The New York herald., 1922-01-14

HERALD yesterday. the dual contracts
into which the city entered with the
B. r. T. In 1913 provided for elevated
construction in that part of the line.
Lindley M. Garrison. receiver for the
B. r. T., refused to abrogate that clause
OF the contract on the ground that the
substitution of subway for elevated
construction not only would entail an
ad ditional expense of about $4,000. 900
upon his company. but would further
delay for years completion of line al
ready sorely needed.
William Fullem. associate counsel to
the Transit Commission, read letter in
which Mr.. Garrison had made his at
titude clear to that effect last July, re-
fusing to consider substitution and
standing upon his contractual rights.
II would suggest" said Murray HUI
bert. President OF the Board of Alder
men. that the commission find out IL
Receiver Garrison has changed his mind
in view OF the result Of the election
held last November"
Mayor Hylah at one stage OF the hear
ing asked Mr.. Metz: Don't you think
the elevated roads should be done away
with?'
yes" replied Mr.. Metz, ''but If you
are going to fight with the Governor ALI
The Mayor replied, referring to the
Port Authority plans. which also had
been under discussion: I'VE don't pro-
pose to use the credit Of New York city
to develop the meadows of New Jersey.
We're going to use 1t to develop the
outlying districts of The Bronx. Queens
and Richmond"
Transit Payrolls In Court.
Another side of the transit situation
was heard before the Appellate Division
of the Supreme Court where the Transit
Commission, through Godfrey Goldmark,
moved for an order compelling the
Board of Estimate to honor it's requisi-
tiors for funds wherewith TO meet it's
payrolls for the latter helf of last De-
cember and to defray other necessary
expenses incurred last year. The amount
is about $4,000.
Mr.. Goldmark said that lack OF SAL
aries was imposing hardships upon
many Of the 800 employees OF the COM
mission. Assistant Corporation Counsel
Mayer fled brief for the city reiterat-
ing points raised last year when the
same issue substantially was determined
In favor Of the Transit Commission. 1t
was accompanied by long affidavit by
!,
his charges of extravagance in the en-
ployment OF experts and in increasing
certain salaries.
The court took the matter under ad-
visement after the Assistant Corporation
Counsel had suggested that decision be
withheld until after next Tuesday. when,
It is hoped, the Court of Appeals may
hand down Its d ecislon in pending litiga-
ton involving the major question of the
constitutionality OF the act creating
the Transit Commission.
Referring to stipulations entered into
by opposing counsel when >argumenr
upon that issue was postponed last
autumn at the city's request, John Proc
tor Clarke. presiding Justice. remarked
that he had supposed arrangements nau
been made that the city would honor
the commissions acquisitions pending
final decision by the Court OF Appeals.
"They do not seem to allow you the
money oven after we issue an order"
said the Justice.
One employee OF the Transit Com
mission whose pay has been held UP
since December 15 was threatened with
eviction. together with his family, be-
cause he lacked SEQ with which to pay
his rent. Private relief by official as
sociates yesterday tided him over his
difficulties.