New-York tribune., 1909-03-29
AMENDMENT IN PERIL
IT'S SLAUGHTER PLANNED.
Combination SAID To BE against
De6t Limit Ertension Scheme.

,1Aery March 2s 2s-Accordine 10 reports ahoat
here tonight the Travis-Lee constit tutonal amend
ment exempting from the New York City deot
limit income producing subway and dock bonds
and from the debt limit or second class cities in
come producing water bonds. is scheduled for
slaughter along with all the other Hughes legls-
lation.' Accompanying those reports are stories OF
a comSin1 tion between upstate and metropolitan
corporations which in former years have made a
business Of having influence in both political par
ties. against this amendment. the public service
commissions legislation and. incidentally. the New
York city charter and the Governors direct noni-
nations measure
OF course. It is Impossible to prove ans OF these
stories-as Impossible It 10 obtain iesai
proof that there vas Doodle fund last year 10 de-
feat the anti-ganbns legislation. There is no in
dcation moreover. that anything so crude as the
conditions that were in force then will appear this
year. The real danger TO the important legisation
and all the important legislation proposed this
year with the exception Of the consolidation OF
statutes-fes in an apparent renewal In full flavor
or the ancient understanding and community OF
interest between politicians ana big corporation
interests which the public service legislation. the
corrupt practices and the antilobbying act seemed
for time 10 disturbed.
In the last week or two the corridors Of the Capt.
to have been thronged by corporation lawyers
most Of them. to be properly registered. and
therefore entitled legtimately 10 appear before
legisla tive committees consult members about
the progress OF pending legislation Some Of them
are the old-tirners. few Of younger genera
ton. but not lacking acquaintance with polit-
clans or some political experience Irrespective OF
the particular mission on which each appeared
here they all seemed deeply interested in the fate
Of the proposed charter and the Governors direct
nominations measure. II may may not have
been significant that about the time these lawyers
first began to appear here In numbers stories be-
gan To creep into the legislative gossip that the
politicians didn't like the charter IN any way. that
there was much danger to city administrations in
passing a comparatively undigested scheme like
the constitutional amendment and that up state
the notion Of putting telephone and telegraph com
panies under the control Of the public service COM
missions looked going entirely too far in
corporation regulation Some Of these stories even
went so far to hiat that the sympathies of the
machine" had been enlisted
Putting all this gossip aside. whether true or not,
there remains the fact that corporation antagonism
70 the constitutional amendment IS intense from
the traction interests present in control of the
New York city subway situation. II the opinion
or men in close touch with that situation has any
weight. Also there IS the fact that upstate men
say the independent telephone companies in vart-
Gus parts OF protesting bitterly against
the enactmen. Of the proposed public service laws
amendments and the telegraph compsnie do not
view such a prospect with any great complaeency.
The constitutional amendment offers 10 New York
CITY the quickest and. Is friends say the safest
and surest method OF providing money for new
subway construction. There would be waiting
for increases in property valuations or collection OF
lIncollecta Die taxes. delays for amendment Of
laws 70 give more favorable terms to private cap
itaI which might not choose take even the terms
made thus favorable NOT even the spur OF COM
petition from outside capital would be
though Its aid might prove potent. as II IS proving
in the existing situation. The municipality would
have avae bic the money necessary for public con
struction and equipment money which could not
be spent for anything but subway building. Any
such conditions naturally would prove discomfort
ing To interests desiring a monopoly Of transit
facilities IN any city.