ne Gaze oa6e
of the execution and delivery of contract or CON
lease such road roads. when constructed. 10 any
person. firm or corporation for term OF years not
the lessee undertaking to equip. maintain and oper-
ate such road or roads at his or its own expense
This had been disapproved by the city committee
mission to contract for the operation of road
roads TO be constructed to time at or 6efore the
rir1e hen he
And has since been amended as generally TO per-
nit lease for operation by separate instrument. II
Authorized by unanimous vote of all the members
of said board.
This amendment being all the more farcical since
the board is understood almost unanimously TO
favor the combination OF construction and opera
tion contracts.
The Tax amendment referred to to Section
35 and originally read
Such person. firm corporation operating such
FSad % vqa9 9nq m s6a not Or be from
respects his its interest in such road unaer
stock and other equipment of the said road but but
which shah in every case be fixed at sum equal
TO the paid by the said city to the contractoT
operated
This had been disapproved by the city committee
Exempting from taxation the franchises rolling
stock and other equipment of the operators or re-
paid by the contractor to the city. which as shown
trely inadequate.
And has since been amended by leaving sep
arately taxable
Rolling stock and all other equipment Of said
road.
Without insisting that this sort of property would
probably be always found to belong to an exempt
road the objection specially urged by the Citizens
Union is ignored and the total assessment for tax
alton outside of rolling stock. ETC. limited as shown
by experience and suggested by the contract pro-
viso quoted such sum. not representing either
value or cost as the contractor might prefer
The Mavor's position best be characterized
by quoting from his statement that to meet crlti-
cisrns ne had directed reduced
The minimum term of any lease that .a can an,o2e be
ade' ~ rom rus assmiiating the Rapid
Transit law to the provisions OF the charter' etc.
etc.
For the Mayor must have poor idea Of public
Intelligence if he imaglnes that making twenty
FIVE years the minimum term for which the Rapid
Transit Commisson-aiready committed TO longer
terms-can lease IN any way assmilates the RAPID
Transit act the provisions Of the charter oy
which twenty-five years IS made the maximum
Another remark of the Mayor Is the most e1-
raoti,-a criticism possible of Bostwick bill He
excuses one OF the clauses. which he now with
draws by stating:
The motive for it was the fact that public let
ting when there is only one posslOie coihpe'i'oi'
is q good deal OF q sham
For 1t is true that under the Bostwtck BILL even
amended as now proposed, any competition might
he sham and the Belmont syndicate the only
one possible competitor.
IA 10 the Mayors suggestion as TO another
clause. he has dropped:
This clause was intended TO apply only to
branches or extensions OF the present subway
The Corporation Coursers statement as pub
usbed in THE Tines of the 7th inst. is luminous:
Mr. Rtves was asked If the proposed East SIDE
IT, nm Texington-ave., .sor any future Brooklyn
line could be regarded as an extension uhder
he said Technically any line which con,
meets with the original tutlheI may De NaiieU GA
extension to it, think
The Eisberg bill meets every aim that. so far as
wa bave noted the Mayor any other friend OF
the Roswick bill has suggested. It also meets the
nuhIic demands IN other important drectlohs'
Witch no one has as yet openly opposed II was
long since introduced in both House ana senate;
has successfully stood all criticism. and has been
fsvorablv reported to the Senate.
1vr,- does the Mayor antagonze the E1s-
ba-g hill nv another. introduced so late that the
,Ii, has but a confused impression OF II; so I'M
-raot that its promoters busy amending II!
Sh,,,5 no not explain what is the matter with the
IT1rba-g bt. why If bad, the citys representative
AZ Albany cid not earlier oppose it and "hy' II
GOOD he does rot now support 1t?
WILLIAM F. STONEBRIDGE.
-bo,--ran Committee Franchises. Cluzehs
Union.
Eew-York City. April g. 1858.