'^■i ■'ij'LtiKii'^jfc'a: 
 
CORNELL 
 
 UNIVERSITY 
 
 LIBRARY 
 
TF 725.N5A2" """"'^'l' "-ibrary 
 Sffiia,te„g?aSl„HR!d .ransi, rai 
 
 3 1924 022 794 220 
 
 I 
 
 All books are subject to recall after two weeks 
 Olln/Kroch Library 
 
 DATE DUE 
 
 i^- 
 
 ■^QSd^ 
 
 PRtNTED IN X1.SJl 
 
Cornell University 
 Library 
 
 The original of tiiis book is in 
 tine Cornell University Library. 
 
 There are no known copyright restrictions in 
 the United States on the use of the text. 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924022794220 
 
REPORT 
 
 OF THE 
 
 Board of Rapid Transit Railroad 
 Commissioners 
 
 FOR AND IN THE 
 
 CITY OF NEW YORK 
 
 UP TO 
 
 December 31st, 1901 
 
 Accompanied by Reports 
 
 OF THE 
 
 Chief Engineer 
 
 AND OF THE 
 
 Auditor 
 
 NEW YORK 
 1902 
 
TF 
 N5'AAf 
 
 fi^ ^ \(o04-05" 
 
 IRVING 
 PRESS 
 
 Ji 
 
 
 NEW YORK 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 1. Report of the Board of Rapid Transit Railroad Commissioners 11 
 
 2. Appendices — 
 
 I. Commissioners and Staff 97 
 
 II. Proceedings — Presentation of Gold Medal to the Honorable 
 
 Abram S. Hewitt 101 
 
 III. Opinions of the Appellate Division upon the Applications to 
 the Supreme Court and of the Court of Appeals upon 
 the Constitutionality of the Rapid Transit Act 113 
 
 3. Report of the Chief Engineer 18") 
 
 4. Report of the Auditor 263 
 
 5. Index 289 
 
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS. 
 
 Ceremony of Beginning Construction in front of City Hall Frontispiece. 
 
 OPPOSITE 
 PAGE 
 
 Four-Track Steel Work in place between R^ade and Duane Streets 187 
 
 Waterproofing Floor and Wall of Subway — Elm Street 189 
 
 Finishing Concrete Side Arches of Subway 191 
 
 Large Sewer Divided into Three Parts to gain headroom to cross under 
 
 Subway 193 
 
 Invert of Wooden Barrel Sewer under Pier 34 195 
 
 Bronze Tablet commemorating Beginning of Construction 199 
 
 Oliver Street Sewer being driven by Tunneling at Chatham Square 331 
 
 Waterproofing Roof of Subway — Elm Street 326 
 
 Derrick with Stiff Leg spanning Surface Railway Track — Section 3 228 
 
 Cut in Fourth Avenue, East Side of Union Square 230 
 
 Construction of Subway on one side of Fourth Avenue 235 
 
 Excavation for Subway in progress under Metropolitan Street Railway Tracks 336 
 
 View from the North Portal of Central Park Tunnel, looking towards Lenox 
 
 Avenue 339 
 
 First Erection of Steel Frame, Broadway at 185th Street 341 
 
 Side Drift looking from Tunnel toward Shaft 242 
 
 Concrete Lining, Double-Track Arch ; 25 ft. Span 245 
 
 Concrete-lined Three-Track Arch; 37.5 ft. Span 349 
 
 Four-Track Structure complete between Bleecker and Houston Streets 255 
 
 Map and Profile of Railway, Drawings and Plans Appended 
 
 7 
 
REPORT 
 
 OF THE 
 
 COMMISSIONERS^ 
 
 WITH APPENDICES. 
 
OFFICE OF THE 
 BOARD OF RAPID TRANSIT RAILROAD COMMISSIONERS. 
 
 No. S20 Broadway, New York. 
 
 January 1, 1902. 
 
 To THE Mayoe of the City of New Yoek, 
 
 Sir: — The Eapid Transit Act does not require the Board of 
 Eapid Transit Railroad Commissioners to make any periodical re- 
 ports. Nevertheless it seems fitting, and in accordance with the 
 wise custom governing similar bodies, that detailed and authentic 
 accounts should be given to the public from time to time, setting 
 forth the progress made in the novel and important work entrusted 
 to the Board. 
 
 Until the year 1900, nothing had been accomplished beyond the 
 preparation of plans and their presentation to those who were em- 
 powered to accept or reject them. This process involved much re- 
 sponsibility for the Board, and much minute and long continued 
 labor for its engineers and counsel, — ^but there were no tangible 
 and physical results calling for periodical reports. It was not 
 until the 21st of February, 1900, that the first contract made by 
 this Board, — the contract for the great railway in Manhattan and 
 The Bronx, — was executed; and with the actual commencement of 
 work under that contract the need first arose for such a report as 
 that now presented. 
 
 But although much was accomplished during the year 1900, this 
 Board could not well take up the question of making a com- 
 plete official and public report u.ntil sometime after the close of 
 the year. It was then too late to compile the requisite informa- 
 tion and present it to the public until the latter part of the year 
 1901 ; and it was concluded, therefore, to submit it at the begin- 
 ning of 1903, including in it the entire year 1901. 
 
 The present report therefore covers a period extending from 
 March 24, 1900, when the ceremonial beginning of work was made, 
 down to December 31, 1901, — a period of a little more than one 
 year and nine months. In reality, the period under review is much 
 
 11 
 
12 Origin of Present Rapid Transit Act. 
 
 less, for no large force of men was actually set at work until about 
 the month of June, 1900. It is the intention of the Board to 
 publish hereafter a similar report of progress at the close of each 
 3'ear. 
 
 On tliis first occasion, however, the report of the Board should 
 not be confined merely to a statement of the physical work of dig- 
 ging and building. The meaning and purpose of what is being 
 done can hardly be appreciated without an adequate historical ac- 
 count of the preliminary work of this Board from 1894 to 1900. 
 
 It is not the purpose of the Board to attempt any account 
 of the earlier efforts made in this City to secure a complerte 
 and effective system of rapid transit; but it is proper to say that 
 the work and discussion of previous years had done much to 
 promote a clear understanding of the physical, financial and legal 
 difficulties involved, and thus contributed not a little to facilitating 
 the task of the present Board. The admirable address delivered 
 before the Chamber of Commerce on October 3, 1901, by Mr. 
 Abram S. Hewitt, — to whose foresight, knowledge and persist- 
 ence so large a share of credit is Justly due, — ogives a shJort but 
 comprehensive account of the steps which ultimately led to the 
 passage of the law under which this Board is now proceeding. By 
 the coua-tesy of Mr. Hewitt and the Chamber of Commerce, the 
 Board is permitted to append liis address as a part of this report. 
 
 The Act of 1894, to which the present Board owes its existence, 
 was first drafted — as Mr. Hewitt relates — ^by a Committee of the 
 Chamber of Commerce assisted by the late Henry E. Beekman as 
 Counsel. The draft was changed in material respects by the Leg- 
 islature, but the main features of the original design were left un- 
 altered. It was that act which made possible municipal owner- 
 ship of the rapid transit system, and thus made it possible to use 
 the City's credit. These two points were in truth, the very key 
 notes of the scheme. "The great object aimed at," says Mr. Hew- 
 itt, "was to secure the early completion of the work, its continued 
 ownership by the City, and its reversion at the end of fifty years 
 to the City, free and clear of all encumbrances of every kind and 
 nature whatever." 
 
 But although this purpose and object was a novel feature in the 
 legislation of the State of New York, yet the statute in form was 
 
Rapid Transit Act of i8pi. 13 
 
 a mere amendment of the earlier Act of 1891; and as it contem- 
 plated that the Board which it created should, in certain events, 
 adopt and carry forward the work initiated by its predecessors in 
 office, a complete understanding of the situation existing in 1894 
 demands some reference here to the provisions of the Act of 1891 
 and the valuable work accomplished under it. 
 
 THE ACT OF 1891. 
 
 Briefly stated, the Act of 1891, after providing for the contin- 
 uance in office of Messrs. William Steinway, John H. Starin, 
 Samuel Spencer, John H. Inman and Eugene L. Bushe, (who 
 had theretofore been appointed as Commissioners under the Act 
 of 1875), required that if, after investigation, such Commissioners 
 should deem that the construction of a rapid transit railroad was 
 necessary, they should proceed first to adopt the routes and gen- 
 eral plan of construction for such railroad; second to obtain the 
 consent to the construction and operation of such railroad by 
 the local authorities and the property-holders affected, or, if the 
 consent of the property-holders should be withheld, then the sub- 
 stituted consent of the General Term of the Supreme Court; third 
 to adopt detailed plans for the construction and operation of such 
 railroad; and, fincdly, to sell the right to construct and operate 
 such railroad to a corporation to be formed imder the terms of 
 such act, for such a period of time as they should deem advisable 
 and upon such terms as they should be able to exact. And by the 
 thirty-second section of the same statute, a very large power was 
 also conferred upon the Commissioners to grant additional fran- 
 chises to existing railroad corporations. 
 
 Immediately upon the passage of this act the Board as consti- 
 tuted by it, entered upon a carefiil examination of the entire ques- 
 tion with the assistance of Messrs. William E. Worthen and Wm. 
 Barclay Parsons, whom it had appointed its engineers. After 
 holding a number of hearings, it reached the unanimous conclu- 
 sion not only that additional transit facilities were essential, but 
 also that such facilities could be obtained in a manner adequate 
 to the needs of the City, only by the construction of underground 
 railroads. Having reached that conclusion, it proceeded to adopt 
 a route and general plan for the construction of a railroad 
 
14 Failure under Act of iSpi. 
 
 running underground through the built up portions of the City, 
 and emerging from the surface only in its northerly portions where 
 the contour of the surface made it necessary. A very full de- 
 scription of the proposed road, accompanied by detailed draw- 
 ings and reports from Messrs. William E. Worthen, Wm. Barclay 
 Parsons, Octave Chanute, Joseph M. Wilson, Theodore Cooper 
 and John Bogart, regarding the engineering features of the work, 
 was transmitted to the Common Council under date of October 
 20, 1891, and published in one large volume. 
 
 The consent of the local authorities to the construction of the 
 railroad upon the route and according to the general plans thus 
 indicated, was readily obtained, as was also the consent of the Gren- 
 eral Term of the Supreme Court. {Matter of Rapid Transit B. R. 
 Conim., 65 Hurij 63.) 
 
 The Board then proceeded to adopt detailed plans and specifica- 
 tions for the construction of the road, and offered the franchise for 
 sale, to the highest bidder, on December 29, 1892. No respoilsible 
 bidder, however, was found willing to undertake the enterprise, 
 and the entire work of the Commission thus seemed to be rendered 
 fruitless. 
 
 But although the investigations and plans of the Commission 
 of 1891, proved barren of immediate results, they were well 
 worth the labor and expense which they entailed. For not only 
 did the services of that Commission result in the accumulation of 
 a great mass of information which has since proved of the utmost 
 value, but they also did much towards overcoming doubts as to 
 the practicability of constructing an underground railroad ade- 
 quate to the objects in view, and at an expense which might be 
 calculated with a reasonable degree of certainty. 
 
 After the failure to sell the franchise and before the enactment 
 of the Statute of 1894, there ensued a long negotiation between the 
 Commission of 1891 and the Manhattan Eailway Company, with 
 reference to an application which had been made somewhat earlier 
 by that Company for leave to build elevated railways upon a num- 
 ber of additional streets. These negotiations were dropped in 
 the month of August, 1893, because of the unwillingness of the 
 Company to make such compensatioa to the City for the desired 
 facilities as was deemed reasonable by the Commission. 
 
The act of 1894. 
 
 The Act of 1894 (Laws 1894, Chap. 752) was signed^y Governor 
 Flower on May 23, 1894. It substituted a new Eapid Transit 
 Board for that existing under the Act of 1891, and provided that 
 such Board should be composed of the Mayor, the Comptroller 
 and the President of the Chamber of Commerce, as ex-officio mem- 
 bers, and of Messrs. William Steinway, Seth Low, John Clafiin, 
 Alexander E. Orr and John H. Starin. It left unmodified the 
 provisions of the Act of 1891, authorizing the Board to grant ad- 
 ditional franchises to existing railroads. It provided that the 
 Board should either adopt the plans for the rapid transit railroad 
 prepared by the preceding Board; or should adopt new plans, and 
 obtain the consents of the local authorities and of the property- 
 holders or the substituted consent of the Court. And it reqiiired 
 that, after either re-adopting such old plans or framing new 
 ones and obtaining the requisite consents, the Board at the next 
 general election should submit to the qualified electors of the City 
 "the question whether such railway or railways shall be constructed, 
 by the city and at the public expense." The act further declared, 
 in substance, that if such question were determined in the nega- 
 tive at the election, the Board should proceed to sell the franchise 
 to construct and operate such railroad to some private corporation, 
 in the manner prescribed by the Act of 1891. 
 
 The alternative provisions, depending upon the contingency that 
 the vote should declare in favor of the municipal construction of 
 the railroad, embraced the vital portions of the law,. These 
 were, briefly stated, to the effect that if such question were deter- 
 mined in the affirmative at the election, the rapid transit railroad 
 should be constructed at the public expense, and should be and re- 
 main the absolute property of the City, and that the Eapid Transit 
 Board should either provide for the construction of the railroad 
 according to the routes, plans and specifications adopted prior to 
 the election, or should "change and modify the said routes, plans 
 and specifications" or adopt other and new routes, plans and speci- 
 fications, as they might deem desirable. The act fiarthcr pre- 
 scribed that, after establishing the routes and plans for the rail- 
 
 15 
 
16 Act of T8g4 — the present Act. 
 
 road, and obtaining the necessary consents, the Board should, after 
 advertising for proposals, enter into a contract with some person, 
 firm or corporation for the construction of the railroad for the 
 City, and at its expense. The contract was also to require the 
 contractor to operate the railroad, as the lessee of the City, for a 
 term of not- less than thirty-five nor more than fifty years, to be 
 specified in the contract, at an annual rent sufficient in amount to 
 pay the interest upon the bonds to be issued by the City to raise 
 the money necessary to construct the railroad and one per cent, 
 in addition thereto. The contractor was to supply the equipment 
 at his own expense. As security for the due performance of the 
 entire contract, the contractor was to furnish a bond to the City in 
 an amount to be determined by the Board; the City was to have 
 a lien upon the equipment furnished by the contractor; and the 
 contractor was also' to deposit the sum of One million dollars 
 with the City Comptroller, which was, however, to be returned 
 when the railroad was constructed and equipped. All details as 
 to the construction and operation of the railroad were left to the 
 discretion of the Eapid Transit Board, with the injunction that 
 such matters should be provided for by the contract; and the fur- 
 ther duty was imposed upon the Board of siipervising the construc- 
 tion and operation of the road. 
 
