New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1904-03-03
AGAINST ELM-ST. GRAB.
HEARING At ALBANY.
Forty-eight Civic Bodies Protest
fgainst Bad Railroad Measures.
trr -r.ras.rn 70 -EE znIBrNH-l

frr ~rtroRkru TO ZEE 1BrBUNEl
Albany March 2-As a result ~ The IT'D
une's exclusive exposure Of the Elnl-st posS'
hf!itv IN che of the I've WilcoX-Bedeh Taliro8o
bills Paul D. Crnvath, counsel Tor the ->e"-
vorl, CFtv Railroad Company. at a public hear
ing before the RAILROAD Committee OF me As
senbly to-day. offered % accept any amend
mani that would exclude Elm-st from the pro-
,ss,or,s % hfs bill Representatives from forty
.lprt civic bodies az the city protested Nlgof-
ou,ly against all these measures. ana paT'lcu-
larly against the Elnl-st bin. They also DIX
terlv ourosed the Wallace transfer amendment
ASST tan: Corporation Counsel Charles l. guy
on behalf Of the city administration toIa o. inc
,--otee. ~ the administration against the LIN
81. measure. and presented an amendment IA
tended 20 save that street. The contest on the
-E-sroo. measure obolishing the right Of indi-
,id,,als 20 obtain penalties from street railway
cor,naujes Refusing 10 furnish transfers was the
,,,ost bitterly contested bin considered AZ the
hearing. Edward D. whitney, who has argued
AL the test cases in this matter led the n6hI
The measure AssembyTran Wallace seeks TO
amend IS that allowing passengers 10 whom
transfers are refused TO recover 500 penalues
1or refusal. On this measure Mr. Mm1hey
ARMED that IN 1885 the street surface railroad
corlparies received the privilege 10 comDlhs
even when they had parallel lines only on con-
Gitlon that lley 6ll''H'@ 49,
Whitney said In part.
We have been Tor years fighting 10 gain for
- ~ffizons The rights the law entities them
"a end We have found that this law M. " alldce
Feeks 10 amend is the only protection tbe peo-
Die of New-York City have against a conp.e1e
-5oronolv ID is the wisest anti-monopoly Jaw
on our statute books. When We lrsl Oesal 81
nght for transfers we offered 10 al0W sle ma
ter 10 20 70 the Appellate DIVISION ana hsig 80
10 q b.6e by their interpretation OF the Jaw
offered the counsel OF the lnterur pa Suse'
Railway this method OF settenleIl; ne -
fused and now 81 they are cofnpItllll-ls 49, 49,,
tbe thousands az suits brought against .-leL
"a collect penalties they have only themselves
~ blame The Court OF Appeals llseIL ms y.
- +rs -ensltv Isl the efficient remedy, ana *
ought TO be cherished by the legis.ature- 81.
Now M wallace wants 70 Ok lle penny - q
S1oa 6av. 10 be sued Tor by the Attorney Cen
~-.1 v-bv YOU have got such an eheIInOus
,-ononoiv that e would be cheapet loI I4g -,
20 nav the 500 day rather than reoogll-zo g-1
Lew II would be better 10 repeal the Law -
- 49, -eroe5,- rather than enact such an ao-
surd and futile amendment
THINKS BILL EXTRAORDINARY
IN ,bs suh,ect OF the Flm-st. grab" Mr.
whitney said:
,-o.-. &c an extraordinary bin granting the
Franchise 10 a railroad 70 move INTO nc -, -
street parallel IN many cases 1le -
CITY railroad or its earlier preaeces7ole ~ -
nav anvthfnr FOR their first franchise, allo ny
thew coollv propose 10 move INTO lle heAN -
lei street without paying u they 49, 49, law
---n-
II that IS ali they want. why are lles se7N
ing 20 have the law amended.
Julius Henry Cohen, representing the Cit
zens Union. called attention 40 the fact that II
was only when the New-YorlS city Railroad
had found the suits piling up that 1t
weakened and granted transfers. on the Wal
lace transfer amendment he said;
II simply means taking away the last appeal
the public has from a monopoly After the
people Of New-York City more rights than any
other measure proposed AT this session and the
people VIII feel they have been robbed OF some
thing which was their own property
Regarding the wncox-wallace bill validating
I'D franchises a measure contained IN the VIII
cox omnibus grab bill OF last year Mr.. Cohen /
Eaid:
charters contained or owned in the New-York 4
City Railroad. That Is TO say. because this 4
company has constructed one portion IL shall /
have all its charters revived, and ] am told 4
here Is an endless number Of these charters IN 4
Nestchester owned by -.
James S. Lehmaier directed the opposition 10 /
hese measures. Among the others opposing /
hem were Albert S. Bard. representing the Ciu- /
zens Union: Charles Sprague smith. for the I
Peoples Institute; Frederick II. Allen. FOR the I
city Club. and Louis Lande. for tho East Side .
civic Club.
Eau4 d OraNath. OF the law firTn OF Guthrie. !
Cravath Henderson. appeared IN behalf OF his .
'lients. and IN support OF the bills introduced at
1is request Mr. Cravath devoted a considerable /
line 20 the attempt to dispel the notion that 4
lne q the measures was directed at Elm-st. 1
he declared that the company had no intention /
~ trying 10 set control OF this street under this
act. lie explained away the fact announced in 4
The Tribune that the Newly City Railroad 1
Company had been asking consents Of property I
owners on Elm-st for road by saying that /
his company Intended 20 apply for a franchise |
herein IN the usual way. Tie offered TO accent ]
A ssistant Corporation Counsel Guys amend 4
ment excluding from this bin more than three i
quarters Of a mile On any street but II was
pointed out that this amendment would hardly
cover Elrn-st. which Is shorter. He declared 4
that the company had in mind changes at new 4
bridges and tho Pennsylvania Railroad ie--
,ninaL
CALLS CONDITION scANDALoUs.
Mr. Cravath developed what he termed the
scandslous condition" which he believed the
Wallace bin aimed at transfers would remedy
lie asserted that suits for penalties amounting
10 $4,000 had been brought against his com