New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1904-02-20
DENOUNCE ELM-ST. GRAB |
CITY RISES IN RETOLT.
MctropoIitan's Frank and Bold Dis
DIag Of It's Greed Commended.

Drawn from the attorneys OF the Nev-Vork City
Railway Company. the latest os the many names
Under which tine surface railways % this city 30
business. 10y Tho Tribuac's dispatch printed yes
tcrday. ca-le "A GENIAL that there any possible
thcuEht oC using Elm-st. Tor a car line. Yet sew
ersl weeks ago. agents for the railway company
w~-e soliciting consents of property owners along
tha lower part OF Lafayette Place for car line,
whose oniy outlet could be through Elm-st
Tho widening - F-lr-st. ives ono of the most
rotalla aids toward relieving the congestion cf
lower Broadway. j. vas carried ont at the cost
of millions of collars q city money For the rail
way company 70 take th:s street well known
lawyers say f. could under the provisions % the
new railroad bills. without ample compensation 70
the city wo-ld he sheer knockdcwn and holdup
business. Tor the company to acquire this street.
even - a good price for the franchise, would. n
the opinion q many. be unNtse
The hills which were exposed in The Tribunes
Albany Dispatch have aroused much unfavorabie
comment here. Lawyers Of tho organizations which
keep track OF the railroads devious methods had
been watching these measures sharply.
II the company thinks Il can get any ~ these
privileges without the consent or the local authori
ties it's greatly mistaken" SAID Edward r. whit
uey of the Citizens Transit Reform Committee of
one Hundred. referring 10 the bill drawn 20 give
the company power 10 acquire franchise rights in
any street running parallel street in which Il
has tracks now. such bill would be unconst-
tutional The main point In fighting the railroad.
though IS this: Make IL pay. and pay Handsomely.
bll would make possible be submitted 20 the peo-
ple-they're the ones to say whether they want
such thing: whether il would be more convenient
for them have the location OF tracks changed
TO other streets. such changes ought not to be
made simply because the railroad company desires
them. n the people want them. don object 70
them, A. least, let the company pay well for the
privilege. Don't give t this right. however, In
berpetuity. Make It paw for franchise privileges
for twenty-five years and then. when it wants go
he rrfw
warrant far greater income TO the city.
TRYING TO DODGE OBLIGATIONS
This other bin. giving the company through the
Railroad Commission power 10 abolish transfer
stations seems 20 be means Of getting out Of the
obligation imposed by law Naturally the com
/ pany doesn't like the developments recently. IL
hates TO give those transfers. Under the laws In
accordance with which the various companies wera
/ consolidated into the present company there were
1 the provisions FOR transfers however As the com
paries chose tc combine under those laws II looks
like squealiug for them 20 want TO iuvalidate one
provision Of the measures"
/ John De WIZ Warner. of The Citizens Union
Committee Franchises declares that not only
would the Gu relating 20 tho changing OF tracks
/ 70 parallel streets give the company power 10
grah Elm-st-. but he had no doubt that this rery
thing INTENDED. Said he:
Not only would the bin described by The Tribdne
permit the grab Of Eln-st. by the Metropolitan
Street Railway. but have TOO much respect for
believe for e moment that they did not know and
however when parties having such schemes state
them 30 clearly. The old way would have been,
after -lch AMENDMENTS were paid for. TO have
sneaked them IN AZ the last moment 81 committee
Indeed. am Flad 20 hope that the MetroPoiiiaan
firm question viii De easier keep track OF
Do rot understand me as suggesting that the
Elm-st grab s. ali that g involved J. is very
taken into the confidence OF its olients as 10 know
The rroa stre rroyl6ing that the State Board OF
Railroad Commissioners may exempt the street
ever ihe state Board thinks 81 would be for the
PUBL. beneht would be funny q IT were not serious
Or an fhe bodies whom experience has shown not e,
care. even = they know. and not TO know. even II
as they are. by the railroads IS most conspicuous
tended 10 discredit its rutative authors anc help
horne rule Icy showing the aosuTdity oi Al1;,iy Z IN
sec the STATE legislature with it's present Re
fflicau ma io~itv loaded with such measure. say
dy having = reported favurably from coninltte ai1
boovs@ce @ Tear Governor Oden. having quietly per
mittcd THIS. would nave us iteIs re bi 20 etc n and
thereupon would get great credit FOR killing the
people didn't get angry: 70 be Killed Il they oio-
Paul D. Cravath Of counsel for the street railway
Issued a formal statement declaring that the com
many had absolutely no intention OF taking Em-st'
20 which he added that he didn't know OF any street
n could desert far that thoroughfare. lie didn't
say that the bill provided that the streets deserted
were not lost to the company but might be used at
q later time HIS statement follows:
DENIES HAVING DESIGNS on ELM-sT.
There IS absolutely no foundation for the infer
ence that the bin introduced II the leglsature
providing for the relocation or street railway
routes is intended permit the construction OF a
Hrc on Elm-sf. ] can think or no theory unaef
,viicS the LEGISLATION could have that effect The
NetroDolitnn company has existing parallel line
Which ii would be williag 70 give up for the Pur-
nose OF hSxfr "a relocated on tllTn-st
II seems have been overlooked that under tne
tsii as drawn a route cannot be relocated without
The same forrnalities which are required Tor the
vrantinR OF a new franchse-y1z-. the consent OF
the local authorities including the Board CT Aoer-
rneu ard the Board OF Estimate and Appcrtlon-
,,S+ fbe railroad commissioners and the abutting
,1rorerty owners or. failing that. the Appellate
Division Of the Supreme Court toE the uePaISlsH1
IA which the road Is located