 Other portions of the statute exempted from taxation the equip- 
 ment of the railroad to be furnished by the contractor, and author- 
 ized the City to issue its bonds to raise the requisite funds for the 
 enterprise; with the proviso that the total issue should not ex- 
 ceed the sum of Fifty million dollars. 
 
 The statute preserved to the Board the very important power to 
 grant additional franchises to companies actually operating rail- 
 roads within the City. 
 
 The new Eapid Transit Board held its first meeting June 8, 
 1894, and organized by the selection of Mr. Alexander E. Orr as 
 President. At the same meeting Mr. Orr, who had been elected 
 as President of the Chamber of Commerce, and had thus become 
 an ex-officio member of the Board as well as being named by the 
 statute an individual member thereof, resigned the individual ap- 
 pointment conferred upon him by the legislature, and Mr. John 
 H. Inman was elected to fill the vacancy thus created. Subse- 
 
Organization of present Board. 17 
 
 quently, Mr. Starin was elected Vice-President; Messrs. Henry- E. 
 Beekman and Albert B. Boardman were appointed Counsel; and 
 Mr. Wm. Barclay Parsons was aJ)pointed Chief Engineer. 
 
 Upon a careful consideration of the situation, the Board con- 
 cluded, -first, that an effective solution of the transit problem could 
 only be reached by the construction of underground railroads, 
 and, second, that the routes and plans adopted by the preceding 
 Board were not altogether satisfactory if the railroad was to be 
 constructed by the City within the limit of cost prescribed ■ by the 
 statute. The Board, however, found .itself confronted with the 
 difficulty that, under the statute, it was powerless to submit the 
 question of municipal construction to a popular vote until after 
 it should either have re-adopted the routes and plans of the pre- 
 ceding Board, or should have framed new routes and plans and se- 
 cured the requisite consents. If the latter alternative should be 
 adopted, an amount of time would be required which would make 
 it impossible to submit the question of municipal construction to 
 popular vote at the general election to be held in November, 1894. 
 
 The Board was, however, advised by its counsel, that if, for the 
 mere purpose of securing a prompt expression of the popular will, 
 it should provisionally re-adopt the routes and plans of its prede- 
 cessors, it would be at liberty, in case such vote should commit 
 the City to the theory of municipal construction, to alter the plans 
 after the election, or to adopt entirely new routes and plans. In- 
 deed the statute so provided, the very- contingency having been 
 foreseen when the act was drawn. The Board accordingly pro- 
 ceeded, on July 17, 1894, to re-adopt the routes and plans of the 
 preceding Board; but before the November election, an address 
 was issued by the Board, in which the entire situation was fully 
 explained, and the intention was announced of considering the 
 question of routes and plans de novo, in case of an affirmative de- 
 cision of the voters upon the question submitted to them. 
 
 In the meantime, and pending the popular decision which was 
 to define the powers and duties of the Board, Mr. Parsons went 
 abroad at its request to study the systems of rapid transit adopted 
 by certain cities in Great Britain and upon the Continent. The 
 results of his observation were published somewhat later in a vol- 
 ume entitled "Eeport on Eapid Transit in Foreign Cities." 
 
18 Preliminary Studies for the Municipal Railroad. 
 
 The result of the election of November G, 1894, showed an over- 
 whelming majority in favor of the plan of municipal construction. 
 The total vote was 184,035; affirmative, 133,647; negative, 43,- 
 916; defective ballots, not counted, 399. 
 
 PEELIMINAEY STUDIES FOE THE MUNICIPAL KAILKOAD. 
 
 On January 1, 1895, the late William L. Strong, who had been 
 elected Mayor at the preceding election, became an ex-officio mem- 
 ber of the Board, superseding Thomas F. Gilroy. Mr. Pitch 
 was continued in office as Comptroller. At the same time the 
 Board, to its great regret, was deprived of the services of one of 
 its counsel, Henry E. Beekman, whose election as a Judge of the 
 Superior Court (and hence as a Justice of the Supreme Court un- 
 der the provisions of the Constitution of 1895), necessitated his 
 resignation, and transferred him to a new field of usefulness, which 
 he occupied until the recent close of his honorable and public- 
 spirited career. Since January 1, 1895, the firms of Parsons, 
 Shepard & Ogden, and Tracy, Boardman & Piatt (now Boardman, 
 Piatt & Soley) have been counsel to the Board. 
 
 During the latter months of 1894, the duty of definitely de- 
 ciding upon the route and plans of the railroad received careful 
 attention from the Board and its Chief Engineer. The advisa- 
 bility of adopting Elm Street as a portion of the route was at 
 this time discussed, but the general opinion of the Board was to 
 the effect that the commercial advantages of using Broadway 
 would more than offset the difficulties and expense of construct- 
 ing a railroad beneath its surface, that, sooner or later a Broadway 
 route was inevitable, that the cost of construction on that route 
 would them be less than at any later time, and that, upon the whole, 
 therefore the route adopted by the former Board was the most ad- 
 visable one for the railroad, provided a branch could be constructed 
 in extension of the east side route to the north, as a substitute 
 for the Madison Avenue line recommended by the earlier Com- 
 mission which had been rendered unavailable by Laws of 1892, 
 Chap. 369. It was thought that it would be possible to ex- 
 tend the Fourth Avenue route north from Fortieth Street under 
 the Grand Central Station, and under Fourth Avenue to 
 
The Broadway Route. 19 
 
 Ninety-seventh Street, where it would emerge and gradually 
 ascend upon an elevated structure to be erected on either 
 side of the Harlem Eailroad structure and thus to and across 
 the Harlem River. With respect to the mode of construc- 
 tion of the railroad, the Board reached the conclusion that the 
 plans adopted by the former Commission were, in the main, 
 wisely devised; except that it was thought desirable, among other 
 things, to increase the width of the railroad as a measure of 
 safety, and to omit the requirement that the work of construc- 
 tion under Broadway should be done without disturbing the sur- 
 face. 
 
 A statement of all of the plans and propositions which were 
 considered at this period by the Board, and of the constant sur- 
 veys and investigations which were made by its Engineer would 
 be at this time unprofitable. The location of all the mains, 
 pipes and other subway structures along the line of the proposed 
 railroad, — ^which was a task of the utmost difficulty, — was com- 
 pleted by Mr. Parsons, who also prepared a valuable set of maps 
 showing the extent to which the foundations and vaults of all build- 
 ings upon the proposed routes encroached upon the streets affected 
 by the plans of the Board. An elaborate study of the nature of 
 the soil and the situation of rock imder the surface of the pro- 
 posed route was also made at the same time. 
 
 The Board concluded that it would be advisable, even from the 
 standpoint of rapid transit, to construct pipe galleries on either 
 side of the proposed railroad on the Broadway route from Park 
 Place to Thirty-fourth Street. For although it was clear that 
 the construction of such galleries must encroach upon the prop- 
 erty owners' vaults, and that it would add very materially to the 
 expense, the Board was of the opinion that as there must in any 
 event be a costly re-location of the pipes, it would be wiser and 
 cheaper in the long run to construct pipe galleries as a part of the 
 rapid transit plan, thus avoiding forever the necessity of further 
 excavation of the streets for the purpose of repairs. 
 
 In the formulation of a tentative plan, and in conducting the 
 necessary incidental investigations, the Board was not unmind- 
 ful of the necessity of keeping its work within the limit of ex- 
 penditure prescribed by the statute. Estimates made by Mr. Par- 
 
20 Amendment of Act of 18^4. 
 
 sonsj with the assistance of Messrs. Alphonse Pteley and Theodore 
 Cooper, who had been retained by the Board for the purpose of ex- 
 amining the provisional plans, indicated that, if the railroad were 
 to be constructed to the extreme northerly limits of the City, the 
 cost of construction might, when due allowance was made for con- 
 tingencies, exceed the sum of Fifty million dollars. 
 
 Under these circumstances the Board adopted a resolution on 
 December 26, 1894, authorizing the President to submit the pro- 
 visional scheme of Mr. Parsons to a Board of Experts for exam- 
 ination and report. 
 
 Acting under the authority thus conferred upon him, Mr. Orr, 
 the President of the Board, after consultation' with his asso- 
 ciates, appointed Messrs. Abram S. Hewitt, ThcJmas C. Clarke, 
 Charles Sooysmith, Octave Chanute and Prof. William H. Burr; 
 and the gentlemen thus named at once entered upon an examina- 
 tion of the important questions thus referred to them. 
 
 AMENDMENTS OF THE EAPID TEANSIT ACT. 
 
 By this time the experience of the Board had satisfied its mem- 
 bers that numerous sections of the Act of 1894 required amend- 
 ment, partly in order to eliminate certain provisions which were 
 not in the original draft, but which had been inserted by the Leg- 
 islature at the time of its passage; and partly to provide for va- 
 rious contingencies which had not been foreseen when the bill 
 was originally prepared, including the plan to build pipe gal- 
 leries along a portion of the route. A bill was accordingly drawn 
 by counsel, which, being approved by the Board, was enacted by 
 the Legislature of 1895 (Laws 1895, Chap. 519). 
 
 This statute amended the former acts in numerous and im- 
 portant respects. It provided, among other things, that the City 
 should extinguish all easements of abutting property holders which 
 might be affected by the construction of the railroad, thus giiar- 
 anteeing the contractor against the class of litigation which had 
 proved so serious to the elevated railroads, and authorized the 
 expenditure by the City of an additional sum of $5,000,000 for 
 that purpose. The act also authorized the Board, in its discre- 
 tion, to permit the contractor to postpone the construction of 
 
Report of Experts on Broadway Route. 21 
 
 any part of the railroad as planned until such time as, in the 
 judgment of the Board, the interest of the City demanded that 
 such postponed section should be completed. With respect to the 
 power of the Board to grant additional franchises to existing 
 railroads, it substituted a provision that such grants might be 
 made by six members of the Board for the former requirement of 
 a unanimous vote ; but it imposed as a limitation upon this power, 
 that any such grant should require the corporation which received 
 it to make proper compensation to the City, and that such compen- 
 sation shoiild be subject to re-adjustment at the expiration of suc- 
 cessive periods to be fixed by the Board, none of which should ex- 
 ceed in duration the period of thirty-five years. 
 
 REPORT OF BOARD OF EXPERTS. 
 
 Prior to the taking effect of this act, and on the 39th day of 
 January, 1895, the Board of Experts, appointed in the manner and 
 for the purposes already recounted, presented its report. Al- 
 though the new practical recommendations contained in this valu- 
 able paper were not, in general, accepted by this Board, yet it pre- 
 sents so clearly the nature of the problems with which the Board was 
 called upon to deal, that a summary of the report is inserted : 
 
 The Board of Experts approved the estimates of the Engineer, 
 showing that the construction if carried to the City line on both 
 the east and west sides would cost $50,000,000. It also approved 
 the suggestion of the Chief Engineer that the subway should be 
 widened from the plans of the previous Commission from 44 to 50 
 feet for a four-track road, and it also was of the opinion that a 
 separation on Broadway of the local and express lines as proposed 
 by the Engineer was practicable and wise. 
 
 The Board of Experts, in answer to the question as to whether 
 any better solution of the problem than has already been brought 
 forward could be suggested, proposed if the route laid down by the 
 Commission be adhered to, a plan of construction consisting 
 of two tracks from the South Perry to the City Hall, and thence 
 along Broadway with four tracksto Mnety-second Street, at which 
 point it suggested that the tracks should emerge and be continued 
 
33 Report of Experts on Broadway Route. 
 
 on an elevated structure to Momingside Plateau, and thence partly 
 bv depressed road, partly by tunnel and partly by viaduct to One 
 Hundred and Eighty-first Street. The cost of this v?as estimated 
 by the Board of Experts at $29,500,000. The Board, however, 
 recommended a change from this route by substituting Elm 
 Street, Lafayette Place and Fourth Avenue as the route be- 
 tween the City Hall Park and Fourteenth Street, in lieu of 
 Broadvi^ay, involving, as estimated by the Experts, a saving of 
 $3,700,000; and further recommended that above Fourteenth 
 Street two express tracks be carried along Broadway in a tunnel 
 in the rock to Twenty-fifth Street, and that four tracks be con- 
 structed along Fourth Avenue to Twenty-third Street, and them 
 two tracks for local service through Twenty-third Street and under 
 Madison Square to Twenty-fifth Street, above which point the 
 regular four-track system as previously described would be resumed 
 on Broadway. 
 
 For the east-side line the Board of Experts recommended the 
 construction of four tracks under Fourth Avenue from Twenty- 
 third Street to Forty-second Street, and thence under the Grand 
 Central Station with two tracks to Ninety-seventh Street, and 
 thence by a two-track elevated structure to Mott Haven, a point 
 where the existing lines of travel might be easily made to converge. 
 
 In addition to this route the Board of Experts recommended 
 that two tracks be constructed in tunnel under Forty-second Street, 
 or one of the adjacent streets to a connection with, the west-side 
 route on Broadway. The cost of the line thus recommended above 
 Twenty-third Street on the east side, including the Forty-second 
 Street side as far west as Broadway, was estimated by the Experts 
 to cost $12,025,166. The total cost of the lines as recommended 
 by the Experts was estimated by them, including an allowance of 
 10% for terminals and side tracks, to amount to $42,063,721. 
 
 The Experts also suggested a two-track elevated extension from 
 the Fourth Avenue line westward on one of the streets just north 
 of Central Park to a point near Sixth Avenue, and thence northerly 
 through the blocks to the Harlem River. The length of this line 
 would be approximately two miles, and its cost, assuming the 
 amount paid for right of way through the blocks to be $25,000 
 per lot, to be approximately $2,500,000. They pointed out that it 
 
Adoption in i8g^ of Broadway Route. 33 
 
 ' was perfectly feasible and ultimately desirable to extend the west- 
 side line from One Hundred and Eighty-fifth Street by a two- 
 track elevated structure to Kingsbridge to connect there with the 
 New York Central Eailroad at an estimated cost of $1,500,000, 
 and finally recommended the improvement of existing facilities by 
 the extension of the New York Central tracks along the North 
 Eiver front below Fifty-ninth Street by an elevated structure, 
 and by the immediate addition of a third track to each of the lines 
 of the Manhattan system. 
 
 THE ROUTE AND PLANS OP 1895. 
 
