New-York tribune., 1910-01-10
NETZ'S FIRM STAND
ON GRADE CROSSINGS.
ro~, ,orot;on Counsel Must Jus
tifu Position in Court.

ra.yinC office on tnt ilics VI ~iAS
ronf-oller Metz threw down the Esuhl
- the Long Island & BrooAiyh fheis9
,es,,r,ad companies ana TO the Sorl'ola'lon
l~o,Tnsel's Office in the Brooklyn sraoe c'o''-
;ue matter.
~ railway companies and the citys
81 % danartn1ent he declared that he would
"a mart of the latest claims, asgregatins
70, noo presented 10 him for payment by
- grooklyn Grade Crossing Commission
,,stter what opinion the Corporation
.r.,,-sel might give as 10 their legality.
The stand taken by the Corporation Couh-
-, =, .be ,hree-vear dispute over the mat
- .ba. the railway companies were 1usti-
50 !, co1npelling the city to pay one-hali
,,o COS, of a gigantic scheme of grade pet
,,-r,en,s under provisions of law framed
.,,,, Cor the removal OF grade crossings
virtually meant. according 10 the Cohtroi-
- tbe s,,nplauting OF that law with new
one ,,.4. a-
.no terms of the original act was S2'5oo'ooo
.o- .b, removal of existing crossings at
80 a,d he was advised that at the rate
lrsin,s we're being made the citys iesai
,,liea-,on would be greatly exceeded before
nc work was completed. IL the law had
,...n rroperly Interpreted by the Corpora
80. counsel-s Office the city's share, he
dsc,ared would be al least sf5o,oeo less
man the limit set by the act
Tho ,lncompromising attitude OF the Con-
troller resulted in mandamus proceedings
heing taken by the railway companies 10
cor,pel Iaynlent of the sz2o,Ooo GAINED to
be iuc By the city. The application Tor
-sa,,,,,e order Will be argued on Janu-
1.ly,r7 in
--sne Court. Brooklyn. The stand taken
-, the city's legal department upon this
l,nest,on will probably result in repre-
sentative of the Corporation Counsel's office
a,nearing in court on :he same side as the
Iecal representatives of the railway COM
asnies and against the Controllers office,
r,rless the change in administration has
worked change in the attitude OF the Cor
poration Counsel's office.
METZs FINAL REPORT.
In his final stand upon this question for
mer Controller Metz submitted a final re-
port made 10 him by his engineers on De-
cenlber last. in which the attitude of the
Controllers office was outlined This re-
port summarizes the situation as follows:
Under the grade crossing act the city is
liable for one-half the cost, up 10 not eN-
ceedng s25lJ,Uoy. Of the amount required 10
make the changes necessary to the existing
right OF way and tracks OF the railroads
as then operated, to abolish present cross
lngs at grade where existing. and. by an
amendment. half the additional cost OF
crossing unopened streets. The act fur-
ther enjoins against the charging 10 the
citys account for this work any costs OF
betterments, whether provided for in the
act or not.
vice and approval of the Corporation Coun-
sci, Z gigantic grade betterment scheme
mas been evolved, whereby this one track
in parO and TWO track railroad, with for
merry prohibitive grades, shall emerge
low grade trunk line, operating from two
20 four tracks the grading and bridges
for which are TO be half paid for by the
city. TO an extent limited only by the old
property width and the railroad companies
desires, without regard TO the original eN-
isting trackage.
Not only this, but at the west end Of the
work on the Bay Ridge branch, where city
streets are now carried by sufficient bridges
over the formerly inadequate railroad as 10
trackage and grades. where no grade cross
iuss exist TO be abolished, these bridges
are 10 be disrlantled, and the city is 10
share tie cost of new ones at lower level
and Of greater span, 10 accommodate the
heavy cutting here contemplated for grade
reduction and additional trackage.
These facts. and otrers pertinent TO other
violations. have been repeatedly and ener-
zetically called by you 10 the attention or
the Corporation Counsel. as remotely as
June i. 1sri, and recently as August q,
1919. through three legal ADMINISTRATORS: str
vouchers certified tv the Grade crossing
Commission 10 you for payment have been
held with your approval penang an ek-
T.ected revision OF opinion. until now some
eighteen have accumulated, aggregatlng
city charge Of $4,000
in nv opinion, a proper recognition OF
the betteT1nent exclusion feature of the
original law as accepted BY the parties
involved and PASSED, viii see the existing
grade crossings of the then operated rail-
roads abolished at an aggregate expense
against the joint account that viii permit
the city's retention OF at least $4,000 in
its treasury below its legal obligation or
e 5l1 gpl which latter is separate and apart
from that allowable for crossing unopened
streets
The railroad companies argue that all
moneys viii be used up, and that they
must pay large excesses out of their own
pockets. True, at the present rate. with
me improvements under way, but the COM
panies are paying large sums out of their
own pockets elsewhere to attain crossing
and grade elimination. In Chicago a vast
crossing and grade elimination work is in
progress. almost entirely at the expense
OF the railroads. with no grade betterments
appurtenant. The only way the full city
allowance can be utilized is by interpreting
the law 10 permit betterment inclusion.
reiterat:on of the previous opinions, in
fhe lapse Of three years protest on your
rart. would virtually amount to the sup
PLANTING OF the present law with a new
me, excisng from the former those feat
against unreasonable exaction.
Under the conditions, while there may
he much equity in the certificates now held,
his is OF tndeterTninate extent. The fact
that this work is still progressing along
the old lines in the face of your repeated
objections, that certificates are being for
"arded for payment, appears to tend to
weaken the city'S case. / would not rec
"mmend the payment of any part of the
certificates held, for the same reasons.
The law stands. as yet not legally amend
Cd No city official has the power to sup
piant ii with a new one, and this. virtually,
is what has been done.
MATTER LEFT TO COURTS.
On December g last Acting Corporation
Counsel Sterling. in official conmunica-
;!on TO the Controller, declared that no
further opinion would be given by that
department. but that the matter would be
left to be determined by the courts This
communication, in part, reads:
After consultation between yourself Mr.
Hoskin, representing the railroad COM
panies, and Mr. Sterling. of this depart
'nent. il seems best that no formal opinion
should De forwarded TO you at the present
time. II vas practically decided by YOU
hat you would not pay any part of the
it, f&5l8-E