New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1911-08-29
Nav Block Subway Contracts.


In this it would seem that the Mayor was
having the way to block the proposed SUD
49,, contracts with the Brooklyn Rapid
Transit Company. whether the new charter
goes through or not.
What he Mayor says on this most 'i'a'
topic is as follows:
AS 10 the granting Of franchises, me
Mayor is not being siven any new or ga
traordinary powers Dy me pIoPssi ., hae
charter For a great many years ne ne
heen prescribed by tho charter OF thls
civ that no franchise or contract lot dhy
street use, overhead, surface or uhue'
ground. for a railroad, or otherwise, ca.
be- granted or made 10 any cor apnnr oval NJ
person without the separate apPrfoyVsI VI
ihe Mayor, after the Board OF AldeInlen
now the Board Of Estimate ana APRoi
tionment, which has been supsututeu', naa
acted thereon. This is laid down IN iioSt
(which language in sections II and ZiZ Oh
the present charter. a., en-, oor.
II Is not a veto power at al On tIIe -,
trall, the separate ana aHllinatiFe ao ~
Of the Mayor is required 10, the granting
OF any such franchise, or the in,1kInS W
any contract for street use. Nnen We
rurn to the rapid transit statute we lpq
such franchises and contracts SAFES ueu
IN the same way The Public Service Com
mission is empowered 10 lay out routes
ana draw mp speclncduonS TOT tie putluut.S
of subways and their operation, but me
G sSSU t ta have any validity And by
f,hapter eyi OF the Laws of 1915 that pro
VISION Is i'm 30 many words made applc"
bic to every grant, franchise or CONTRACT
After such routes. specifications and CON
tracts are established by the PUBIC service
Commission, and approved OF 9y ne MdgUIJ
they then go 70 the Board of Estimate ana
Apportionment for its approval The Mayor
4, not given any veto power over It's &C
tions. FOR the simple reason that the matter
does not come IN the Board OF Estlna.e
rtff
frst approved of u, as I have stated
Some say that in the reading OF the RAPID
transit act, which 70 say the least Is an
involved and Obscure act. In connection
with the charter sections, which are also
none too scientific there is some doubt or
the extent Of the Mayors power in the
ton. II so, II ought 70 he settled instead
Of being lett 10 the courts fer rye years
lawsuit To say that the May or mas such
power in respect Of overhead and surface
railroads, and also in respect OF subways
built under the charter Ike the Pennsyl-
vania and NcAdoo subwavs hut not IN the
case OF subwsys under the rapid transit
act, Is odd. 70 say the least NO such
hiatus was ever intended, nor does II exist
except I'm the mind OF A corporation now
trying to grab our subvays ard It's hired
spokesman and Albany newspaper organ.
Their wish is father 10 the thought
The provisions OF the proposed new char
ter on this head OF franchises and franchise
contracts seem 90 ma 70 be well framed.
as II nov ie and leave nothing open 20
doubt or controversy and give the Mayor
no new, extraordinary or unusual powers
whatever. or course, there are some who
would take I'll these powers away from
the Navor. They We're vested IN the Mayor
for valid reasons. growing out Of expert
ence and have been in him for more than a
generation. I do not think that any one
will say that anv Mayor has ever abused
them.
Argues for "Suspensive Veto"
To show that IT would be a good thing 10
give him what he calls a "suspensive veto"
over resolutions Of the Board Of Estmat.
Mayor Gaynor declares that he has found
that the option that the board accepted 20
buy the site of Dreamland for a public
park NJ $4,000 did not mean that the
company would give clear title 70 the
property for that figure. but subject 10 a
mortgage Of $1,000 In this connection
he says:
The proposed charter gives the Mayor q
suspensive veto over RESOLUTIONS OF the
Board Of Estimate and Apportionment for
the expenditure OF money That nrovision
was proposed by the WINS Commission and
the Hammond Commission and was about
10 become Law I'm the Hammond charter in
the last Legislature without a word Of dis
sent Now II IS loudly denounced BY per
sons who live by denunciaton, II not libel
Put did not and do not ask for IT. IL
was taken from the proposed WINS and
Hammond charters | am satisfied. how
ever. that II IS a wise provision. II is usual
all over this country that mayors and pre-
siding officers should have a suspensive
veto. II often happens that resolutions go
through In a hurry which might well be
suspended hy a veto until they are recon
sidered and passed again
For instance. at the last meeting OF the
Board OF Estimate and Apportionment a
resolution was PASSED 20 purchase land AZ
Coney Island Of the Dreamand corpora
ton on an option submitted by that cor
poTation. 4 committee reported the mat
ter. The price mentioned was 81. 50o0
and every member of the board. | an,
quite sure. supposed that the corporation
undertook In the option "a convey an UNI
encountered and clear title in other words
a warranted title. for that sum. But my
attention has since been called 10 the fact
that the option Of that corporation Is not
that n viii convey clear title but only
that II VIII convey thesc are the very
words it's right, title and interest In and
to- the property
Upon examination 7 find the property 20
be cncumbered by mortgages amounting 10
81, 400 90 n the Mayor had a suspensive
veto power he could suspend that resolu-
ton until the board considered II again.
In regard to the mooted point as to who