 The report just quoted formed for many weeks a subject of the 
 closest attention on the part of the Board, which finally con- 
 cluded, although after much hesitation, that in view of the greater 
 convenience of the Broadway route to the great majority of pas- 
 sengers, of the high probability that a rapid transit road on that 
 route must at some time be adopted, of the greater economy of its 
 construction at that time, and of the fact that the project for 
 widening New Elm Street then seemed destined to an indefinite de- 
 lay, during which that thoroughfare would not be available for the 
 purpose of constructing the railroad, it was wiser to adhere to the 
 Broadway route. And the Board also concluded with respect to 
 the method of construction to be adopted on Broadway, that the 
 project of placing all four tracks upon substantially the same level 
 and so near the surface as to obviate the use of long stairways or 
 elevators, outweighed any advantage to be gained by placing the 
 local tracks and the express tracks upon difEerent levels. 
 
 In view of the fact that the estimates of its Engineer, as ap- 
 proved and confirmed by the Board of Experts, showed that there 
 was no certainty that the entire line of railroad, as planned along 
 the Broadway route, could be constructed within the available 
 limit of expenditure, the Board resolved that the west-side branch 
 should be terminated at One Hundred and Eighty-fifth Street, 
 and the east-side branch at One Hundred and Forty-sixth Street. 
 
 The result of these deliberations was fully expressed in a reso- 
 lution adopted and transmitted by the Board to the Common 
 Council on May 9, 1895, in which the routes were defined as 
 follows : 
 
24 The Broadway Route. 
 
 "A route the centre line of which commences at a point under 
 ' tlie westerly line or side of Whitehall Street, distant along the same 
 62.5 feet north from the northerly line or side of South Street pro- 
 duced, and proceeds thence in opposite directions and along two di- 
 verging lines which form a loop at or near Battery Park and con- 
 verge to parallelism at or near the westerly line or side of State 
 Street and the southerly line or side of Battery Place, and all of said 
 loop being under Battery Place, Battery Park, State Street and that 
 portion of Whitehall Street which lies to the west of the centre line 
 thereof and between the southerly line or side of State Street pro- 
 duced and the South Ferry. The said centre line thence from said 
 place of converging proceeds under Broadway and Union Square 
 to Fifty-ninth Street; thence under the Boulevard to a point at 
 or near One Hundred and Twenty-fourth Street; thence by viaduct 
 along the Boulevard to a point at or near One Hundred and Thirty- 
 fourth Street; and thence under the Boulevard and Eleventh Avenue 
 to a point at or near One Hundred and Eighty-fifth Street. Also a 
 loop at City Hall Park connecting with the route aforesaid at Broad- 
 way at or noar Mail Street, the centre line of which loop proceeds 
 from Broadway, under Mail Street, and thence under City Hall Park, 
 Park Eow and Chambers Street, to connect again with the Broadway 
 line at Chambers Street. Also a connection along Park Row, from 
 said loop last mentioned, the centre line of said connection begin- 
 ning at a point in Park Row at the terminus of the New York and 
 Brooklyn Bridge; thence proceeding under Park Row to Broadway, 
 and there connecting with the said route on Broadway at or near 
 Fulton Street. 
 
 "Also a route, the centre line of which shall diverge from the 
 Broadway line at or near Fourteenth Street, and run under Union 
 Square to Fourth Avenue; thence under Fourth and Park Avenues to 
 a point at or near Ninety-eighth Street; thence by viaduct . along 
 Park Avenue to Harlem River; thence turning to the right by 
 bridge across the Harlem River and thence turning to the left until 
 the line shall coincide with the centre line of Walton Avenue pro- 
 duced at or near its intersection with One Hundred and Thirty- 
 eighth Street; and thence along the line of Walton Avenue to a 
 point at or near One Hundred and Forty-sixth Street." 
 
 By the same resolution the mode of construction was specified. 
 There were to be four tracks from Broadway and Park Place up 
 to One Hundred and Thirty-fifth Street, on the west side; and 
 four tracks on the east side, from Union Square to the Grand 
 
Defeat of Broadway Route in the Supreme Court. 35 
 
 Central Station. Elsewhere there were to be two tracks. All 
 tracks were to be run on the same level and were to be of the 
 standard gauge of four feet eight and one-half inches between the 
 rails. Twelve feet and a half in width was allowed for each 
 track. The entire line was to be in tunnel, except the viaduct on 
 the Boulevard, from One Hundred and Twenty-fourth to One 
 Hundred and Thirty-fourth Streets, and except the east-side line 
 from Ninety-eighth Street northward. The roof of the tunnel 
 was to be placed as near as possible to the surface of the street. 
 It was to be not less than twelve feet in height in the clear. North 
 from the Grand Central Station there were to be two separate 
 tunnels along Fourth Avenue as far as Ninety-sixth Street, — one 
 on each side of the existing tunnel; and thence on two separate 
 viaducts, one on each side of the existing structure. The Harlem 
 Eiver was to be crossed by a double track drawbridge. 
 
 Along Broadway, — from Park Place to Thirty-fourth Street, — 
 all pipes, sewers and other sub-surface structiires were to be placed 
 in galleries. 
 
 KOUTI} APPROVED BY CITY BUT DISAPPEOVED BY THE SUPREME COURT. 
 
 During the summer of 1895 and concurrently with the appli- 
 cation of the Board to the local authorities for their consent to 
 the construction and operation of the railroad as then proposed — 
 which consent was granted in due course — an unsuccessful efEort 
 was made to obtain the consent of the property-holders along the 
 route of the proposed railroad. An application for the substi- 
 tuted consent of the Supreme Court, therefore, became necessary. 
 
 Upon applying for a formal order designating the newspapers 
 in which to publish notice of the intended application, the Court, 
 however, refused to consider the question at all, and entered an 
 order to that effect on October 7, 1895. This order was reversed 
 by the Court of Appeals on October 22, 1895 (In re Ua'pid Trmsit 
 Commissioners, H7 N. Y. 260), and the Supreme Court was di- 
 rected to deal with the application on its merits. 
 
 The Supreme Court having thus been set in motion, an order 
 was entered November 25, 1895, appointing Messrs. Frederic E. 
 Coudert, George Sherman and William H. Gelshenen as Commis- 
 
26 Municipal Construction adjudged Constitutional. 
 
 sioners to take testimony and report whether the proposed rail- 
 road ought to be constructed. 
 
 A very large amount of testimony,' — mainly of expert witnesses, 
 —was presented both on behalf of the Eapid Transit Commis- 
 sioners and of those property-owners who opposed their projects. 
 The plans of the Commission were thus subjected to a most 
 searching and critical examination, and it is not too much to say 
 that this minute and often hostile study has contributed greatly 
 to perfecting the plans now under execution. 
 
 The long and earnestly contested controversy before the Com- 
 missioners was ended by their unanimous report to the General 
 Term of the Supreme Court on March 6, 1896, to the effect that 
 in their opinion the proposed road ought to be constructed. 
 
 The matter then came up and was argued fully before the 
 Court, which, on May 33, 1896, unanimously refused to confirm 
 the report of its Commissioners (Matter of Bapid Transit Gomm., 
 5 App. Div. 390). The reasons assigned were, among others, 
 that the road, when constructed, would not furnish a complete 
 system of transit from one end of the City to the other; that it 
 was doubtful whether any large part of the road could be built 
 with the money then at the disposal of the City; and that it was 
 certain the expenditure of so vast a sum would take away the 
 City's power to engage in any other public work and might pos- 
 sibly so impair its credit that it could not recover in the course 
 of many years. Specifically it seemed plain that the Court 
 would not consent to any route under Broadway, or to the con- 
 struction of an underground road on any other route unless (1) 
 it extended substantially from one end of the City to the other 
 and (3) it' was conclusively shown that the total cost would be 
 much less than $50,000,000. 
 
 KAPID TRANSIT ACT HELD TO BE CONSTITUTIONAL. 
 
 While the above proceeding was pending still other litigation 
 of a most important character required the attention of the 
 Board — an action having been brought by the Sun Printing and 
 Publishing Association and others, as taxpayers, for Ihe purpose of 
 enjoining the City from employing its funds for the construe- 
 
Proceedings after Defeat of Broadway Route. 27 
 
 tion of the proposed railroad, upon the ground that the Eapid 
 Transit Act of 1894 was unconstitutional in many of its features, 
 and hence afforded no legal warrant for the proposed expenditure. 
 This action was decided adversely to the plaintifEs on February 
 20, 1896, by Mr. Justice Truax, sitting at Special Term of the 
 Supreme Court, and subsequent appeals resulted in the affirm- 
 ance of this decision by the Appellate Division of the Supreme 
 Court in July, 1896 \Bun vs. Mayor, 8 Aff. Div. 330), and by 
 the Court of Appeals on March 33, 1897 {Sun vs. Mayor, 153 
 N. Y. 257). These important and interesting decisions set at 
 rest the vital question of the constitutionality of the legislation un- 
 derlying the rapid transit enterprise, and entirely justified the 
 wisdom and foresight with which the scheme had been devised. 
 
 EE-EXAMINATIOSr OF EOUTE AND PLANS. 
 
 The action of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in 
 refusing its consent to the construction of the railroad upon the 
 route and according to the plan theretofore adopted by the Board 
 led to earnest discussion in the press and elsewhere. So great was 
 the interest excited that many letters were written to the Board by 
 persons standing high in the community, urging a continuance of 
 the work ; and numerous public meetings were held, at which reso- 
 lutions were adopted urging the Board to continue its efforts to 
 find some solution of the problem committed to it, and pledging 
 support to the further efforts of the Board. 
 
 Although the reasoning of the judges seemed, at first sight, to 
 amount to an absolute prohibition of municipal construction on 
 any terms, yet further consideration led to the conclusion that 
 all hope of a successful issue need not be abandoned. The action 
 of the Court might be construed as being merely a condemnation 
 of the particular plan presented for its consideration; and in so 
 far as the opinions seemed to foreshadow a refusal on the part 
 of the Court to consent to any practicable plan of municipal con- 
 struction, they were capable of being regarded as so far extra- 
 judicial as not to be binding upon the future action of the Court. 
 The Court, indeed, might be expected, in view of the popular de- 
 mand for some system of rapid transit, to consider with an open 
 
28 Proceedings after Defeat of Broadway Route. 
 
 mind any new plan which did not conflict too seriously with the 
 views held by its members, as outlined in the two opinions ren- 
 dered. 
 
 Urged by these considerations, and by an anxious desire to use 
 every possible effort to carry into effect the important duties with 
 which they were charged, a majority of the members of the Board 
 concluded, after a period of hesitation, to make still another effort 
 to find some solution of the problem before them. 
 
 Following close upon the announcement of the fact that the 
 Eapid Transit Board would continue its efforts to secure the con- 
 struction of a rapid transit railroad for and at the expense of the 
 City, came an application from the Manhattan Railway Company 
 that the Board would authorize it to build elevated railroads over 
 a number of additional streets. ' 
 
 This application was vague and indefinite in some respects, 
 and, in still others, it sought for privileges which the Board had 
 no power to grant. A communication was accordingly sent to the 
 Railway Company on August 6, 1896, pointing out these defects 
 and suggesting that an amended application be filed. , ISTo reply 
 was returned to this communication, nor did the Board receive 
 any further intimation that the Manhattan Railway Company de- 
 sired to extend its lines until, after the lapse of eighteen months, 
 it had become evident that the Rapid Transit Railroad was likely 
 to be constructed by the City. 
 
 During the year 1896 the Board was deprived of the services 
 of Mr. Low, who resigned on June 3 ; of Mr. Inman, who died on 
 November 5; and of Mr. Steinway, who died on ISTovember 30. 
 The vacancies thus created were filled by the Board by the elec- 
 tion on N"ovember 19, 1896, of Mr. Woodbury Langdon, as Mr. 
 Low's successor, and of Mr. George L. Rives, as Mr. Inman's suc- 
 cessor; and by the election of Mr. Charles Stewart Smith, as Mr. 
 Steinway's successor, on December 10. 
 
 In the meantime, and as the result of numerous conferences 
 with persons whom it deemed well qualified to act as its advisers, 
 the Board concluded, provisionally, to adopt what may be called 
 the "Elm Street route" for its main line. Careful investigations 
 as to the practicability of this route had been made by Mr. Par- 
 sons, with the result that on Noveniiber 12 he presented a long and 
 
Report of Chief Engineer on Elm Street Route. 29 
 
 elaborate report, in which, in addition to referring to mimerous 
 alternative routes which had been suggested, and presenting care- 
 ful statements as to the physical conditions of each of such routes 
 and its relative advantages so far as the cost of construction 
 was concerned, he spoke of the so-called "Elm Street route" as 
 follows : 
 
 "Along the critical portion of the proposed route, i.e.. Elm Street, 
 there was no information at hand showing the kind of material 
 that would be encountered in excavating. I therefore caused to be 
 made a series of borings, similar to those made along Broadway. ' 
 This system of .borings commenced at the corner of Chambers and 
 Elm Streets and extended to the corner of Eourth Avenue and Thirty- 
 third Street, so that definite knowledge has been obtained as to the 
 sub-surface material. Above Thirty-third Street the result of in- 
 quiries made of architects and builders, and the recorded data of 
 sewer excavations of the Department of Public Works, have been 
 sufficient to determine the probable rock line, with enough .accuracy 
 for this stage of the proceedings. 
 
 "The nature of and the variations in the soil have been plotted 
 and accompany this report. While the soil underlying Elm Street is 
 very variable in character, more so in fact than was the case in 
 Broadway, it is nevertheless, an excellent material in which to con- 
 duct such construction as is proposed, being, with but few exceptions, 
 a sharp silica sand, ranging in quality from what might be termed 
 a good fine sand and gravel mixed, the latter material being found 
 in large quantities. The few exceptions above referred to are streaks 
 or deposits of clay, or clay and sand mixed. 
 
 "To the depth for which the excavation for the railway will be 
 made, there was no material found which would slide or give difficulty 
 in handling, while much of it is a sand of such excellent building 
 quality that it would pay the contractor to store and use it in the 
 mixing of the mortar and concrete required on the work. 
 
 "Rock is met with first at Twelfth Street, and is found, as a gen- 
 eral thing, at or near rail level from there to Thirty-third Street, pro- 
 viding an excellent foundation along Fourth Avenue. Above Thirty- 
 third Street, and on both the east and west-side routes, the rock sur- 
 face undulates greatly and consequently a considerable portion of 
 the excavation will be in that material, but to no greater extent than 
 was anticipated in the original estimates for the same routes. 
 
 "At the time of making borings along Elm Street, the opportunity 
 was availed of to determine the elevation of ground in standing 
 
30 Report of Chief Engineer on Elm Street Route. 
 
 water, wMcli was found, in geaeral, to be about one foot above tbe 
 level of mean high tide. If the new street grade at Pearl Street is 
 changed in accordance with the suggestions made to your Board, 
 September 9, and subsequently laid before the Board of Street Open- 
 ing, the only part of the route where the rail level will lie below tide 
 water will be along Elm Street, from Leonard Street to a point 
 midway between Howard and Grand Streets, a distance of 1,600 feet, 
 with a maximum depth below tide water of only 5% feet. 
 
