New-York tribune., 1908-05-17

vided 1t seems that large amount of this addl-
nished payment for which the amount Of ao9Hs fe
s5e"oeoo has also understah T. Pee" Pee as Know
been questioned .:,, f,,r+ber
Ihere IeinainS' 0I I1i eriIs which the
tractor puts about S6.0e10o 50 that u eot nc
amounts eventually paid II viii result IL t!% 5o 66
G&Gn'raS1 con & the ne sim ab1 fo s.s MI Rice the
chief engineer. acting under the proviSi@nS et me me
contract and under date of Novenhe s' & lSy cd
determination of the halanc oo 1Ge oo an La
it at about sSss 0co instead of the so"""' 'd''''
ON december r. 1901. an agreement vas entered
into between the PUBLIC Service 1Snrl,,,b 1b rand
Transit Company. which modified the PROVISIONS T,j GT
the original contract OF 1900 as I" f b The Coz
The Public Service Commission. acting for the
city of New York. has appealed from me i,+ 1eHet
ninaton of chief Engineer Rice and has & appol, ndn
tractor has also appealed from the determination
q 6ef RTe6 Fns as a aTbitraor The arbitrator
The s'5 concGsons which have gathered from an
examination of the facts ab9vs presence ana ro t,I
osition that the Public Service Commission, not
Withstanding the fact that by the terms Oh Inc me
Sheinee wss made the na aTbter in disputes be
d.beratelv set aside the determination of the chief
engineer which was arrived at after careful e%-
!, Thai. determination was final conclusive and nd
binding upon all parties ara ~ dis
putes with their full knowledge ana consent anu anu
Public Service Commission has furtner uei
9Peeg sst tbe re % in The sum Of 6Gocc There was
no obligation what resting upon that cohlillIs
visions of the original contract. which made the
| present embarrassment Of the city posslpe. hiu
il is the granting of this consent in deliberate sac
rce of the citys interest Of Whlch co3ilpliSn tle
t'omuission has in effect given permission to re
attack upon the city which mas once peeh
In the event that the commissioners OF arbitra
ton shall allow the whole or any substantial paIl
of this $6e0eoQ0 claim it vii become neG+TSsty f
mate and Apportonment to authorize the issue OF
corporate StoGh 10 INA fbepa are f,nds available
Tor the payment Of the same. -. :. -
\ very serious legal question also arises IN my
mind a 20 whether the Public Service Commission
ever had any power al all under the rapid transit
act 10 modify the rapid transit contract as 10
admit of such 2 far reaching and serious change
in its has been accomplished by its acton
At the Offices Of the Public Service Commission
the opinion expressed that Controller Metz
| had not read carefully the rapid transit law or
the provisions OF the contract made with McDon-
aid by the RAPID Transit Commission. Contract
No ! expressly provided for arbitration in case
either of parties the contract should appeal
from the determination of the chief engineer. Mr
Mcdonald the first TO appeal not exactly
wonderful matter. in view of The great scing made
bv Nj Rice I'm the claim for extra work from
something more than S6.G0o14 $33Soo0. The
mission further questioned this latter amount and
objected 10 a charge of $4,000 which had al
lowed by the chief engineer.
When the Controller first objected several
months ago. the commission pointed that the
question of arbitration not in which the
CITY was directly concerned. Having taken over
the functions of the Rapid Transit Board, il
the commissions duty combat protest Of the
contractor and TO employ suitable counsel defend
tbe appeaI. The Corporation Counsel approved the
modification in the provisions for arbitration and,
although both ne and the Controller informed
Of the hearings the arbitration, neither took the
pains 10 appear at the hearings.