The news-democrat. (Providence, R.I.) 1906-1909, 1906-08-31
FRIDAY, AUGUST 81, 1906.
WHERE PERRY STANDS.

has placed in the hands OF the chairman OF the
committee on an East Side approach the conditions
under which his railway company will make an
agreement with the city in relation to the OF the
proposed tunnel
The Perry plan contemplates the building of a
tunnel along the Waterman street route. II in
wolves the removal of the Arnold block and the
business structure in the rear of it, to bring the
tunnel traffic into direction connection with Canal
street and Exchange place. This particular plan
is the most expensive OF the several that have been
proposed. and it may be favored by the Perry
poraton merely to bring about what Perry seems
to desire--the defeat OF the whole tunnel project
by making the expense appear excessive and too
burdensome in the eyes OF the taxpayers.
The specially vital part of Perrys communca-
tion is that dealing with the question of ultimate
ownership of the tunnel The president OF the
traction corporation insists that the city shall
build the tunnel and that after his company has
paid in the form OF rent sum sufficient to meet
the interest the bonds and retire the bonds
themselves maturity, absolute control and
ownership shall pass TO it.
Such proposition is in way surprising.
Indeed the News-Democrat took occasion during
previous discussions of the tunnel project to declare
that the Perry contention would be for ultimate
ownership by his railroad corporation.
1t will be remembered also that when Perry
few weeks ago remarked to members of the APP
proach committee that the question of ownership
was only detail for later consideration the News
Democrat insisted that such a statement was made
only to throw the representatives of the city off
their guard, and that Perry's real purpose is to
secure absolute and undisputed possession of the
tunnel for his street railway corporation.
The correctness of that statement is now fully
vindicated by Perry himself. He says his COM
pany must own the tunnel ultimately, and by infer
gives the impression that it is only upon this
basis his traction corporation will consent to negoti-
ate with the city.
Here the people have another manifestation of
the arrogant and toplofty spirit that has always
characterized Perry in his dealings with the city OF
Providence. His present tunnel pronunciamento
is but the counterpart of his utimatum to the
people that if they refused to accept his detention
house system OF transfers they would get trans
fers at all.
Providence flouted his "last word" on the trans
fer issue and secured what it demanded-ticket
transfers. Unless the approach committee and the
city council which created it are monstrousiy
short sighted and strangely under the spell of cor
poration influence, they will refuse absolutely and
irrevocably to permit Perry to have his way in this
important enterprise for the benefit of the public.
And they do SO effectively and thoroughly.
In the transfer contest the people could do
than refuse TO accept Perrys insolent dicaton. In
the case OF the tunnel project they can not only
thrust aside Perry's ultimatum but carry out
the work irrespective of Perry preferences die
tation.
1t must be plain to every citizen that the head
OF the traction company is playing his familiar
game of grabbing everything for his corporation
and leaving nothing for the people in return for
privileges OF great financial value. He would have
this tunnel built at public expense and in the
OF forty OF fifty years have it turned over TO his
traction company its absolute and unquestioned
property because the rent it paid during the period
OF its tenancy equaed the original cost of the work
OF construction and the interest the outlay
This proposition is preposterous 1t is as
absurd though Perry's tenants in his Union
Trust building should demand that when their
rentals reached equal to the original cost of
the property and the interest the investment, he
should turn it 20 them.
The East Side tunnel when built by the money
OF the city should remain the property Il he city
IL should be source OF revenue and should never
be surrendered to the Perry any other corpor-
alton.
That Perry is satisfied public sentiment will
not permit such surrender seeils very likely 1t
appears equally probable that in making his mpu-
dent proposition OF ultimate ownership he is simply
endeavoring TO kill the whole tunnel proposition. in
the hope that an easy-grade street will be CON
structed instead, which will relieve his corporation
OF all financial responsibility even in The matter OF
rental
Perry is crafty in his methods, but his craft