 "Maps showing the existing sewers, water-mains, gas-pipes and elec- 
 . trical subways, have been prepared and a tolerably complete study 
 made as to their reorganization, especially in respect to the sewers. 
 Elm Street lies nearer the dividing ridge of the city's drainage sys- 
 tem than does Broadway, and the taking of the sewers will therefore 
 be of less serious moment. The Canal Street sewer can be treated 
 in a similar manner to that proposed in the case of Broadway, and 
 approved by the Engineer of Sewers of the Department of Public 
 Works, that is to say, to cut it at the place where the railroad crosses 
 and build a new sewer to the East River, and to turn into that stream 
 the flow from the district lying north of Oanal Street and east of Elm 
 Street, which now passes west through the Oanal Street sewer into 
 the Pludson River. The amount of sewage so diverted will be 
 less than was proposed with Broadway, as the district affected is 
 not so great, and therefore the new sewer will be of smaller size 
 than was previously anticipated. 
 
 "No part of the route as herein contemplated is a main thorough- 
 fare for water and gas pipes, or electrical subways, while Elm Street, 
 being at present with no outlet at either end, contains no pipe of 
 large size, and what pipes are there now will all be replaced on the 
 opening and construction of the new street. 
 
 "At Fifth Avenue and Forty-second Street there occurs the most 
 serious pipe crossing along the route, as the large Croton water- 
 mains riin down the avenue. Fifth Avenue, however, at that point 
 forms a decided ridge, the surface of Forty-second Street falling 
 rapidly both to the east and west. In order to have suitable gradi- 
 ents fot operating a railway, it would be desirable to pass sufficiently 
 below the level of the avenue to leave all the water and gas pipes un- 
 disturbed overhead. 
 
 "The portions of the proposed route that formed a part of the route 
 previously adopted were recognized as presenting no serious difficulty 
 in construction. The physical investigations and survey of the newly 
 considered portions show that they contain no features that will cause 
 
Adoption of the iSpy Plan. 31 
 
 the road to be excessively expensive, slow or difficult to build, and 
 the proposed route, therefore, escapes entirely the difficulties to con- 
 struction which were present along Broadway, incident to the heavy 
 traffic, cable railways, complications of sub-surface structures and 
 the care of abutting buildings. The work can be attacked at as 
 many points as can be conveniently operated at pnce, and the whole 
 brought rapidly to completion at the same time." 
 
 The discussion as to the route and general plan was continued, 
 in the light cast upon the entire subject by the former experience 
 of the Board and with the aid of numerous engineers, contractors 
 and real estate owners, who were consulted by it. The Board had 
 also constantly in mind the chief practical limitations imposed by 
 the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, — ^namely, that it 
 must extend from one end of the City to the other and must cost 
 much less than $50,000,000. 
 
 THE ROUTE AND PLANS OF 1897. 
 
 On January 14, 1897, a resolution was adopted establishing 
 the present route and plan as follows: 
 
 "One route as follows: Its centre line shall commence at a f oint 
 at or near the intersection of Broadway with Park Row; thence un- 
 der Park Row and Centre Street to a point at or near its intersec- 
 tion with New Elm Street as proposed ; thence under New Elm Street, 
 as proposed, to Lafayette Place; thence under Lafayette Place to 
 Eighth Street; thence across and under Eighth Street, and thence un- 
 der private property lying between Eighth and Ninth Streets and east 
 of the westerly side or line of Lafayette Place, produced, to Fourth 
 Avenue; thence under Fourth Avenue and Park Avenue to Forty- 
 second Street; thence turning from Park Avenue into Forty-second 
 Street, and taking for the purposes of the curve, if necessary or con- 
 venient, private property at the southwest corner of Park Avenue and 
 Forty-second Street; thence under Forty-second Street to Broadway; 
 thence under Broadway to Fifty-ninth Street; thence under the 
 Boulevard to a point at "or near One Hundred and Twenty-fourth 
 Street; thence by viaduct along and over the Boulevard to a point 
 at or near One Hundred and Thirty- fourth Street; thence under the 
 Boulevard and Eleventh Avenue to a point on Eleventh Avenue, situ- 
 ate north of One Hundred and Ninetieth Street, and distant there- 
 from not less than one thousand and not more than one thousand five 
 
32 The iSpy Routes and Flan. 
 
 huiidred feet, and thence under or over (as may be most convenient) 
 private property to a point at the southeast end of EUwood Street near 
 Hillside Street, and thence over Ellwood Street to Kingsbridge Ave- 
 nue or Broadway; thence over Kingsbridge Avenue or Broadway as 
 now proposed to Riverside Avenue and thence easterly over Eiverdale 
 Avenue to a point within five hundred feet of the present Kingsbridge 
 station of the New York and Putnam Eailroad Company. 
 
 "This route shall include a loop at the City Hall Park which shall 
 connect with the portion of the route aforesaid along Centre Street 
 at or near the South end of that street, and thence proceed westerly 
 and southerly imder City Hall Park and Broadway and thence east- 
 erly to again connect with the portion of the route aforesaid in Park 
 Row. All of the said loop shall lie under City Hall Park, Park Row, 
 between the south end of Centre Street and Ann Street, and the por- 
 tion of Broadway adjoining the City Hall Park lying between Vesey 
 and Murray Streets. This route shall also include suitable tracks 
 and connections from the City Hall loop to the Post Office, such 
 tracks and connections being under the City Hall Park and under 
 the portion of Park Row between the South end of Centre Street and 
 Ann Street. This route shall also include suitable tracks and con- 
 nections from the portion of the route near the corner of Park Avenue 
 and Forty-second Street to the yard and tracks of the Grand Cen- 
 tral Station. All of the tracks and connections last mentioned 
 shall be under Park Avenue and Porty-second Street and priva,te 
 property to be acquired. By private property in this description is 
 meant property not forming part of the streets of the City of New 
 York and not belonging to the City of New York. 
 
 "Also a route as follows: Its centre line shall diverge from the 
 route aforesaid on the Boulevard, between a line parallel to and one 
 hundred feet north of One Hundred and Third Street and a line 
 parallel to and one hundred feet south of One Hundred and Third 
 Street;' thence under private property to a point in One Hundred and 
 Fourth Street; thence under One Hundred and Fourth Street to and 
 across Central Park West; thence under Central Park to the inter- 
 section of Lenox Avenue and One Hundred and Tenth Street; thence 
 under Lenox Avenue to a point near One Hundred and Forty-second 
 Street; thence curving to the east and passing under private property, 
 One Hundred and Forty-third and One Hundred and Forty-fourth 
 Streets, to the Harlem River at or near the foot of One Hundred and 
 Forty-fifth Street; thence under the Harlem River and private prop- 
 erty to East One Hundred and Forty-ninth Street at or near its in- 
 
The i8py Routes and Flan. 
 
 tersection with Eiver Avenue; thence imder East One Hundred and 
 Forty-ninth Street to a point near i ts intersection with Third Avenue ; 
 thence with a curve to the left and under Third Avenue to a point 
 near its intersection with Westchester Avenue; thence with a curve 
 to the right to and under Westchester Avenue, and thence by viaduct 
 over and along Westchester Avenue to the Southern Boulevard ; thence 
 over and along the Southern Boulevard to the Boston Koad, and 
 thence over and along the Boston Eoad to Bronx Park. 
 
 "The said general plan of construction hereby adopted, is as fol- 
 lows : — 
 
 "For the route under Park Eow and the said loop at City Hall 
 Park, two parallel tracks ; for the route from the point of connection 
 of the City Hall loop with the route aforesaid at the southerly end 
 of Centre Street to the junction at or near One Hundred and Third 
 Street and the Boulevard, four parallel tracks ; for the route from the 
 junction at or near One Hundred and Third Street and the Boulevard 
 to the New York and Putnam Eailroad Company's station at Kings- 
 bridge, two parallel tracks ; for the route from the junction at or near 
 One Hundred and Third Street and the Boulevard to Bronx Park, 
 two parallel tracks. 
 
 "All of the above-mentioned tracks sha,ll be placed on the same 
 level, except that wherever required by special necessities of surface 
 or subsurface structures, or other special or local necessities and for 
 the purpose of avoiding grade crossings at the southerly end of 
 Centre Street and the One Hundred and Tenth Street junction, any 
 one or more of the tracks may be depressed below the level of the 
 other tracks to a depth of not more than twenty feet. 
 
 "The tracks shall be of standard gauge, that is to say, of a width 
 of four feet and eight and a half inches between the rails. There 
 shall be twelve and a half feet width in the tunnels and on the via- 
 ducts for each track, except that at stations, switches, turnouts, 
 curves and crossovers the width may be increased to the extent per- 
 mitted by the width of the tunnel. The tracks wherever passing 
 over or .under the street shall be placed over or under the central 
 part of the street, except that no tunnel or viaduct or any wall or 
 part thereof under or along a street shall, except at the stations, 
 station approaches, curves and at places of access to subsurface struc- 
 tures, as hereinafter provided, be within a distance of five feet of the 
 exterior line or side of the street. The tracks shall in all cases be 
 placed in tunnels, except only that on the west'side route on the 
 Boulevard at or near One Hundred and Twenty-fourth Street the 
 
34 The iSp7 Routes and Plan. 
 
 tracks ^hall emerge from the tunnel and be carried upon a viaduct 
 along the Boulevard to a point at or near One Hundred and Thirty- 
 fourth Street and thence be taken again into tunnel, and except 
 also that on the west-side route at a point at or near One Hundred 
 and Ninetieth Street the tracks shall again emerge from the tunnel 
 and be carried upon a viaduct over private property and the above- 
 m-entioned streets to the Kingsbridge Station, and except also that on 
 the east-side from a point on Westchester Avenue at or near Bergen 
 Avenue the tracks shall emerge from the tunnel and be carried upon 
 a viaduct over and along Westchester Avenue and the other streets 
 above mentioned to Bronx Park. 
 
 "Wherever the tracks change from tunnel to viaduct, or from via- 
 duct to tunnel, the change shall be so made as to occupy or obstruct 
 the use of the surface of the street to the least possible extent con- 
 sistent with the proper gradient for the tracks. 
 
 "The roof of the tunnel shall be as near the surface of the street 
 as street conditions and grades will permit. The tunnel shall not 
 be less than thirteen feet in height, in the clear. The maximum 
 widths of the tunnel in the clear shall be as follows: 
 
 "For the route under Park Row and the City Hall Park loop, 
 thirty-eight feet ; for the route from, at or near the south end of Cen- 
 tre Street and to the commencement of New Elm Street, fifty feet; 
 for the route from, at or near the commencement of New Elm Street 
 to Lafayette Place, sixty-eight feet; for the route from, at or near 
 the commencement of Lafayette Place to the junction at or near One 
 Hundred and Third Street, fifty feet; for the west-side route from 
 the junction at or near One Hundred and Third Street to Kings- 
 bridge Station, twenty-five feet; and for the east-side route from, at 
 or near the junction at One Hundred and Third Street to Bronx 
 Park, twenty-five feet; except that wherever the nature of the streets 
 necessitates a curve that an additional width of tunnel may be added 
 not exceeding three feet for each track, and except that on Eourth 
 Avenue, from Thirty-second Street to Eorty-third Street, the permissi- 
 ble width shall be sixty-five feet; and for the tunnel beneath the 
 Harlem Eiver and its approaches, the permissible width shall be 
 thirty-five feet. At each cross street where accommodations for 
 pipes, wires, sewers and other subsurface structures have been pro- 
 vided within the tunnel, the tunnel may, in order to provide con- 
 venient access to such pipes, wires, sewers and other subsurface struc- 
 tures, have, within the limit of the sides or exterior lines of such 
 cross street or such lines produced, an additional width on each side 
 
The iSpj Routes and Flan. 35 
 
 of the route not to exceed fifteen feet, and tke area of additional 
 width on either side not to approach nearer than twelve feet to either 
 side or exterior line of such cross street. Eootways between the 
 tracks shall be provided the whole length of the line and accommoda- 
 tions arranged for the convenience and protection of employees. 
 
 "Whenever necessary for the proper support of the street surface, 
 the roof of the tunnel shall be of iron or steel girders with brick 
 or concrete arches supported by iron or steel columns and masonry 
 walls, or the roof shall be a masonry arch. Viaducts shall be built 
 with a width of twelve and one-half feet for each track and with 
 an additional width of three feet on each side for outside footways. 
 Viaducts may be built of metal or masonry, or both. 
 
 "Adjacent tracks shall be connected by necessary and suitable 
 switches and connections, and an additional track for siding accom- 
 modations may be constructed not to exceed in length one quarter of 
 a mile for each mile of roadway, but provided always that the side of 
 the tunnel shall not, by the enlargement of the tunnel for that pur- 
 pose, be brought within five feet of the exterior line or side of the 
 street. 
 
 "Along Elm Street, wherever the tunnel shall be in the clear not 
 less than sixty-eight feet wide, the pipes, wires, sewers and other sub- 
 surface structures shall be placed in suitable galleries in the tunnel 
 at the outside of the exterior tracks. But any such pipes, wires, 
 sewers and other subsurface structures may be placed in suitable gal- 
 leries beneath the tracks, or such pipes, wires, sewers and other sub- 
 surface structures may be placed in the ground above or at the sides 
 of the tunnel, or at the outside of the exterior tracks, and whenever 
 so placed beneath the tracks, or in the ground above or at the sides 
 of the tunnel, the width of the tunnel on New Elm Street shall not 
 be more than fifty feet. Pipes, wires, sewers and other subsurface 
 structures shall, at any part of the said routes, be removed or dis- 
 turbed when necessary for the construction and operation of the rail- 
 way, and, if removed or disturbed, shall be placed under the streets 
 in such manner and in such location that the use and service thereof 
 shall not be impaired. Such pipes, wires, sewers and other subsur- 
 face structures shall be left or shall be so arranged as to give free ac- 
 cess for their repair or alteration, or for the placing with them of 
 new pipes, wires, sewers and other like structures, and for making 
 connections between the same and buildings at any time. 
 
 "Stations and station approaches shall in general, be at the inter- 
 sections of streets and shall be built under, or, if the position of the 
 
36 The iSp7 Routes and Plan. 
 
 tracks so require, over, the streets and immediately adjoining private 
 abutting property, or through private property to be acquired for the 
 purpose, or both under or over streets and through private property 
 as aforesaid, except that on the Boulevard, stations and station ap- 
 proaches may be in the centre of the street. The streets under or 
 over which stations or station approaches shall be built may include 
 cross streets, but no part of any cross street shall be used for a sta- 
 tion approach at a distance greater than seventy-five feet from the ex- 
 terior line or side of the street of the route. The word "street," 
 wherever used herein, shall include an avenue or public place. 
 
