The New York herald., 1921-02-28
CURRAN SUGGESTS
CHANGES IN BILL TO
CLARITY TRANSIT
Manhattan's President Puts
Five Points Up to Sponsor,
Senator Knight.
OPPOSES FARE CLAUSE
Wants Restriction Against
Rise and on Agreements
Defined Clearly.
COULD THEN SUPPORT 1T
Governors Plan Generally
Commended-Hylan Ad-
ministration Censured.

-
transit bill for the solution OF New
Yorks travel problem provided certain
amendments he suggests are made. Mr..
Currans amendments are five In number
and he outlined them in letter to Sem
ator John knight, one Of the sponsors Of
the Miller bill. and asked that the
amendments be adopted.
Mr.. Curran was careful to make him
self clear in the very beginning Of his
letter to the following effect:
'In stating my objections to the pres
ent form OF your bill, speak for myself,
as citizen and as city official, and
not for or with Mayor Hylan. This city
has Witnessed for three years a useless
contest in stubbornness and abuse be-
tween theHylan administration and the
traction companies. Neither party to
this unseemly dispute has sought to re-
lieve the sufferings Of those who have
to use our local transportation" On the
contrary. he says. this selfish war of
words has made strap hangers of us ALL"
AS for entrance Of Senator Hiram w.
Johnson as special counsel for the Hylan
administration, Mr. Curran said:
I'VE do not need the trapeze perform
ances of transcontinental counsel TO
voice our opposition to such q course
(abrogation OF homo rule). The ad-
vent OF the Senator from California is
just an addsd indignity."
Mr.. Curran said he Is not opposed to
Gov. Miller's bill. except in the details
which he asks to have changed. I'VE
need the commission that the bill Gre
ates," he said. I'VE need the investi-
CATION TINT the commission will con-
duct. and we need the remedy that is
right. whatever 1t may be. Your bill
provides for all that. and In that en-
deavor I AM with you. / am convinced.
however, that you are going about 1t in
the wrong way"
Takes Power Away From City.
Mr.. Curran suggested the following
changes:
my hist objection to the bill rests
on its plain intention to take from the
people CT our city every bit of power
ever lo:al transit ttat can be legally
taken away from US. The bill should
be amended to leavc with the city. as
represented by its local government al
power that we now possess.
1.-THE Incompetence of the present city
administration" Mr.. Curran commented
does not constitute a sufficient emer.
gency, in my opinion. to warrant the
State in brushing aside with one gesture
the accumulated rights that have come
to us in the course OF the last fifty
years. The ignorance and buffoonery
that SIT in the City Hall to-day are not
necessarily one OF our permanent mu-
nfcipal monuments. Nor Is there any
guarantee that our State government
will remain at Its present high standard
The time may come when we shall have
Board Of Estimate of high calibre
The time may also come when the State
administration will be changed for the
worse"
my second objection" he resumed
"is that the bill sets forth a definite
plan under which the commission Is u
work. and therefore ties the hands Of the
commission to this plan In advance OF
any investigation Whatsoever. Whc
knows whether this plan Is right or not
until we get the facts?"
Mr.. Curran then contends that II Is i'm
possible to say before such an investi-
CATION whether, for instance. II Is wise
or desirable to follow the recommenda-
tions of the bill for rehabilitation and
continuation OF all existing lines or
whether It would be wise to combine the
Brooklyn Rapid Transit Company and
the Interborough or whether the city's
subway investment should be so rear
ranged at this time as to take II out OF
the limitation on the city's borrowing ca
pacity. He declares that the unfair and
burdensome preferential" Is a legacy
from such a commission as is proposed.
MY third objection" the letter con-
tinues. ''is to the power OF the commits
sion to increase fares temporarily. The
proposed amendment to take out this
power--as I read It In the papers--does
not take It out
Wants Language OF Bill Clariaed
Fourth. Il object to the following
clause in To, section that gives the COM
mission power to increase car fares wttn
sdue regard. among other things. to
agreed provisions for service or COM
pensation.' What do these words mean p
Mr.. Currah declares that the private
traction interests are "swarming" with
underlying leases or agreements. such an
the lease OF the Manhattan elevated lines
to the 1nterborough. to which the fore
going provision might possibly apply.
He characterizes the words as the ''mys-
terry" provision which defeated the jerks
bill. and declares the phrase ought TO be
clarified. Senator Johnson expressed
the opinion yesterday that those words
referred 10 the preferential arrangement
In the dual contracts.
MY flfta objection, as I r~ad your
BILL" said a,r. Curran's letter. ''is that
u takes away from the city government.
for all time. the franchise granting
power as 10 street railroads. and places
X In the hands OF the transit commits
sion. / am sure you will agree that the
future bargaining away Of rights In our
city streets should be attended 20 by
us, and not by state commission. II
In true that tho Constitution requires
local consent 10 n new route, but when
that consent has been given on such
terms as the city deems wise the COM
mission can thereafter modify these
terms In any way that Il desires, by
agreement with the company. but with
out any regard whatsoever to the wishes
Of The city"
In conclusion Mr.. Curran says:
Instead Of ducting away from the
necessity OF local approval OF the plan
(meaning the entire scope Of the bili). ]
urge that you meet II fairly and coura ge-
ously by putting Il UP 10 the commission
TO give us a plan that can be fought FOL
and adopted on It's merits. II you dc
otherwise, am afraid you will leave u.
IN litter OF law suits with only on.
definite thing done. 70 wit: the replace
uent Of the ; cent fa by higher far,
under this bill"