New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1911-07-20
City of New York,
Office Of the Mayor.
July ~, 1911

City of New YORK
Office Of the Mayor
July ~, 1911.
To the People of New York city.
regret exceedingly TO see TINS thihs
being done. II is needless. IL ls
.,,roro and q humiliation TO this city
II was not I'm sight few months aeo'
The city Is being overreached ID! i'"
fnanciers of great ability. They nave
actually induced city officials TO agree
To subsidize the companies 10 'a"'p
and operate. as though the city were
I'm such evil case as to require that W
be done in order to get necessary SUI
WAYS
The city is To put in all OF the lho'eF
for construction of subways Tor '"e
Brooklyn company, according 10 '"o
scheme now ready That company
IN pIt in nothing for subway con-
struction. The proposed agreement -
that the company is to get per cent
or IttIe over. on its elevated rail-
road capital or value, Which is aoou'
sIo OOO 600. before the city is to get
even the interest which 1t Will nave 'o
nav on it's corporate stock issued 10
raise the cost of construction.
The marlborough company Is TO put
in one-half Of the cost of construction
Of the subways which go to IL ana
tho CITY the other half according 10
the agreement being made. The pro-
nosed agreement with the INTERIOR
ough Is that It is to get per cent ON
It's present capital stock OF soo'oo''-
900 and 9 per cent on the adoitloha'
capitaI II Is to put in for construction
and eouIpment before the city Is to get
oven the interest which it Will nave 10
nav on it's corporate stock issued Tor
construction.
A few months ago the Interborough
comnanv was offering 10 put in one
half Of the construction cost and all
of the equipment cost on even terms
witn the city, except that the interest
on it's bonds for new capital shouio
have precedence over the interest on
the citys corporate stock, ana tnat
they would have waived. Ihls mas
been gradually frittered away, and the
present proposed agreement suost-
tuted The case is much worse than
,b;s hare statement shows. Why pay
this o per cent preference to the inter-
borough?
In NV article in the "Outlook" one
vear ago on subways l explained all
of that. and showed how this matter
Of Q per cent would be constant OBJ
s,acle to fair dealings by the city with
the Interborough company for subway
construction and operation. The case
"a exactly this: The shares or the
said capital stock Of S3o,Wo,ooo or the
marlborough company were trans
forred several years ago to a holdlng
comnanv. or trust. which is the usual
obnoxious term.
.osor IN the Interborough- Metro
noIi,an business company. III IS not
a railroad company. The lnterborough
paiIvov Company thus became locked
fast in the grasp Of such holding com
many which straightway financed
this S35.OOO.OO0 Of stock by Issuing
STO 100000 of debentures, or bonus
AGAINST II. These bonds are at az per
cent interest, so that it takes per
nor cent dividend on the said S3o,oo'-
ooo of stock to pay such interest. This
@ nor cent on the stock is necessary 70
ravont a default of interest on the
said bonds, and has heretofore peei
maid regularly. If it should be stopped
Tho holding company. or trust, that ala
this nefarious watering or iflnatins
would become insolvent