 "Along the Boulevard there may be openings in the surface of the 
 street from the tunnel for the purpose of ventilation and light; such 
 openings shall be guarded by convenient and ornamental enclosures. 
 The openings shall not exceed twenty feet in width and fifty feet 
 in length. No two openings shall be within fifty feet of each other. 
 No opening or part thereof shall be within the limits of, or opposite 
 to, any street intersecting the Boulevard; and within the distance 
 of any one block on the Boulevard between any two adjacent cross- 
 ing streets there shall not be more than two such openings. 
 
 "The general mode of operation shall be by electricity or some 
 other power not requiring combustion within the tunnels or on the 
 viaducts, and the motors shall be capable of moving trains at a speed 
 of not less than forty miles per hour for long distances, exclusive of 
 stops. 
 
 "The manner of construction shall be by tunneling or open ex- 
 cavation." 
 
 The scheme thus adopted complied, it was hoped, with the re- 
 quirements of the Appellate Division. In the first place the road 
 was estimated to cost about $35,000,000, and that this estimate was 
 correct time has since conclusively proved. In the second place, 
 it ran from the City Hall, — or near the southerly end of Manhattan 
 Island, — to Kingsbridge as the terminus of one branch and to 
 the Bronx Park as the terminus of the other. At Kingsbridge a 
 physical connection with the New York Central lines to Yonkers 
 and beyond was easy. At the Bronx Park the northerly limits of 
 the City were nearly reached ;. and if the Court had insisted on a 
 further extension here, it would have cost little, comparatively, to 
 extend the road st'ill farther by an elevated structure through the 
 Park. 
 
The iSp7 Routes and Plan. 37 
 
 •> The necessity of avoiding Broadway, below Thirty-fourth Street, 
 so as to meet the views of the Court, compelled the use of Fourth 
 Avenue and Elm Street for the main stem, and the introduction 
 of an awkward alignment from Fourth Avenue to the westward 
 along Forty-second Street to Broadway. 
 
 It was thought impossible to provide in this scheme for a line 
 on the east side from the Grand Central Station to the Harlem. 
 The cost of such a line would have brought the total expense up 
 to figures that the Supreme Court was not expected to sanction, 
 even if the west-side line had been made only a two-track road. 
 
 A four-track road, carried as far north as possible, was regarded 
 by the Board as essential to real rapid transit. A two-track road 
 forbids the use of express trains, and necessarily reduces the speed 
 of all trains to the speed of the slowest. Upon the . fullest con- 
 sideration, therefore, the Board determined to abandon an east- 
 side line, and to provide for a four-track service to the neigh- 
 borhood of One Hundredth Street; aid from that point to send 
 off an easterly branch, which should follow the line, not of Fourth, 
 but of Lenox Avenue, and from the termination of that street 
 should cross the Harlem. 
 
 This route appeared to the Board the best that could at that 
 time be devised to meet the conditions imposed; and it seemed 
 probable that, if this system proved a success, additional lines 
 might subsequently be built which would supply some rather ob- 
 vious defects in the plan adopted. Moreover, the Board believed 
 that the section of the City east of Central Park was already 
 better provided with transit facilities than most other quarters. 
 
 In one very important particular the plan of 1897 involved 
 an important departure from the plan of 1895. The 'entire 
 line of the road on Manhattan Island was to be in tunnel, 
 except for the short distance between Fort George and Kings- 
 bridge. In the Borough of The Bronx the road was to be in tun- 
 nel from the Harlem Eiver to a point on Westchester Avenue some 
 distance east of Third Avenue. The Board was not willing to 
 gain in cheapness by sacrificing important streets to elevated rail- 
 ways. 
 
 It has already been pointed out that- the southerly terminus of 
 the route thus adopted was at Park Bow," and this fact is also 
 
38 Park Board defeats Extension to South Ferry. 
 
 to be explained by the statement that, although the Board was of 
 the opinion that the route ought to be extended along Broadway 
 to the South Ferry, it was unwilling, in view of Aicta contained in 
 the opinions of the Appellate Division, to risk a condemnation 
 of its entire plan, unless the owners of property upon that por- 
 tion of Broadway affected by its route, should by consenting to 
 the construction of the railroad, render unnecessary a recourse to 
 the courts. 
 
 As soon as this fact became known there ensued an agitation 
 among the owners of property along the southerly end of Broad- 
 way in favor of the extension of the railroad along that route, with 
 the result that, after a few weeks a petition was presented to the 
 Board in favor of such extension signed by a majority, in value, 
 of the owners of all of .the property which would be affected by such 
 extension. The Board accordingly adopted a resolution on April 
 1, 1897, providing for a two-track extension of the railroad to the 
 south under Broadway to Battery Place, with a loop under Battery 
 Park, Whitehall Street and State Street. The Board subsequently 
 abandoned this extension, however, owing to the refusal of the 
 Park Commissioners to grant a consent to its construction. 
 
 ROUTE APPROVED BY THE SUPREME COURT. 
 
 All the local authorities consented to the construction and op- 
 eration of the railroad from the Post OflSce north, upon the route 
 and according to the plan adopted by the resolution of January 
 14. After a futile effort to obtain the consents of the property 
 holders along the route — in the course of which the Board received 
 the voluntary assistance of a number of the largest property own- 
 ers in the City — an application to the Appellate Division for the 
 appointment of commissioners to inquire and report whether such 
 railroad ought to be constructed and operated, resulted in the 
 appointment of Messrs. Arthur D. Williams, John Sabine Smith 
 and George W. Young as such commissioners, in July, 1897. 
 
 Interests adverse to the construction of the Eapid Transit 
 Eailroad again made vigorous opposition before this second com- 
 mission; but the controversy was terminated, after another great 
 mass of testimony had been introduced, by a unanimous report, 
 
Supreme Court approves the xSpf Piatt. 39 
 
 dated November 6, 1897, to the effect that the proposed Eapid 
 Transit Eailroad ought to be eonstmcted and operated. 
 
 In the meantime the Board had caused the detailed plans and 
 specifications for the railroad to be prepared by Mr. Parsons, and, 
 having agreed provisionally regarding such plans and specifica- 
 tions, caused them to be carefully examined by Messrs. George S. 
 Morison and Howard A. Carson, by whom they were in all re- 
 spects approved. 
 
 On December 17, 1897, a decision was rendered by the Appellate 
 Division of the Supreme Court upon a motion to confirm the re- 
 port of the Williams commission. A majority of the Court ex- 
 pressed the opinion that such motion should be granted, but, in 
 order, as the opinion said, to give "some assurance that the pow- 
 ers of the Eapid Transit Commissioners in respect to security, 
 should be exercised so as to protect .the interests of the City in a 
 substantial manner," exacted as a condition precedent to the entry 
 of an order confirming the report a requirement that the Eapid 
 Transit Board should file a stipulation that, upon awarding any 
 contract for the construction and operation of the railroad, "the 
 penalty of the bond specified in section 34 of the Eapid Transit 
 Act will be fixed at not less than $15,000,000."* 
 
 It needed no extended consideration to satisfy the minds of 
 persons familiar with such subjects that, if the Court should per- 
 sist in exacting a literal compliance with the terms of the con- 
 ditions thus imposed by it, its action would amount to an abso- 
 lute veto of the entire plan of municipal construction; but, as it 
 seemed desirable that all facts bearing upon the question should 
 be carefully collected, with a view to a possible application to the 
 Court for a modification of its requirement, a resolution was 
 adopted by the Board on December 18, whereby it was referred to 
 a sub-committee to ascertain and report whether it was prac- 
 ticable to obtain such a bond, and, if it were deemed impracticable, 
 to ascertain and report what security in money, bonds or other- 
 wise, could probably be obtained from responsible bidders. 
 
 * One member of the Court dissented, being of the opinion that the consent of the 
 Court should be absolutely refused. (See opinions reported in Matter of Rapid Transit 
 Gomm., 23 App. Div. 472). 
 
DELAYS ARISING FROM CONSOLIDATIOlSr. 
 
 With the opening of the year 1898, Eobert A. Van Wyck, 
 who had been elected as Mayor, and Bird S. Coler, who had 
 been elected as Comptroller, became ex-ofjicio members of the 
 Board in place of Messrs. Strong and Fitch, whose respective terms 
 as Mayor and Comptroller had expired, and the Board found it- 
 self confronted with the very serious questions affecting the finan- 
 cial condition of the City to which the enactment of the Greater 
 New York Charter, which took effect on January 1, had given 
 rise. 
 
 The financial condition of the City of New York as it existed 
 prior to the new charter had been exceedingly strong. Although 
 the assessed value of the real estate within its borders had been 
 moderate, compared with its actual value, the bonded debt was 
 well within the ten per cent.- limit imposed by the Constitution, 
 and was so rapidly reduced through the operation of the sinking 
 fund that there could be no doubt of the capacity of the City 
 to issue such bonds as might be needed for the construction of 
 the Rapid Transit Railroad, and for other 'needful purposes, with- 
 out any abnormal increase in the assessed value of its property. 
 The situation of the outlying territories, which were then con- 
 solidated with the old city was, however, widely different. Not 
 only was their real estate generally assessed at a much higher 
 relative value than the real estate in the former City of New 
 York, but their percentage of indebtedness to such assessed valua- 
 tion, was also much greater. One immediate effect of the enact- 
 ment of the new charter, which compelled the City to assume the 
 aggregate indebtedness of all of the territory which it consoli- 
 dated, was, therefore, to reduce the debt incurring capacity of the 
 new City to a very narrow limit. 
 
 This difficulty proved to be but temporary, since the enormous 
 increase in the assessed valuations of property within the County 
 of New York which was shortly made in order to equalize its 
 value with the assessed valuations in other portions of the City, 
 coupled with the redemption of the usual amount of outstanding 
 
 40 
 
Delays incident to Consolidation. 41 
 
 securities, soon resulted in giving such a margin as would amply 
 suffice for the construction of the Rapid Transit Railroad with- 
 out trenching upon the ten per cent, limitation. But for the 
 time being, and during the period immediately following the 
 taking efiEect of the Charter, the exact financial condition of the 
 City was a matter of so much uncertainty as to give some plausible 
 ground for the opinion that the City could not afford to construct 
 the railroad and that the entire project ought to be abandoned. 
 Mayor Van Wyck, in his first message to the Municipal Assembly, 
 in January 1, 1898, expressed a strong opinion that no solution of 
 the rapid transit problem could be worked out through the expendi- 
 ture of the City's money, and suggested that relief must be obtained 
 by an extension of the facilities of the elevated railroads. 
 
 Still another, and very serious effect, of consolidation, was a 
 tendency to array the influence of Kings and Richmond Counties, 
 and of the annexed portion of Queens County, against the scheme. 
 These portions of the enlarged City could derive no immediate 
 or direct advantage from 'the construction of a railroad within the 
 County of New York, and they were, therefore, naturally opposed 
 to the use of the City's credit for that purpose. 
 
 The lapse of time, a more thorough understanding of the plans 
 of the Board and the warm support which has at all times been 
 accorded to the Board by the public and the press, have since re- 
 sulted in the removal of these obstacles, and in the successful 
 commencement of the work. But it is, nevertheless, true that for 
 a considerable period following the first of January, 1898, the 
 plans of the Board seemed destined to defeat or to indefinite post- 
 ponement. 
 
 The first tangible results of the conditions above referred to 
 were -firsi, that the officers of the Manhattan Railway Company 
 made public proclamation that it was their intention to enlarge 
 their system of elevated railways as soon as they could obtain per- 
 mission from the Board, or from the Legislature, to do so, and 
 second,, that the Metropolitan Street Railway Company notified 
 the Board, on January 12, 1898, that, as matters then stoad, they 
 could not be expected to compete for the contract to construct and 
 operate the Rapid Transit Railway. 
 
THE SECURITr EEQUIEED BY THE COUET. 
 
 At this juncture a report (dated January 13, 1898) was made 
 by the sub-committee theretofore appointed by the Board to con- 
 sider what security it was practicable to obtain from bidders for 
 the contract, which clearly exhibits the situation as it then existed. 
 The following are extracts from this report: 
 
 No. 256 Broadway, New York City. 
 
 ISth January, 1898. 
 
 To the Board of Eapid Transit Eaileoad Commissioners : 
 
 By resolution of the Board, adopted on the 18th of December, 1897, 
 it was reiferred to this committee to ascertain and report whether it 
 would be practicable to obtain, under section 34 of the Eapid Transit 
 Act, the bond suggested in the opinion of the Appellate Division, de- 
 livered on December 17, 1897, and, if it were deemed impracticable 
 by the committee, then that the committee report what security in 
 money, bonds or otherwise could be obtained, in its opinion, from re- 
 sponsible bidders. 
 
 Tour committee respectfully report that they have diligently ex- 
 amined the questions submitted to them; that they have conferred 
 with representatives and counsel of corporations and individuals pro- 
 posing to bid for the contract for the construction and operation of 
 the rapid transit road and with the representatives of the principal 
 companies authorized by law to become the sureties on bonds, and 
 that they have also considered the general business conditions which 
 must affect the questions of security. 
 
 Your committee has somewhat delayed its report in order to hear 
 more explicitly from the Metropolitan- Street Eailway Company. 
 Two weeks after the decision of the Appellate Division and the ap- 
 pointment of the committee, and when the committee was substan- 
 tially ready to report, responsible representatives of the Metropoli- 
 tan Company announced that it had taken up the matter of the pro- 
 posed contract for construction and operation with a definite expec- 
 tation that, when the Board should advertise for proposals, their com- 
 pany would submit an offer to enter into the contract, but they de- 
 sired further time for examination before expressing their views on 
 the question of security. Tour committee felt bound to give the 
 
 42 
 
The $15,000,000 Bond. The Metropolitan Company. 43 
 
 Metropolitan Company the same opportunity which it had given other 
 proposing bidders with whom the committee had conferred. Tester- 
 day the President of the Board, who is chairman of this committee, 
 received from the President of the Metropolitan Company the letter 
 which will be read to the Board when this report is presented. This 
 letter removes the Metropolitan Company from competition for the 
 contract until it shall be determined to what extent, if any, the rapid 
 transit problem is to be solved by the action of the Manhattan Eail- 
 way Company. So long as such solution by- the Elevated Eailway 
 Company, or the terms of such solution, remain in doubt, it is the 
 opinion of your committee that not only the Metropolitan Company, 
 but other responsible bidders, will hesitate to make proposals for the 
 contract to construct and operate the rapid transit road which has 
 been approved by your Board and by all the local authorities, and con- 
 ditionally approved by the Court. 
 
