The sun., 1906-02-07
TO CURB INTER.MET MERGER
WINS SHOWS UP At ALBANY AS
A VI. o. ADVOCATE.

Favors Hills splitting Contracts on Future
subways and Limiting Period OF Opera
tiOn to 40 Years-John Ford says
That tho People Are Being Neglected.
ALBANY. Feb. o.--Opponents Of the In
terborough- merger believe
that the best way to curb the future opera
ton OF this combination Is the enactment
by the Legislature Of the Elsberg amend
ments to the New York city rapid transit
law.
These provide that the Rapid Transit Com
mission in contracting for future subways
shall let separate contracts for construc-
tion, separate contracts for equipment and
separate contracts for operation, and that
contracts for construction may be let In
sections rather than in their entirety.
Much interest was manifested in the
hearing on the Esberg bill this afternoon
before the Senate Cities and Assembly
Railroads committees because Of the pres-
ence in favor Of the bill OF William NJ WINS,
the Republican candidate for Mayor OF
New York city last fall. Apparently Mr..
WINS is as rabid municipal ownership
advocate US any who have come forward
up TO tne present time.
Mr.. Wins announced that the advocates
of the Elsberg bill were willing that the
city, through the Rapid Transit Commits
sion, might contract for the construction
and equipment of future subways, but they
insisted that no contract for operation
should be entered into until the new sub
ways were nearing completion.
He argued that as it would take from
five to seven years to complete new sub
ways a much better price for operation
from private corporations could be secured
by the city II 1t waited and that then II
the city could not make reasonable con-
tract for private operation it could go
ahead and operate the road and thus be in
a position to force the traction combination
to give the people cheaper rates and
better service.
Mr.. WINS recommended an amendment to
prevent existing railroad corporations from
acquiring new subways and recapitalizing
them at fictitious values. He paid his
respects to the operations Of the Belmont
and Ryan traction interests and insisted
that if the Elsberg bill was not enacted
this railroad combination could 90 ahead
and fasten its control OF the present and
city.
Frederic W. Hlnrichs Of Brooklyn, repre-
senting the Citizens Union, which organ
ization was the originator of the Elsberg
bill several years ago, asserted that the
defeat Of the Elsberg bill in the Legisla-
ture last year largely resulted in the big
Hearst vote last fall He insisted that il
the bill was again defeated this year the
result would be the election next fall Of
Mr.. Hearst as Governor.
George W. Wickersham, Joseph Auer-
senting the Interborough company, OPP
posed the bill on the ground that its en-
actment would delay for seven or eight
years the construction OF future subways.
Mr.. Auerbach cited Chicago as an example
of the municipa ownership craze and de-
were at a standstil and will be for some
time to come. He was sure that the enact
ment Of the Esberg bill would have a SINH
lar effect in New York city.
Mr.. Parsons said there was an erroneous
impression as to the cost of the present
to construct and $25 900 600 to equip and
that to duplicate 1t under the Elsberg bill
would cost SIS 900 900, or $le0 600 900 for a
subway on the East Side and one on the
West Side.
Albert B. Boardman, counsel for the Rapid
Transit Commission, said that while the
commission this year did not oppose the
essential provisions of the Elsberg bill, 1t
did believe that the twenty year limita-
tion of operation under one contract and
the sepa ration Of contracts for construction,
equipment and operation would drive pri-
vate capital away from future subway
John Ford's remarks were as unique
and interesting as usual He said the
Rapid Transit Commission in laying out
subway routes consulted only the wishes
OF the Belmont and Ryan traction syndi-
cate interests, with the result that the
proposed lines catered to but rs per cent.
Of the territory within Greater New York,
without providing through traffic TO- The
Bronx and to outlying districts on Long
Island, with the result that one million
and half New Workers had been driven to
cheap and pleasant homes in New Jersey.
He insisted that under the Elsberg bill
new subways could be constructed as cheap
and as quickly as the Mcdonald subway
had been, and that it would prevent the
combination from gobbling
up future rapid transit roads either by
municipal operation or making
it possible for other competitors to enter
the field. With Mr.. Ford appeared dozen
other advocates Of municipal ownership,
including a number of candidates on the
Municipal Ownership ticket last fall.
pPJSnV GEAPDS HRT'NRYE