The sun., 1908-05-25
VETO OF THE SUBWAY BILL.
GOV. HUGHES SAYS IT MEANS A
4 FIFTY YEAR FRANCHISE.

y FIFTY YEAR FRANCHISE.
AND the Casy .Ghould Net Lose Control
Over Its highways for 30 Long-Be-
Ieves the Ban Would Postpone, Not
I Assure Rspld Transit Devciopment.
Z ALBANY, May 24.-Gov. Hughes made
public tonight Che following statement
giving his reasons for vetoing Assembly
man Beverley r. Robinson's rapid transit
law amendments:
The salient feature OF this bill is the pro-
vision for the sale OF the privilege or franz
chise to construct. maintain and operate
rapid transit railways In the city of New York.
with the reservation to the city Of the right
to purchase and take the privilege or fran
chise and the plant and property Of the gran
tee at the expiration Of fixed period. which
is not to exceed ffty years These railways.
except In the case of certain extensions OF
existing lines, cannot now be constructed
save by the use of public moneys. The pur-
pose Of the hill Ia to authorize construction
also by private capital and thus to provide
, additional transportation facilities which are
= greatly ne eded.
II has been urged that such legislation is
improper by reason Of the referendum OF
1894 approving construction at municipal
expense. On the other hand 1t is said that
this referendum is not technically binding
and should not be considered as morally
binding with regard to tho greater city. as 1t
was taken before the consolidation with
Brooklyn, Queens and Richmond. and that
the inhabitants OF the original city are not en-
titled to complain il the people, through
their representatives. provide for iegisa-
tion adapted to the needs Of the greater city
8s a whole.
convinced. after careful consideration of the
matter, that the plan proposed by this bill
Is illusory and injurious. IL is said that The
bill merely gives an alternative 10 the authori-
ties for construction by private capital and
does not interfere with the right to SECURE
municipality constructed lines. But believe
1t to be practically certain that II this bill
were to become law there would be no con-
struction of consequence at public expense
until every available means to secure con-
structio, by private capital had been ex-
hausted. Mess private capital comid De
induced to undertake eonsi ruct ion. nothing
would be gained by the bill The demand
that the provisions of the bin should be re-
sorted to and give consequent, relief TO the
city would most probably interrupt the
execution OF plans which ara feasible even
under present conditions. and IL the efforts
TO secure construction by private capital
proved futile We should have suffered serious
delays in securing proper settlement OF TINS
great problem,
do not think it likely that private capital
could be induced TO construct upon the pro-
posed terms. But il may be regarded as GER
tain that II private capital could be induced
to construct under the provisions Of this bill
Il would demand the most favorable terms.
We should not cherish any Illusions as 10 the
prospects Of comEstition in obtaining privi-
leges OF this sort, Experience affords us no
sufficient ground for such expectation.
1t is idle TO suppose that II the law permitted
the grant of a privilege for fifty wears private
capital would bid for the privilege on basis
OF twenty-five years or any period less than
fifty years. And no reliance should be placed
upon the expectation that the authorities
would refuse to sell the privilege for full
term. 1t may be supposed that they would
favor a period OF say twenty-five years. But
it would be most unlikely that II they could
obtain no bidders on this basis they would
be able to refuse to offer longer term. The
same arguments which are now pressed to
secure the enactment of The law would then
be urged with double force to secure the
granting of all that the law permitted in
order to obtain The desired results. The fact
that the law had been passed wit h these
provisions In it would clinch the argument.
This bill, however, in its main feature means
that to have additional rapid transit in New
49,. -.
not peheVe III Una. ponos ine Iny on'au 'a.
not lose he cohlrol oser Tvs nisn"ayS ~
rapid transit PURPOSES Iol suen po',ou
any one VINO rehects upon Mhs' 'ne o''y ,,1. we
nity years ago anu upon Nnss nay es,
10 become IN .he eourse Vi 'ne nc" hi''
years mus, reaNHe .hs,
IL Is most imporIsh. ,has We sno',u nv ,.
deveionme't oi Iranst lss is'n,les 'n NC" os
city. Inere IS rotnmk ~ Wn,en , anA e n'oIe
ihtefeeten. put even on .ne 'apivpS' ny ~, .
proposeo luo hot oshese .hs. .n's D,' n',
OF gives Tsasonap'o pou'eo IN
tne contrary peheve 'ha' ~ WIN p"'' 'P'"e
replo trahs" oeVe'oeh'.
we heeo. u ,pe Yrs. plSue, ,,.' nee . ,
cerstaho'ns oit.he hhancIsI oo,u,"u ,,., =. ,ee
city' anu Ihn eaau ,nai sM WI. '"e wy
mas wnnm Ns ueus 'i'u'' e.ou'u o
taineu az plomp'y AZ possoio auu .d.",n. ~ ,nan
her wnich VIII pun .ue pie'ohS N,.' ovnt.o ..
at resi- we shou'u hho" pieeseN ""e,e
tne c'y slahus anu hsee ou. I,ane i'' WV
Iuture IN lhe Isht VI .ths nho"'eu s
IN connection WIN '"'s " n W ue no.e.
tnat the Legislature mas passeu a oonc" ns ,en'
resoiutloh lpr ah an'enhen - ~ ,no III a.
sthution proyn,nt ,hae 'naeDss
CURED Ior Iapau .Ishs'I sp,o'1meus sdo
nor. unuel speeihea c"nuI.'hs; w 49, oonsae a,.
IN estlmatin8 the oeDt liHfit. II ehis ID again