 If, therefore, the Appellate Division shall enter an order approv- 
 ing the routes and plan of construction now proposed, this commit- 
 tee assumes that the Board will not, and respectfully recommends 
 that the Board shall not, advertise for bids until the Board shall know 
 the extent to which the Elevated Railway Company proposes to meet 
 what the Appellate Division well calls the "imperious necessity of 
 improved means of rapid transit." It will clearly be difB.cult while 
 that form of solution of the problem is under serious but incomplete 
 consideration by the Board or other local authorities, to make any 
 proper contract for the construction of a railroad upon the routes and 
 plan recently approved by the Court. In the opinion of the commit- 
 tee, therefore, the determination of the amount of the bond under 
 section 34 ought, if possible, to await the result of the present sug- 
 gestion of solving the rapid transit problem by additional facilities 
 upon the existing elevated railroad system and by extensions of that 
 system. 
 
 The Board has thus far proceeded upon the assumption that it had 
 no power to compel the Elevated Eailway Company or any other rail- 
 road company operating within the City to extend its lines or to give 
 to the public facilities not required by its present charter. To malce 
 sure, however, the committee has asked the counsel of the Board for 
 an opinion upon the subject. They have replied that the Board has 
 no such coercive power whatever; that, so far as they have been able 
 to ascertain, no authority of the city has any such power; and that 
 it is extremely doubtful whether there be constitutional power by 
 new legislation to compel an existing corporation against its will to 
 
44 The $ IS, 000,000 Bond. The Manhattan Company. 
 
 invest its funds in extension of its railway or to accept and use a 
 new railroad franchise. The sole power of the Board under the pres- 
 ent law, with respect to existing companies, is that provided by sec- 
 tion 32, and is limited to action upon such applications as such 
 companies may make of ihsa own volition. They have the power to 
 make such application when they please and subject to such terms 
 and conditions as they please. The prerogative of the Board is to 
 grant or to reject any such application. The Board may, however, in- 
 vite an application, and, in the present situation, your committee is 
 of opinion that an invitation should be extended. 
 
 A brief review of the proceedings of this Board will make clearer 
 the views of the committee. 
 
 The Board was first constituted in 1891 to secure additional rapid 
 transit facilities through private capital. The Elevated Railroad 
 Company thereupon asked it for an extensive grant of street fran- 
 chises. Your predecessors at once entertained the application, and 
 were willing to grant a lai'ge part of the franchises asked, for an an- 
 nual payment to the City, and upon an assurance that the company 
 would within a reasonable time actually provide certain additional 
 facilities. In view of the exclusive and enormously valuable char- 
 acter of the franchises then belonging to and used by the Elevated 
 Railroad Company which had been freely granted to it in perpetuity, 
 and in view of the certainty that the further exclusive franchises 
 which the Board was willing to grant must be or become of great 
 value (as it is now seen beyond a doubt that they would before this 
 have become) the committee regrets that a reasonable annual pay- 
 ment and reasonable conditions should not then have been agreed 
 upon. The Elevated Railroad Company declined further to press its 
 applications or propose any solution of the problem until several years 
 afterward, when the City had determined upon municipal construc- 
 tion, and this Board had begun to devise the present plan. 
 
 In November, 1894, the people of the City, having thus far failed 
 to secure rapid transit with private capital, voted for municipal con- 
 struction. The present Board came into existence; and on 9th May, 
 1895, proposed routes and plans of a rapid transit railroad. These 
 plans received the approval of all the local authorities, and, after pro- 
 longed litigations, the unanimous approval of the Ooromission ap- 
 pointed by the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court. Those 
 litigations involved the jurisdiction of the Court and the constitu- 
 'tionality of the Rapid Transit Act, on both of which questions the 
 view of the Board was sustained by the Court of Appeals. In May, 
 
The $13,000,000 Bond. The Manhattan Company. 45 
 
 1896, the Appellate Division refused to confirm the report of its Com- 
 missioners. 
 
 After the approval by the local authorities and before the action 
 of the Appellate Division, the suggestion was officially made that the 
 Board grant to the Elevated Railway Company certain additional 
 facilities. This request was, on 29th October, 1895, incorporated in 
 a resolution of the Board of Aldermen, which was officially trans- 
 mitted to this Board. Thereupon this Board adopted and published 
 a resolution declaring that, although it was heartily in favor of such 
 action as would increase transit facilities, no application had been 
 made to it by the Elevated Railway Company for additional privileges 
 or franchises, and that, in the absence of such application, the Board 
 was without authority to grant them. It was then generally under- 
 stood that the Elevated Railway Company would make some appli- 
 cation, but none was received from that company until 11th June, 
 1896 (about eight months later), when it presented a further applica- 
 ■ tion. At that time the Board was engaged upon another plan of 
 municipal construction intended to meet the objections of the Appel- 
 late Division, but it suspended consideration of this subject in order 
 to deal with the new application, in the hope that relief might be 
 obtained from the Elevated Railway Company. Interviews were had 
 between its officers and the Board. On 15th July, 1896, the company, 
 in writing, presented a modified application. On 6th August, 1896, 
 the President of this Board addressed its reply to the President of the 
 Elevated Railway Company. 
 
 The application of the Elevated Railway Company was expressly 
 conditioned upon its receiving immunity from claims for damages; 
 it asked for grants of street surf ace ' franchises ; it asked for fran- 
 chises including 30 miles of new route besides additional facilities 
 upon existing routes, but did not pledge the company to any actual 
 extension of its system or other relief within any given period of 
 time, and it made no offer of any rental. The answer of the Board 
 pointed out that the application was not in a form which permitted 
 definite acceptance; that the Board had no power under the law to 
 assure to a private corporation building an elevated railroad im- 
 munity from damages; that under, the statute rental must be paid 
 on extensions ; and that the Board was expressly forbidden by the stat- 
 ute to grant any right to construct a railroad on the surface of a 
 street. It was further pointed out that the granting of any applica- 
 tion not limited in time would be, in substance, to .give an option to 
 the Elevated Railway Company to extend or improve its system 
 
46 The $15,000,000 Bond. The Manhattan Company. 
 
 whenever it should become ready to do so, without imposing upon it any- 
 corresponding obligation, thus suspending meantime the practical 
 possibility of relief from any other quarter. 
 
 The Board concluded its communication by expressing the hope 
 that the Elevated Railroad Company, in view of the exceptional 
 privileges which it had received from the City, and the exceptional 
 advantages which it then enjoyed for the extension of rapid transit 
 facilities, would promptly amend its application so that the Board 
 could lawfully deal with it; and the Board promised that, upon re- 
 ceiving such an application, it would reach a determination upon it 
 without delay. 
 
 To this communication, made nearly eighteen months ago, no an- 
 swer has been received. 
 
 The second plan of municipal rapid transit was proposed by the 
 Board on 14th January, 1897. It was approved by the municipal 
 authorities on and prior to 12th April, 1897. It was promptly pre- 
 sented to the property-owners. And on the earliest date possible- 
 in the conduct of business involving so much and such troublesome 
 detail, it was presented to the Appellate Division, which, in July, 1897, 
 appointed a second Supreme Court Commission. The Commission 
 sat during August, September and October last, and in November 
 unanimously approved the plan. Their report was promptly pre- 
 sented to the Appellate Division, which, on 17th December last, ap- 
 proved the routes and plan, but as a condition of entering an order 
 to that effect required the stipulation as to security referred to in the 
 resolution appointing this committee. 
 
 After the qualified approval of the Appellate Division and while 
 this committee was examining the question of security, it was pub- 
 licly and responsibly stated that the Elevated Railway Company was 
 now ready to make a further application to the Board. Tour com- 
 mittee is of the opinion that, in view of the inevitable practical re- 
 sult of the pending probability of such an application, the Board 
 ought to request the Elevated Railway Company to make such appli- 
 cation promptly. The Board will doubtless be ready now — as it has 
 always been ready— to go as far, upon reasonable assurance of prompt 
 action on the part of the company, as the interests of the City will 
 permit, towards enabling the company to add such facilities and ex- 
 tensions as will relieve the needs of the City. 
 
 Meantime your committee recommends that the Board ask the 
 Appellate Division to enter its order of approval without requiring a 
 stipulation as to security, or if not, then to postpone the entry of 
 
The $ IS, 000,000 Bond. 47 
 
 the order until the determination of the Elevated Eailroad Company 
 shall be known and the situation as to security shall be better appre- 
 hended. If, however, the Court shall require the stipulation and re- 
 quire it now, then the Board should ask that the amount of security 
 be reduced to such an amount as while preventing irresponsible bids, 
 shall not be prohibitive or prevent competition. Your committee 
 recommends that the Board, by petition, respectfully and frankly 
 submit to the Court the considerations bearing upon this subject 
 which are hereinafter set forth. In the judgment of the committee, 
 they may properly be addressed to the Court, even after the delivery 
 of its opinion, for the reason that the question of the proposed stipu- 
 lation or the amount of security which the Board should require was 
 never submitted to the Court or dealt with or discussed by counsel 
 on either side. Your committee believes, therefore, that the Court 
 will not fail to entertain with open mind the considerations which 
 the Board may present. 
 
 1. The opinion of the Court is to the efEect that an order confirm- 
 ing the report of the Supreme Commissioners will be entered only 
 upon the filing of a stipulation by this Board "that the penalty of 
 the bond specified in section 34 of the Rapid Transit Act will be 
 fixed at not less than fifteen millions of dollars.'' 
 
 The statutory provisions referred to, relative to the bond are as 
 follows : 
 
 "The person, firm or corporation so contracting for the construc- 
 tion, equipment, maintenance and operation of said road, shall give a 
 bond to said City, in such amount as said Board of Rapid Transit 
 Railroad Commissioners shall require, and with sureties to be ap- 
 proved by the said Board, who shall justify in the aggregate in double 
 the amount of said bond. Said bond shall be a continuing security, 
 and shall provide for the prompt payment by said contracting person, 
 firm or corporation, of the amount of annual rental specified in the 
 aforesaid contract, and also for the faithful performance by said 
 contracting person, firm or corporation, of all the conditions, cove- 
 nants and requirements specified and provided for in said contract." 
 
 The statute under which the Board exists has thus devolved upon 
 it the determination of certain business and administrative questions. 
 Your committee suggests that the Board instruct its counsel to re- 
 quest the Court to consider whether the Board has any right by stipu- 
 lation to bind itself or its successors as to the future exercise of its 
 discretionary power as to the amount of security, and thus surren- 
 
48 The $15,000,000 Bond. 
 
 der a discretion vested in it for the public welfare. The powers of 
 the Board are purely statutory; its members can act, not as indi- 
 viduals, but in their official capacity, the limits of their powers being 
 strictly prescribed by law. What security ought to be required de- 
 pends upon the conditions which shall exist at the time the contract 
 shall be advertised. The statute leaves the determination of the 
 amount of the bond as a matter of business discretion to the Board 
 and to it alone. The understanding of this committee is that a pub- 
 lic officer having a power like this may not rightly enter into a con- 
 tract or stipulation as to its future exercise, except in the manner 
 and at the time prescribed by law. 
 
 2. It is not possible for the Board, until it shall have power to 
 propose a contract, to reach a definite conclusion as to what amount 
 of bond ought to be exacted from the successful bidder under section 
 34 of the act. The terms of the contract are not yet fixed, and upon 
 them much will dep^d. The length of the lease to be offered, the 
 character of the requirements for operation, and the probable value 
 of the equipment to be supplied by the contractor are all elements 
 to be taken into consideration. The financial conditions likely to 
 exist while the work is in progress, affecting the rate of interest pay- 
 able on the City's bonds, will determine the minimum rental; and 
 many other conditions must also be taken into account, none of which 
 can be accurately known before the time when the contract is to be 
 advertised. 
 
 3. If a bond for $15,000,000 be required in the technical form pre- 
 scribed by section 34, the requirement will, in the opinion of your 
 committee, operate as a substantial prohibition of the enterprise. 
 
 In the opinion of your committee, it was not the intention of the 
 people of the City, or of the Legislature, that the Board should at- 
 tempt the impossibility of eliminating all risk to the City in carry- 
 ing out the rapid transit plan. Any future construction involving 
 expenditure of money inevitably involves risk. Municipal construc- 
 tion was not justified, and could not, under the constitution, be justi- 
 fied for the purpose of making money. Its constitutional justification 
 lay in the great public necessity of the City. No doubt the City 
 ought to be exposed to as little risk as is practically compatible with 
 accomplishing the purposes of the people in voting for municipal 
 construction. But it is to be remembered that the rental to be paid 
 is the full amount of the interest which the City is to pay upon its 
 
The $1^,000,000 Bond. 49 
 
 bonds, and that, in addition, there is to be paid at least one per 
 cent, per annum, *ith a conditional deduction for the first five or 
 ten years. This minimum one per cent, is in effect a sinking fund, 
 the result of which will ultimately be to give without expense to the 
 City the rapid transit road completely constructed, the entire out- 
 lay, as well for principal as for interest, being met by the rental pay- 
 able by the contractor. 
 
 Your committee, therefore, suggests that the Court be requested 
 to limit its requirement to a bond for construction and equipment, 
 leaving it to the Board to fix the amount of the bond necessary to 
 protect the City in regard to payment of rental and satisfactory 
 operation of the road. Such a bond would have but a comparatively 
 short time, perhaps four or five years, to run. If it were not re- 
 quired to be joint and several it could be given by sureties, each 
 taking a portion of the liability. This bond would, of course, not be 
 the bond required by section 34, which, under the statute, must be 
 joint and several, and must run during the whole period of the lease. 
 In addition to the bond thus required by the Court the Board would, 
 of course, require another bond for a substantial amount strictly in 
 accord with the statute. 
 
 The conclusions of your committee may therefore be summarized 
 as follows: 
 
 The public announcement of an intention on the part of the 
 Elevated Railway Company to apply for additional facilities, or for 
 extensions of its existing routes, operates to deter responsible bid- 
 ders from undertaking the construction and operating of the rapid 
 transit road laid out by this Board. No advertisement for bids should 
 be begun until the Board is advised of the manner in which and the 
 extent to which the Elevated Railway Company proposes to solve the 
 rapid transit problem. In view of these facts, and of the fact that 
 there are no means of compelling any corporation to accept or use a 
 new franchise against its will, the Elevated Railway Company should 
 be requested to submit promptly its application for such new pow- 
 ers as it may desire to use. Until action is had upon such applica- 
 tion, the Supreme Court should be requested either to approve un- 
 conditionally the plans heretofore submitted, or to suspend action 
 until all the facts are better apprehended. 
 
