New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1911-06-28
Certain Changes Demanded.

/ Animated still by the same spirit which
| has marked our preliminary negotiations
and relying upon the city's sense OF laIr
/ ness and appreciation Of broad public vel
/ fare We ara willing 70 waive many Of our
| objections 70 the terms proposed. but We
/ feel compelled in justice TO our security
I holders 10 point out certain changes which
/ are essential 70 our acceptance. These are
I few in mum Der. involve no question of
/ principle and are based upon equity and
/ justice.
/ The most important modification de-
manded by the Brooklyn Rapid Transit
! Is in regard 10 the formula for determin-
/ ing receipts and expenditures. The pre-
scribed formula" saws President Will
Jams. rs particularly applicable 10 the
method of accounting embodied in the
nroposal If the PETERBOROUGH Rapid
/ Transit Company. II does not clearly
or precisely reflect the method embodied
/ in the Brooklyn Rapid Transit proposal
which calls for pooling Of all receipts
! President Williams sets forth a pro-
rosed substitute in an appendix accom-
nanving his letter. and says his company
thinks 1T presents more clearly the in
tentions Of the citys representatives as
70 enumeration of lines. classification Of
contracts. accounting upon extensions,
etc. In general this substitute does not
differ from the recommendations of the
committee In three substantial re-
srects. however. il does differ and TO
these We call attention
The first point is in regard to the res
er,ation Of net earnings on the existing
elevated lines. on it President VIII
Jams says.
The committee has in its report. conced-
/ ed that the principle or TINS reserNat'i!
is perfectly proper ana talI 70 M
/ II thinks however. That the duO"anCe
/ should be based upon the opeIdtoh TOT lIf
/ wear ending June az. 1911. ne Hupstll,1S
/ insisted upon by Us Is that nhdHy coHcepeu
/ ~ ms after much discussion IN our confer :.
I aycee win mo committee. and was framen
| not upon our initiative. but 70 emoodN 4
/ counter proposition suggested oy me CITY
/ representatiVeS II preSCrlpes a Wtthou
/ ,.borebv inc net earnings shall be deter
/ roined eliminating all increase IN revenue
/ from operation beyond the present t'I iil'l'l
} Of the bridges prior 10 me uesiiin nm ~ ~
/ nooling or thereafter. a. Vel as an ~
/ FROM new extensions. II apples the per
/ passenger cost basis 10 the COMPUTATION .l'.lI
OF operating expense ~ IFS a I,,, 80
/ reservation Of s.. $4,000 ana minimum -.
/ ,ba net earnings for the fiscal year now
/ closing approximately So"".
/ President Williams follo"s WIN az
argument for the pooling system ana
declares that as the present net earnings
are not large on the existing lines ne
believes the company should be aHo"eu
10 retain an amount equal 10 them.
Chances for City 70 Profit
He points out what the chances are
! ,or the city 10 profi- by an increase or
n the earnings. adding
/, The only difference on the sublect nr
tween the city's committee ana me '"In-
rsn,'s is as stated before. Whether thls
reservation should be based on the curfeht
years net earnings or upon thos- 81 tl ss
,-esr before pooling The SUBSTITUTE WhIch
We propose and which We heretofore Von
coded AZ the city's solicitation. Is con-
r,ronoise between the two extremes. II III,
volves a comparatively small amount .,
additional reservation. but We reel thdt y
! is lust We should nave II. ana we ahaI
need IL 10 enable us 10 enter mo tne PIo
nosed contract Certainly when ~ j. con
sidered that IN the terms proposed hy W.
committee 20 be applicable ~ me Mamma
4 ian RAILWAY Company the city Is 10 par
I ticipate only In increase of pTohtS 0'e