New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1907-03-28

York CITY, sid he was heartily in favor OK the
spil,it Of the BILL and would not suggest changes
70 defeat its purposes Indeed, his clients would
v,alcnn,e any legislation giving to commission
wider powers TO remedy the problems in New
York Nevertheless. it would not help the peo-
pJe any TO tie the hands Of the roads, he said
and it would indeed DO disaster IL the transit
comma MES could not issue stock, not
water" OF course. but stock issues where the
roads could show the commission that the tran
sit facilities would be benefited.
And then there was the transfer question
The commission might take up that with adj
vantage. and possibly shift some Of the traffic
to streets not crowded where row the public
persisted "a travelling along Broadway and
Sixth avenue and other crowded thorOughfares
in spite Of The company. Mr.. Cravath's speech
was In part as follows:
We earnestly urge that the laws confer
upon the commission which it is proposed to create
ea or relief 70 in ang form II TO %beb
det5rn1ines to be necessary. me new commission
only TO restrict and curtai the public service cor
porations. I believe that to-day the most serious
New York City lie in The limitations and restrc-
upon the public authorities and the dangers which
under existing laws attend the investment of CAPT
safeguards ahich recent legislation had erected
P BS6 have Simply 81 eSd as barriers against the
investment q private capital required To provide
that IL is OF The utmost Importance that in solving
the tshfic problem for greater New York the new
fhat tie iasr t,ins: YOU should do is to so crcnm
which control the existing facilities and TO
be their inclination they viii be unable to do their
share toward bringing the needed relief.
The lack of a judicial review and the prohl-
bition OF holding companies chiefly worried AL
bert H. Harris, representing the New York
Central lines. He protested vigorously that
these TWO things would eventually ruin the rail-
roads. which had enriched the country. And
this was undeserved. he held. since the railroads
were not overeapitalized. gave good service and
spent money without end for betterments." His
clients did not desire to oppose this legislation.
but sought 10 cooperate in getting such legis-
lation as would be for the best interests Of the
people OF the stale. First of all, the commits
sioners should be strong men, on good salaries,
10 induce them 10 hold TO their places.
This bin goes far beyond the legislation of
the federal government or other states in con-
ferring powers OF regulation. of financing and
operation OF the railroads" he said. 1t adds
really a second board OF directors to every rail-
road which has no responsibility for the financ-
ing or operation but exercises a veto power over
all actions the first board OF directors may take
He held that the sections of the bill estah-
fishing certain conditions of adequate service
and commanding such service were entirely too
drastic. and urged their amendment. There were
times when no railroad could furnish theoretical
adequate service, no matter what its re-
sources he maintained.
AS to judicial review he said: There should
be some scheme to protect us against improper
orders Of the commission without attacking the
public interests. Then. TOO. il should not he In
the Governors power 10 remove the commits
sioners against their will without the consent OF
the Senate. The bill in its present state would
prevent the purchase Of stock Of other COM
panies, which would prove a serious handicap to
the Central in many Of its enterprises" He
added:
II VIII not do TO prevent holding companies
absolutely. You must not confound the good
with the bad. You should give the commission
power TO authorize stock purchases or holding
companies on proof that the suggestions were
good ones. The trouble in the past has been
through the high financial operations in &C.
curing stocks Of other roads or in forming hold
ing companies. You must go slowly and model
your bill after the Interstate Commerce act
Regulate the rates and railroad operation as the
ents are a trip into a doubtful country and such
drastic legislation may not be for the public
interest.
Senator Page disconnected Mr. Harris some
what by asking him why If he favored the In
terstate Commerce act so greatly he had in the
amendments suggested left out two whole sec
tons about liability for damage to property in
transit which were copied bodily from that law
"Oh, well. I was speaking broadly" he said.
I'D not make 1t my Bible"
BETTER FEELING HOPED FOR
Delaney Nicoll. for the New York City
railroads. hoped the bill would bring about bet
ter feeling between the public and the transit
companies and help solve the apparently insolu-
BILE transit problem in New York City. But his
clients felt they were entitled If they consented
to have a commission with power to regulate
to have such a commission as we could ad-
dress with confidence What self-respecting
man. he queried would want to transact bus
mess with a commissioner who could be re-
moved at a within Of the Governor" These COM
missioners were clothed with greater powers
than the executive officers Of the state yet made
removable at the scratch of a pen He, too,
was worried by the lack OF provision for Judi
cal review.
Senator Page suggested that the Legislature
WAS delegating its powers TO the commission,
ana Mr.. Nicol said the city had no money to
build future railroads, and 'if the city is so
badly off, the last thing the Legislature should
do is TO pass q law which would make II a bso-
lutely impossible 20 get private capital to build
roads, What the city cares most about" he
said. is not new men or laws. but new transit
facilities"
Walker D. Hines. for the Baltimore & Ohio
and the Adams Express Company maintained
that the courts should be able to suspend or
ders OF the commission and review the facts in
the case. because the commission was not likely
20 be subject to the checks and balances which
would prevent Ill considered action By the
Legislature. The commission actually would
be the prosecutor Of the railroads for the COM
planning public. The wide powers given 70 the
commission would interfere with interstate
transportation, if the commission did not exer-
else great care, especially as the adoption of this
bill by New York State might be followed by
the adoption OF similar legislation in other
states. Such a condition well might almost
paralyze interstate transportation unless the
commissions were most conservative
Lewis z. Carr objected seriously 10 that Sec