50 The $15,000,000 Bond. 
 
 If, however, the Court shall require a stipulation as to security 
 now, the following considerations may be urged. In the first place, 
 it may well be contended that this Board, as a public body, have no 
 right to enter into any contract as to the future exercise of their 
 powers. Even if the Board can with propriety give a stipulation 
 as to their future action, the facts upon which to form a sound busi- 
 ness judgment as to the amount of security to be exacted are as yet 
 not fully known — ^particularly as the form of contract to be pro- 
 posed to bidders cannot be settled in advance of the formal consent 
 of the Court. In any case, a joint and several bond for $15,000,000 
 running for the whole term of the lease, and on which the sureties 
 must justify in $30,000,000, is practically prohibitive, because satis- 
 factory sureties could probably not be found. Even if found, the 
 expense and difficulty of obtaining such security would operate to 
 limit competition and tend to make the cost of construction larger 
 than it need be, and without any compensating advantages. The 
 City ought to be exposed to as little risk of loss as is compatible 
 with accomplishing the purposes of the people in voting for municipal 
 construction of a rapid transit road; but some risk is unavoidable. 
 The attempt to exact too large a bond, continuing long after the 
 road is finished, would only result in defeating the whole scheme 
 of municipal construction and ownership. It is believed that such 
 a result would be contrary to the intention of the Court and it would 
 appear that the Court, in. considering the amount of the bond to be 
 given, had chiefly in mind the construction and equipment of the 
 road. If the Court will consent to limit its requirement to security 
 for construction — leaving it to the Board to fix the amount of the 
 continuing bond — and will permit the giving of several bonds, such 
 additional security for a very large amount could be obtained. But 
 even for construction alone, a bond for fifty per cent, of the esti- 
 mated cost of the work would be unnecessary — especially in view of 
 the requirement of a cash deposit of $1,000,000 and the proposed re- 
 tention of a large percentage of the cost, of the work until the road 
 is fully constructed and equipped — and it is also contrary to the 
 practice prevailing in all City or Government work. 
 
 As to the maximum amount of security that can be exacted, your 
 committee, at this time, can only speak with the greatest reserve. 
 
 A cash deposit of $1,000,000; a retention of not less than ten per 
 cent, from the cost of the work until completion; several bonds to 
 secure construction and equipment, amounting in all to not more 
 than $7,500,000, or 25 per cent, of the cost of construction; and a 
 
Supreme Court asked to waive $1^,000,000 Bond. 51 
 
 continuing bond for sucii an amount as, with the City's lien on equip- 
 ment, would be equal to seven years' rental; such seem to be the 
 very highest terms now obtainable. 
 All of which is respectfully submitted. 
 
 A. E. Orr, "I 
 
 Ohas. Stewart Smith, W Committee. 
 
 G. L. EivES, J 
 
 Upon the presentation of the foregoing report a resolution 
 was at once adopted by the Board (on January 17, 1898), in- 
 structing its Counsel to apply to the Appellate Division for a mod- 
 ification of the condition imposed by it, and inviting the Man- 
 hattan Eailway Company to apply to the Board for such enlarge- 
 ment of its existing franchises as might be desired by that corpora- 
 tion. 
 
 The application to the Appellate Division for the modification 
 of the terms imposed by it was granted somewhat later, to this 
 extent, namely, that although the Court insisted that the Board 
 must exact a bond of $15,000,000, it consented that the liability 
 of the sureties as to $14,000,000 thereof should terminate when 
 the railroad should have been constructed and equipped pursuant 
 to the terms of the contract, and that the permanent liability 
 upon the bond (that is, the liability for the due payment of the 
 rent during the entire term of the lease) might be limited to 
 $1,000,000. {Matter of Rapid Transit Railroad Commissioners, 
 26 App. Div. 608); As thus modified, the condition imposed, al- 
 though still severe and tending to restrict competition in a man- 
 ner which the Board deemed disadvantageous to the City, was not 
 necessarily prohibitory, and the Board accordingly entered into 
 the stipulation required by the Court. 
 
 NEGOTIATIONS V7ITH THE MANHATTAN" EAILWAT CO. 
 
 The invitation to the Manhattan Eailway Company was followed 
 (on February 3, 1898) by the filing of a formal application on the 
 part of that Company, and, after numerous conferences with the 
 representatives of that Company, the entire question was referred, 
 for consideration, to a sub-committee of the Board, which, on 
 
53 Manhattan RailwaylCompany. 
 
 March 17, 1898, made a report, from which the following extracts 
 are taken: 
 
 The Committee on Contract respectfully report that, pursuant to 
 the resolution adopted by the Board on 3d Tebruary, it has conferred 
 with Messrs. Gould, Sage, Galloway and Hartley, representing the 
 Manhattan Eailway Company, and has with the assistance of Mr. 
 Parsons, the Chief Engineer, carefully and in detail considered the 
 application of that Company dated 3d January, 1898. 
 
 The principal cause of delay has been the entire lack of precision 
 in the application of the Manhattan Company, even as enlarged by 
 their verbal discussions with us at our first conference. It became 
 apparent that before there could be any proper considerations of 
 the terms of a grant to them, it would be necessary to know with 
 more accuracy what was to be granted. It was therefore agreed that 
 the engineers of this Board and of the Manhattan Company should 
 enquire into the problem from an engineering point of view. After 
 this inquiry had been had and after many conferences between the 
 engineers, Mr. Parsons, as long ago as the second of March, under 
 our instructions submitted to the engineer of the Manhattan Rail- 
 way Company a formal written statement of the extensions and im- 
 provements which he was prepared to recommend, and inviting criti- 
 cisms thereon. After waiting a fortnight — a period which, in our 
 opinion, was under the circumstances ample to enable the Manhat- 
 tan Company to make its criticisms, and none having been received 
 — we invited a conference. Such conference was held yesterday. 
 At this conference we submitted to the Manhattan representatives 
 a summary of the franchises hereinafter reported. These were in 
 accordance with the communication of our Chief Engineer of the 
 2d instant. The representatives of the Manhattan Company stated 
 that they considered our plan to be as good as could be suggested 
 from an engineering point of view, but that they were quite unable 
 to say whether they regarded it as within their financial ability to 
 carry out. They had not had the details elaborated and had no 
 estimates of cost. Nor were they able, although we had some weeks 
 before asked them to give particular attention to the subject, to 
 make any suggestions in regard to the rental to be paid the City for 
 the additional use of the streets proposed. They asked still further 
 time for investigation and consideration. 
 
 In our opinion, no useful purpose will be served by further de- 
 lay on the part of this Committee or of the Board. The problem 
 presses for solution, and the facts are perfectly well known. They 
 
Powers of Board to grant Franchises to existing Companies. 53 
 
 have been for years under the minute consideration both of this 
 Board and of the Manhattan Company. The Board had long de- 
 sired from the Manhattan Company an application which would 
 enable the Board to act. When finally the Manhattan Company, 
 on 31st January last (seven weeks ago), submitted such an applica- 
 tion, we felt bound to assume that they had carefully considered 
 their own ability to do the things which they asked leave to do and 
 all other elements of the problem. Moreover, every day is adding 
 to the difficulties of the situation. So long as the Manhattan appli- 
 cation is pending, the consideration of other plans looking to a solu- 
 tion of the rapid transit problem is necessarily deferred. The prep- 
 aration of the certificates, with their necessary detail, will occupy 
 a little time. And during that time and before the final action of 
 the Board, the Manhattan Company can properly have opportunity 
 to make further suggestions. 
 
 A brief reference to the legal powers of the Board may be con- 
 venient. By section 32 of the Rapid Transit Act, the Board, upon 
 application of any railway corporation operating within the City 
 limits, may fix and determine the rou.te or routes by which such 
 corporation "may connect with other steam railways, or the stations 
 thereof, or with steam ferries, or may extend its lines within said 
 city; and may authorize any such railway company to lay an ad- 
 ditional track or tracks . . . and to acquire terminal or other 
 facilities necessary for the accommodation of the traveling public 
 on any street or place, except the place now known as Battery Park, 
 on which said railway may be located." This Board must also fa. 
 
 (1) the location of the railways and the new tracks and facilities; 
 
 (2) the plans of construction; (3) the times within which they shall 
 be respectively constructed; (4) the compensation to be made there- 
 for to the city; (5) such other terms, conditions and requirements 
 as to the Board shall appear just and proper. The amount of the 
 annual license fee or rental must be readjusted at intervals of not 
 more than thirty-five years. A certificate must be prepared by the 
 Board setting forth in detail the action taken, which is to be de- 
 livered to the railway corporation making the application upon re- 
 ceipt of its written acceptance of the terms, conditions and require- 
 ments proposed. Such certificate, when accepted by the railway, 
 operates as a grant of new franchise and constitutes a contract 
 between the City and the railway corporation, enforceable by the 
 Rapid Transit Board in the name of the City by suit for specific 
 performance or otherwise. 
 
54 Manhattan Railway Company. 
 
 We liave accordingly prepared and herewith submit a statement 
 showing in general what new routes, tracks, and facilities, should, 
 in our judgment, be granted; and also the location, plans and con- 
 struction, time of construction and compensation to the City, with 
 tiucli "other terms, conditions and requirements" as seem proper. 
 It will be seen that we have advised granting in substance almost 
 everything now applied for, but with modifications to secure the 
 right of the City to speedy relief. 
 
 ******* 
 
 In our opinion, the northerly extensions of the west side elevated 
 systems will not materially increase existing rapid transit facilities 
 unless they shall be preceded by a construction of additional tracks 
 to the south of them. Such extensions would add local conveniences 
 to the new territory reached at the north; but, as the existing ele- 
 vated system has, for the busy hours of the day, in the morning and 
 evening, reached its maximum carrying capacity along the lower 
 portions of both the east and west side lines, the result of the north- 
 erly extensions would have little, if any, other effect than to enable 
 the population at a greater distance to the north to enjoy rapid tran- 
 sit facilities, while probably excluding from those facilities a corres- 
 ponding population at the south. In our opinion, therefore, the 
 Manhattan Company will not find it to be to its pecuniary interest 
 to construct such extensions until it shall have provided the addi- 
 tional facilities to carry the increased traffic downtown. The Com- 
 pany would otherwise accomplish no more than to carry substantially 
 the same number of passengers at a materially greater cost. Eor 
 these reasons we propose that the franchise for extension shall not 
 be dependent upon the acceptance by the company of the franchises 
 for additional facilities. 
 
 We cannot too strongly emphasize our conviction that any radical 
 improvement of the existing transit situation of the Manhattan 
 Company depends absolutely upon their providing additional facili- 
 ties on the southern portion of the existing elevated railroad system. 
 Of these the most urgent is the improvement of the Third Avenue 
 road. We propose the remodeling of the City Hall station, the build- 
 ing of four tracks from the City Hall to Fifth Street (near Cooper 
 Union), the completion of the third track (already laid part of the 
 way), from Fifth Street to the Harlem Eiver, and very improved 
 terminals at the Harlem Eiver. The adoption of these suggestions 
 would permit the running of numerous express trains, thus reliev- 
 ing overcrowding and greatly shortening the time to One Hundred 
 
Manhattan Railway Company. 55 
 
 and Twenty-nintli Street. A far more efEeetive method of relief 
 would be to build a four track road all tlie way to the Harlem Eiver, 
 which would ' nearly double the carrying capacity of the present 
 structure; and this we should have recommended if we had had the 
 slightest reason to believe it would be accepted by the Manhattan 
 Company. 
 
 If the Manhattan Company shall accept the seven franchises thus 
 proposed and carry them out according to their terms, the rapid transit 
 facilities of the city will be materially improved. The rapid transit 
 problem, however, will not be solved. On the contrary, it is our 
 belief that before the periods described in the franc];iises shall have 
 expired, the necessity will be even clearer than it is now for an ad- 
 ditional rapid transit system having the enormous advantages inci' 
 dental to a system carried through tunnels constructed in the im- 
 proved modern method. This will, in our opinion, be the case, not- 
 withstanding the increase of the capacity and. traffic of the Man- 
 hattan system. If the Manhattan Company shall exercise all the 
 franchises now proposed to be tendered it, it will be able to carry a 
 very much larger number of passengers and to carry the passengers 
 at a materially increased rate of speed. And as our proposition is that 
 the Manhattan Company shall be permitted to take any or more or 
 all of the franchises, the company is enabled, if it does not see its 
 way to undertake all of these obligations, still to undertake such of 
 them as shall give material relief. If the Manhattan Company shall, 
 pursuant to the statute, accept all the certificates tendered by the 
 Rapid Transit Board, the City and the public will have assurance 
 of a reasonably prompt and material improvement of its transit facil- 
 ities. 
 
 A. E. Orr. 
 
 Jsro. H. Starin. 
 
 G. L. EiVES. 
 
 The foregoing report was approved by the Board on March 17, 
 and seven "franchises" were prepared, conformably to its recom- 
 mendations, which were formally tendered to the Manhattan Rail- 
 way Company pursuant to a formal resolution to that effect 
 adopted by the Board on April 7, 1898. These franchises were not, 
 however, accepted by that corporation. 
 
56 Appeal in i8gg to the Legislature. 
 
 Prior to this time the Board had had conferences with persons 
 ol; influence in railroad transportation within ISTew York in the 
 hope of interesting them in the rapid transit construction. Such 
 iDterviews were had with the late Cornelius Vanderbilt, with 
 Chauncey M. Depew, President of the New York Central & Hud- 
 son Kiver Eailroad Company, and with the late Charles P. Clark, 
 President of the New York, New Haven & Hartford Eailroad 
 Company. The Board presented to those gentlemen the advan- 
 tages which it then believed belonged to the rapid transit plan, and 
 which experience has since demonstrated did in fact so belong, and 
 urged the value of co-operation with the Board. The Board was, 
 however, unable to convince them. Later, like conferences were 
 had with William C. Whitney and others representing the Metro- 
 politan Street Eailway interest, and also with other capitalists repre- 
 senting other large railroad interests. But until the actual letting 
 of the rapid transit contract in January, 1900, the Board was un- 
 able to satisfy any responsible person in control of railroad inter- 
 ests within the City of New York that they could undertake the 
 rapid transit contract with any fair chance of profit. 
 
 APPEAL TO THE LBGISLATDEE. 
 
 On July 1, 1897, the important and responsible duty of pre- 
 puring the contract for the construction and operation of the 
 proposed railroad had been committed to a sub-committee of the 
 Board, which had, from time to time, reported the progress 
 of its work, and whose reports had formed the topic of the 
 most careful investigation and consideration. This contract was 
 finally completed to the satisfaction of the Board, on March 
 31, 1898, and, in view of the requirement of the statute 
 that its form must be approved by the Corporation Counsel, it 
 was forwarded to that ofBcer on April 7, 1898, with the request that 
 he would speedily examine it. No attention was, however, paid to 
 this request until the month of September, 1899, and in the mean- 
 time all work on the part of the Board looking to the construc- 
 tion of the railroad was brought thereby to a standstill. 
 
