New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1906-03-03
SUBWAY CONTRACTS.

SUBWAY CONTRACTS.
No doubt the gentlemen of the Chamber of
Commerce who have recorded their disapprova
of the Elsberg bill will be roundly denounced
as mniOnS of Belmont and Ryan, just as the
Mayor has been for his courageous stand
against a measure which in his belief would
compel the city TO embark municipal opera
ton of subways At this moment such a course
is not popular. \ great many persons with
the best of intentions have been deceived by the
beating of tomtoms into thinking municipal
operation a cure for the evils of society, and
great many others are afraid 10 resist the ten
dency and are predicting defeat for anybody
who faces the wave of prejudice. But the way
to beat down prejudice is to breast it, not 10
run with it. Greenbackism and free silver were
equally the fashion TO which every time server
was once bowling. and should have been
overwhelmed by them if finally a stand had not
been made for truth. So the men who now
stand for sanity against the new craze deserve
praise, and, moreover, they need not be dis
couraged.
No doubt the Elsberg bill has its sincere
friends who believe it will merely free the city
from the domination of the traction interests
and enable it to make better terms by means of
separate contracts for operation. \ large part
of its support however. comes from those who
hope and believe that any such contract is I'M
practicable and expect thus indirectly 10 force
municipal operation. We entirely agree that
the city should have larger liberty than it now
possesses and should not be forced 10 couple
construction and operation. though denuncla-
tions of the existing contracts are unjust. What
now appears Il privilege universally re-
garded as a burden when it was imposed. Sub
ways were an experiment. The people demand
ed them and the financers would not build
them. Mr.. Orr for months went up and down
the city trying TO persuade Mr.. Whitney. Mr..
Gould and others interested in local traction 10
bid for the franchise. and they would not. 1t
looked as if the city might 20 to the debt limit
building subways. only to find them useless on
its hands. SO the expedient of forcing the
builder TO run them adopted, and was al
most universally considered a great stroke of
business for the city, for nobody knew what
they would cost or how they would pay. They
have outrun expectations and there is no
need Of eXacting contract for operation, but
that fact does not prove that the old method
was not for its time the proper
The commission should be free TO make
the most advantageous arrangements which the
present popularity of subways warrants. 1t
should not be forced to let the PETERBOROUGH
dictate routes and terms. but If that company
Will not meet its views then ii should have
power TO construct independently and contract
not be prevented from letting contract for
building and operation at the same time, if by
so doing it can make the best terms. We want
more freedom for the Rapid Transit Commits
sion and the Board of Estimate to make the
best bargains they can not a mere transfer Of
letters from one hand to the other. No builder,
under the Els5erg bill. could be sure of a chance
TO operate, and so all his energies would be given
TO getting the most out of construction and
taking all the time he could There would be
no possible advantage in separate operation of
new branches of the present line. and the only
object of separate contracts for them is to pre-
vent a 'hoId-up' and enable the city to put eX-
tensions where it wants them. regardless of
lnterbOrOugh attempts at dictatiOn and refusal
to build except its own plans and terms.
As the Mayor convincingly shows, munich
paly operated line can be useful unless it is
extensive, and the city simply has not the Dor
rowing power 10 build such line and practical
men have reason for talking about it in
connection with present legislation. We want
subways and the power to force
private corporations to give them to favor
able terms not a restriction which will prevent
our making Use of such corporations and leave
us stranded without new transit lines forced
to obtain them by plunge into the political
dangers and financial eTtravaganceS of munich
pal operation a large scale.
The Rapid Transit Commission has done a
benefcent work for New-York City and can be
trusted 70 power honestly and ably for the
public welfare. We TO it the vast improve
ments which we have secured, and demagOgc
outcries should not drive out the memory of its
achievements along the lines which were alone
open in the formative period Of the plans now
carried out We believe that the tenure of its
members should be changed so that the COM
mission will be part of the city government. 1t
was organized as it is from necessity at the
demand of the people with the consent of
Democratic Governor, after the repeated failure
Of city commissions to secure this improvement
| free from the interference of the Tammany
administration, at that time owned body and
soul by the Manhattan company. The scheme
was an illogical method of dealing with an in
| tolerable situation. II might now wisely be
changed, with due care 10 preserve continuity
| of policy and to retain in service some of the
able and devoted men to whom we owe the pres
ent subway.