New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1915-02-19
Continued from page I

Continued from page
did not favor that policy, but conceded
there might be something in the argu-
ments. Asked as to why he did not
insist upon enforcement of the order,
he replied:
al was against the dual system con
tracts, and il insisted upon anything
that might tend TO anger the INTERIOR
ough. it might have looked like an
other and improper way OF killing the
contracts
Counsel tried to get the witness to
explain why no legal action was taken
to force the marlborough and other
companies TO come to terms.
Did you ever say TO the commits
sioners: These companies are violat-
ing the law. Let's put their officials IN
JAIL" asked he.
81 never used that language. but
said the order should be enforced:
Now, what was the matter e%-
claimed Colonel Hayward, evidently a
bit out of patience at the calm atu-
tude Of the witness.
II believe VIC had the power ana we
discussed it,"
why didn't you put 1T right up TO
them by moving for penalty actions?
"The only thing was | thought 1t bet
ter TO argue. knew could do moth
ING without the votes. Perhaps ]
should have done It formally. am
willing TO take the responsibility
The Commissioner said that in his
experience he had probably moved Tor
penalty or mandamus actions on M
teen different occasions, and he was not
overruled in every case, either. AS LOT
the time when the subway negotiations
were under way, he thought the other
commissioners were conscientious IN
Going Ii, bt on the Interborough, as 1t
seemed to be of transcendent lmpor-
lance to the city to get that company
into the dual system.
p. S. c. Lawyers Shielded.
81 differed from them. Maybe they
were right and maybe ! was right he
added
vour disposal to enforce your orders,
didn't you?' asked the counsel
Yes" -,
"Why didn't you dispose of it, them
broke in the irrepressible Senator from
Niagara.
On another occasion Mr. Maltbie was
asked the direct question as to why
counsel was not discharged. lie eVaded
by saying he was not lawyer.
WHY did the commission permit the
Bradley Contracting Company to rush
work on one section of the Lexington
Avenue subway, at cost to the city OF
81 900 a day, for forty days, after the
Public Service Commission engineer
had Informed them of it and called
their attention to the fact that the sec
ton might be abandoned? This ques-
ton was put up to Mr.. Maltble.
He explained, as Commissioner VIII
Jams did that it was a matter of judg-
ment There was no telling then
whether the Interborough was coming
into the dual system or not. 1t they
had not, the section would have been
needed. Because they did and the Lex
ington Avenue line was diverted to the
present subway at Park Avenue and
Forty-frst Street the section in Lex
ington Avenue below Forty-second
Street had to be abandoned, and was
later filled in.
Wrangle Over Subway Work.
Mr.. Hayward tried to make point
o1t of the fact that work on this sub
way section was continued on the the
DRY that the marlborough was not com
ing into the dual system and that COM
pany was permitted to violate orders
on the plea that it was about TO come
in. Commissioner Maltbic refused to
cohcede the point.
Referring to the statement of Com
missioner Williams that enemies of the
dual system had referred to the con-
tracts as steal, Mr.. Hayward asked:
did you consider them a steal?"
Il thought they were such that
could not vote for them. There was
room for difference of opinion"
The witness then read some figures
TO show that the section of the sys-
TEN opened so far had fallen behind
in its earnings. The statement, which
covered the period from August 4. 1913,
to December 81, 1914, referred to the
operation Of the Centre Street loop.
1t was: Total revenue, S12.247,712;
operating expenses, rental, etc, $l2,-
5l2,3l5; deficit, S264,603. This was the
amount by which the line failed TO
earn its preferential and sinking fund
charges. If you added TO this. the
Commissioner said, interest of S519,602
on the city's investment of some &c.
100000 for the line, ii would mean il
had failed TO meet expenses by 1884,,
205.
1t was acknowledged by Mr.. Maltbie
that the earnings of this line would
be much increased when the dual sys-
TEN was completed, and that now it
was only in partial operation.
Asked about changes in the law, the
Commissioner said he was opposed 10
taking the construction work out of
the hands of the commission at
this time. He thought it might
be we'll TO extend the jurisdic-
ton of the commission over Long
Island. and possibly Westchester, and
TO extend its regulation TO telephones.
He thought il was logical that the
state should pay part Of the expenses
for regulatory work in this city so
long as il paid the expenses OF the up
state commission, and the city had TO
nav its share of the state taxes. The
witness thought there was enough
yyork for five commissioners 10 do.
apo YOU agree with Commissioner
Cram that a salary Of $4,000 for the
commissioners is too SMALL asked Mr..
Hayward. .,
"That is more or less Of an academic
question" was the smiling reply. Il
don't think there is any chance OF 'ha'
amount being increased -.
The Commissioner thought II might
he a good thing TO amend the law so as
20 hermit the commission 10 order re-
payments to consumers b. lighting