New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1910-05-05
NEW nth AVENUE BILL.
Would Give Borough President
Power to Remove Tracks.
CITIZENS UNION MEASURE
Intended by Contrast to Show
Up Alleged Bad Features
of Hoey Bill.
NV TeIaeranb To The Tribune


Albany. May 4.-StilI another bill designed
to compel the New York Central Railroad
Company to remove its surface tracks from
Eleventh avenue will be introduced by Sen
ator Brough. of New York. This measure
drafted by the legislative committee Of the
Citizens Union is intended by contrast to
show ZIP what that organization considers
weak and vicious features in the Hoey BILL
recently reported by the Assembly Rail
roads Committee. That measure is virtu-
ally the same as the Grady bill. vetoed last
year by Mayor Mcclellan.
While the form of the Hoey bill has been
followed in drafting this new measure, so
that the bill could be amended easily to
conform to the later legislation, their spirit
is entirely different. The Brough bill de-
clares the surface tracks to be a nuisance.
If the railroad company and the Board Of
Estimate and the Public Service Commits
sion do not come to an agreement on re-
moval plans within stated time, and the
tracks still remain on the surface. the
Borough President OF Manhattan Is d.
rected TO remove them
This is the club which the Brough bill
seeks to place in the hands Of the city
authorizes TO compel satisfactory agree
ment. The constitutionalty of such pro-
copy of which was placed in the hands of
every member of the Legislature to-day. 1t
is specifically provided that the company
may continue TO operate the tracks in a
subway under any existing franchise which
i, may own.
The Hoey bill permits the gift Of addi-
tional franchises rights of way and lands
under water in perpetuity to the railroads.
and for this purpose the mea sure provides
that the restrictive provisions of the city
charter and of other statutes shall
not apply The provisions repeating direct
~ or by implication existing safeguards in
the charter and other acts of the Legis-
lature regarding grants of franchises or of
city property are eliminated from the
Brough bill.
The Brough measure differs from the
Hoey bill in many respects in which, it is
believed by the advocates of the former,
the provisions of the latter are dangerously
vague. The Hoey bill provides that on ap-
proval by the Public Service Commission
and the Board of Estimate and Apportion-
ment of plans and pro1es submitted by
the company. the city officers must grant
the railroad company sufficient facilities
for carrying the plans into effect. although
at this period in the negotiations no agree
ment whatever binding on the railroad
company and fixing such matters as com
may have been made. The
Brough measure provides that the city
shall not be bound until an agreement is
made binding the railroad company.
The Hoey bill provides that the compen-
satton paid by the New York Central for
lands taken to enlarge its right of way
may be by work or labor done or per- |
formed or materials furnished by said rail- F!
road for the benefit of the city of New
York in carrying out and into effect any
plans or profiles agreed upon and approved
as herein provided" OF this clause the |
brief in support of the Brough measure |
says: NO more ingenious provisions for |
completely Disgusting the real considera- |
ton paid by the railroad to the city for
lands so taken could be devised"
The Hoey measure provides that If an |
the tracks from grade the company shall |
abandon only such rights as are specified |
in the agreement. The Brough bill provides |
that instead of specifying the rights which |
the company abandons the agreement |
shall specify all the rights which the com |
pany Is still TO retain, thus making 1t I'M !
to go further back than to this |
agreement in order 10 ascertain what are |
the franchise rights of the New York Cen |
trail on the West Side of Manhattan.