New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1913-02-08

| had no doubt that when Chairman McNdii
! had considered the contracts ON their
merits and given them his vote the long
| tension would he relieved and the work or
carving out the DIAL ian would be
| speedily begun.
The Borough President added that ne
had every reason To believe the frlendiy
/ relations between the Public Service Com.
mission and the Board Of Estimate would
continue TO be as mutually helpful in the
future as they had been for the last two
years.
Shearn invokes Common Law.
At the opening Of Mr.. Shoarn's argu-
mont before the Appellate Division me
justices wanted to know whether his NJ
legations OF gratuities 10 private corpora
tons had not been settled in the former
case. where the Court OF Appeals decided
that the city could go into partnership
with the companies without violating the
constitution.
so FAR as a violation OF the constitu-
ton is concerned. yes" replied MI
Shearn But II we show that there u
Gift Of public moneys. We expect TINS III
junction 10 be continued under the com
mon law
Then YOUR contention is said Justice
Laughlin. that the common law j. HWY
restrictive than the constitution.
when Nh. Shearn began to complain VI
the banking arrangements Presidihs JUS
tice Ingraham asked whether counsel had
afiidavits from any bankers that they
would lend tho money at any better rates.
He had not. Mr.. Shearn went on TO say
that he would have the city furnish all
the money. getting it by public subscrip-
ton.
Justice Scott wanted TO know whether
the city would have to pay interest on
the amount OF bonds issued or the actual
amount OF money put into the work. MI.
Shearn tried 10 explain that In case OF a
default. the city would have to retire all
the bonds.
Docs that explanation satisfy you?'
asked Mr.. Shearn.
Perhaps So" said Justice Scott. TN
look at the contracts 10 satisfy myself.
Finally Justice Ingraham shut Mr..
/ Shearn off. saying he had taken more
| than an hour and that was about all ever
allowed To any one man
Old and New Contracts Compared.
/ George :. Coleman, tor the city, said
the difference between the proposed con-
tracts and the present subway contract
was that in the latter the city got only
| interest and sinking fund. In the pro-
| posed contracts the city will share In any
| profit over and above the fixed charges.
Did you ever have any estimate made
10 show how the city would have come
out il the present subway was under a
contract like this asked Justice Scott.
Yes. We did. replied Mr.. Coleman. 1
don't remember the hgures-they were
enormous.
Judge o Brien talked of the effect upon
other taxpayers OF the injunction OF Mr..
Hopper. and said 1t meant that transit
facilities urgently needed would be held
up so much the longer lie said Mr.
Shearn had not said a word about what
favor the companies were giving to tho
city.
In reply Mr.. Shearn tried 10 return TO
the point that the city WAS giving the
companies more than they ought TO nave
He was told that the court could take no
cognizance of that unless some illegal &C
ton or gross waste OF public moneys was
shown. - l., -. -
Mr.. Shearn took up the changes IN the
contracts and said another pubhc near
ing should be held. "
Eve can't enjon officials from DOING
their duty Just because YOU want Il public
hearing" declared Justice lnGrahanl
..'This is a pure question Of law.