Appeal in i8gg to the Legislature. 57 
 
 The situation, as it existed in the beginning of the year 1899, 
 and the various expedients which had been considered by the 
 Board as afEording possible methods of bringing its labors to a 
 successful conclusion, were most fully explained in a memorial 
 addressed by the Board to the Legislature, in which, after re- 
 ferring to the earlier proceedings of the Board, and to the fact 
 that the Corporation Counsel had omitted to take action upon the 
 form of the contract, the Board said: 
 
 "By the terms of that statute, (the Greater New York Charter), 
 which took effect on the 1st of January, 1898, the new and enlarged 
 city was compelled to assume all the debts of- the counties, cities, 
 towns, villages, school districts and other public corporations within 
 its limits. The total amount of this indebtedness was not then 
 known, and could only be ascertained by means of laborious in- 
 quiry from the records of the ninety-iive different bodies which had 
 theretofore possessed authority to incur debt. Nor can the 
 amount even now be stated with entire precision. In the first 
 place, the validity of some apparent liabilities is in dispute. In 
 the second place, the exact proportion of the debts of the public 
 corporations which were only partly annexed by the Charter, such 
 as the County of Queens and the Town of Hempstead, has not 
 yet been determined by the Supreme Court. In the third place, while 
 the city is unquestionably liable for certain lands taken for park and 
 other purposes where the title has, by operation of law, rested in the 
 City and the buildings thereon have been demolished in order to make 
 way for their improvement for public use, nevertheless, in view of the 
 fact that the reports of the Commissioners appointed by the Courts 
 to assess damages for their taking have not been made, it is possible 
 only to estimate what the City's indebtedness in such cases may be. 
 
 It is, however, the opinion of the Comptroller of The City of New 
 York that on the 1st of January, 1898, the new City of New York 
 was burdened — ^under its Charter — ^with a debt which was not less 
 than thirteen and a half million dollars in excess of ten per cent, 
 of the assessed value of the real estate within the City limits. 
 
 Obviously such a condition of affairs rendered it impossible dur- 
 ing the past year to borrow the money required to construct the 
 municipal railway as contemplated by the Act of Sale of 1894, and 
 the Board of Rapid Transit Railroad Commissioners have been com- 
 pelled to consider attentively what courses are now open to the 
 
58 Rapid Transit Situation in iSpp. 
 
 City of New York to obtain the relief so long and so urgently 
 needed. 
 
 Three courses suggest themselves: 
 
 1. To wait until the borrowing capacity of the City is so enlarged 
 by a reduction of its present debt or by an increase of assessed val- 
 uations of real estate, or by both, as to enable it to borrow the neces- 
 sary funds. 
 
 2. To obtain legislative authority to issue bonds of the County of 
 New York for the construction of the proposed railway. 
 
 3. To obtain legislative authority to offer the franchise for build- 
 ing and operating the proposed railway to private enterprise. 
 
 I. OOKSTRUCTION BY ISSUE OF CITY BONDS. 
 
 If the existing statutes are permitted to remain in force, una- 
 mended, the only means of obtaining adequate and permanent relief 
 lies in the enlargement of the City's capacity to incur debt. 
 
 The last assessed valuation of real estate in The City of New 
 York, as stated by the Department of Taxes and Assessments, was 
 $2,528,533,441. 
 
 The net funded debt of The City of New York on 
 January 1, 1899, as recorded on the books of 
 the Department of Finance was . $244,212,835.97 
 
 There are also: 
 
 Bonds which have been approved as to legality, but 
 
 which have not been presented for registration. 268,049.90 
 
 Bonds not approved as to legality 2,418,406.18 
 
 Proportion of the debt of Queens County claimed in 
 a suit now pending, to be part of the debt of 
 The City of New York 3,862,116.79 
 
 Proportion of the debt of the Town of Hempstead 
 ($470,000 claimed in a suit now pending, to 
 be part of the debt of the City of New York. . 167,550.26 
 
 Total $250,928,950.10 
 
 The amount is only $1,924,394 less than ten per cent, of the as- 
 sessed valuation of real estate in The City of New York. The fact 
 
Rapid Transit Situation in i8gg. 59 
 
 that the net funded debt of the City is so nearly equal to the limita- 
 tion imposed by the Constitution on the extent to which Cities "shall 
 be allowed to become indebted for any purpose or in any manner," 
 renders it unnecessary to discuss the question as to whether, and, if 
 so, to what extent, the remaining liabilities of the City, such as 
 liability for contracts (for which no provision has been made by 
 the sale of bonds), judgments, and liabilities for lands taken in 
 condemnation proceedings constitute indebtedness within the pur- 
 view of the constitutional inhibition. Not only are the figures re- 
 lating to these questions necessarily uncertain for the reasons given 
 above, but any attempt at a statement therefor would involve a prior 
 determination of difficult questions of law, some of which have never 
 been presented to the courts of this State for adjudication. 
 
 On January 9, 1899, however, the Tax Commissioners made public 
 the assessed valuations of real estate for purposes of taxation during 
 the year 1899. These new valuations show an increase of $421,512,- 
 876, ten per cent, of which, or $42,151,287.60, represents the amount 
 by which the City's debt-incurring capacity could be thereby in- 
 creased. These new valuations are still subject to modification, but 
 it is not likely that the aggregate thereof will be materially changed 
 before their final confirmation which will occur on the first Monday 
 in July. In view of the fact that under the most favorable circum- 
 stances the City would not be called upon to issue bonds for rapid 
 transit purposes before July, 1899, the changed financial conditions 
 which these new assessments will create may be regarded, for the 
 purposes of this discussion, as presently existing. 
 
 This statement, however, does not convey the whole truth of the 
 situation. 
 
 On the one hand, the undersigned recognize the fact that, how- 
 ever important the solution of the rapid transit problem may be to 
 the citizens of New York, and especially to the inhabitants of Man- 
 hattan and the Bronx, there exist other claims for public improve- 
 ments throughout the whole City which cannot properly be slighted 
 or delayed. The necessity for new school buildings is urgent. The 
 two eastern Boroughs of Brooklyn and Queens demand the construc- 
 tion of new bridges over the East River to the Borough of Manhat- 
 tan. The improvement of the water front for dock purposes should 
 continue without interruption, and the financial requirements of the 
 water-supply system may be regarded as a constant source of proper 
 and necessary expenditure. 
 
60 Rapid Transit Situation in iSpp. 
 
 On the other hand, the enormous revenues of the sinking funds, 
 tending constantly towards redemption of the City's bonded obliga- 
 tions, enable the City to issue bonds to the amount of about twelve 
 millions of dollars annually without any resulting increase in the 
 net funded debt. In the former City of New York these revenues 
 for many years were sufficient during periods of normal financial 
 activity to offset new issues of bonds, so that the net debt remained 
 practically stationary. Thus, during the five years from January 
 1, 1890, to January 1, 1895, the net funded debt increased only 
 $7,877,935.45, although the new issues of bonds during this period 
 aggregated $53,088,768.44; while during the ten preceding years, from 
 1880 to 1890, the net funded debt actually decreased $7,284,562.60, 
 although the. new issues during that period aggregated $59,226,838. 
 
 The annual cash revenues of the several Sinking Funds of the 
 City of New Tork as now constituted amount to between twelve and 
 thirteen millions of dollars. 
 
 This practically represents the amount of new bonds which the 
 City can issue annually without increasing its net bonded debt. 
 
 To what extent, if at all, will it be necessary for the City to exceed 
 this amount in its annual bond issues in order to provide for neces- 
 sary public improvements other than the construction of the rapid 
 transit road ? 
 
 A hypothetical question of this character is not, of course, sus- 
 ceptible of an exact answer, since opinions might fairly differ as to 
 the relative necessity of certain public improvements. Assuming, 
 however, that during the next three years the bonds issued for school 
 houses, bridges, docks, repaving streets, for the water supply, and 
 for miscellaneous purposes, should not exceed the amount of the 
 sinking fund revenues — i.e., $12,000,000 per annum — it would be pos- 
 sible to provide for additional issues to an amount equal to the 
 estimated cost of the rapid transit road. 
 
 The Comptroller is of the opinion that if it should be found both 
 practicable and expedient to construct this road by the use of the 
 municipal credit the contract or contracts for its construction should 
 be so drawn as not to obligate the City to an issue of bonds exceed- 
 ing ten millions of dollars in any one year, and the Commission 
 is advised that this condition can be provided for without difficulty. 
 
 If, for example, the road could be built, in three years and the 
 contract be let in sections, costing, say, $10,000,000 each, the con- 
 tractor being bound to build the entire line when called upon to do 
 so, and the City having the option of stopping or going on with the 
 
Rapid Transit Situation in iSpp. 61 
 
 work as each section was completed, then the addition to the City's 
 debt wovdd only be $10,000,000 a year, or considerably less than the 
 amount represented by the annual proceeds of the sinking funds 
 available for the redemption of the City debt. 
 
 The uncertainties of this situation are, however, such that the 
 Board of Eapid Transit Railroad Commissioners feel they would be 
 derelict in their duty if they were to rely solely on this possible so- 
 lution. They are clearly of the opinion that it is their duty to ask 
 for some enlargement of their powers, so as to enable them either to 
 take advantage of the improvement in the City's finances, or else, 
 if and when it is desirable to do so, to look to other sources for the 
 capital needed to build a satisfactory and efficient railway. 
 
 II. CONSTRUCTION BY ISSUE OF COUNTY BONDS. 
 
 A prompt method of obtaining the use of the public credit for the 
 construction of a rapid transit railway would be to provide that 
 such railway, when built, should be an asset exclusively of the Coun- 
 ty of New York (that is, of the Boroughs of Manhattan and The 
 Bronx), and that the funds should be raised by issuing bonds of that 
 County. 
 
 The Eapid Transit Board is advised that legislation •authorizing 
 such an issue of bonds would not be obnoxious to any existing pro- 
 visions of the Constitution, and that the debt of the County is far 
 below ten per cent, of the assessed valuation of its real value. 
 
 The proposition to issue County Bonds has been supported upon 
 the ground that it maintains in its integrity the essential portion of 
 the Act of 1894, namely, a scheme of municipal ownership and pri- 
 vate operation. The proposition, if adopted, would effect no change, 
 except in declaring that the railroad should be an asset of the Coun- 
 ty of New York only, and that the funds for building should be 
 raised by the issue of the bonds of that County. As already ex- 
 plained, the obligation thus assumed by the County would be purely 
 technical, and would not involve the levying of any tax or the im- 
 posing of any burden upon the taxpayers of the County, except in 
 the event of a def7ult on the part of the contractor who builds the 
 railroad; because such contractor would be bound to agree to lease 
 the road for a term of years at a rental sufficient to pay not only 
 the interest on the bonds issued by the County, but also to create a 
 sinking fund for payment of the bonds themselves. Moreover, no 
 obligation could be incurred by the County until a corporation was 
 
g2 Rapid Transit Situation in i8pp. 
 
 found willing to enter into this contract and to furnisli such indem- 
 nity as would abundantly insure the County against any possible 
 default. 
 
 The Comptroller of the City of New York, however, is strongly 
 of the opinion that the issue of the County Bonds is undesirable in 
 any event, and his action in signing this memorial is not to be con- 
 strued as committing him in any sense to the arguments hereinbe- 
 fore contained which are favorable to the issue of such bonds. 
 
 III. CONSTRUCTION BY PRIVATE CAPITAL. 
 
 The third solution lies in the possibility of selling a franchise to 
 construct and operate the rapid transit railroad, if the statute per- 
 mitted such a franchise to be offered for sale. The financial condi- 
 tions are now much more favorable to the successful conduct of 
 such an enterprise than they have been at any time heretofore. 
 Moreover, the testimony taken before the two Supreme Court Com- 
 missions, to which reference has been above made, and the striking 
 success of the subway in Boston have removed doubts which for- 
 merly existed in some quarters, both as to the practicability of such 
 a road and as to the possibility of calculating the cost. 
 
 The adoption of a plan for private ownership of a new rapid transit 
 road would, undoubtedly, involve a complete reversal of the policy 
 deliberately adopted little more than five years ago by a practically 
 unanimous vote of the Legislature, and by an overwhelming majority 
 of the voters of the former City of New York, and this ought not to 
 be permitted except under the pressure of the most cogent reasons. 
 
 Moreover, in a work of this magnitude, involving the employment 
 of vast capital, requiring several years to complete, and subjecting 
 the persons who undertake it to some risks of a serious kind, it 
 might be necessary to offer a perpetual franchise. The present City 
 Charter provides (sec. Y3) that: 
 
 "After the approval of this act no franchise or right to use the 
 streets, avenues, parkways or highways of the city shall be granted 
 by the municipal assembly to any person or corporation for a 
 longer period than twenty-five years, but such grant may, at the 
 option of the city, provide for giving to the grantee the right, on a 
 fair revaluation or revaluations, to renewals not exceeding in the 
 aggregate, twenty-five years." 
 
 Here again the attempt to secure construction of a rapid transit 
 railway by private capital might involve a departure from a cherished • 
 
Rapid Transit Situation in i8pp. 63 
 
 principle, adopted upon great consideration. The cities of this 
 State have, in the past, granted franchises for the use of the public 
 streets upon terms which, although apparently adequate at the time 
 of the grants, turned out ultimately to be quite illusory. In The 
 City of New York in particular, such franchises as those for the 
 construction of the elevated railways and for the surface lines on 
 Third and Sixth avenues and Broadway have proved the sources of 
 enormous private gains without corresponding returns to the City. 
 It was, therefore, the purpose of the framers of the new Charter to 
 prohibit utterly the granting of perpetual franchises. 
 
 Quite apart from and in addition to the considerations just men- 
 tioned, is the further consideration that tlie contemplated rapid 
 transit road, wLether built with City money or by private capital, 
 will, at the end of a comparatively short time, become a piece of 
 property whose value it would be difficult to overestimate. It is 
 perfectly safe to say that in the course of fifty years the certain 
 growth of the city's population will so increase the earning capacity 
 of such a road that the value will be far greater than its original 
 cost. The effect of permitting construction by private capital would, 
 therefore, be to surrender to individuals an asset which might be 
 made a valuable addition to the property of the people of the whole 
 city. The former City of New York, in its ownership of markets and 
 docks, exemplifies the wisdom' of pursuing the plan of municipal 
 ownership. In the surrender of its streets to surface and elevated 
 roads, which are now doing a profitable business on a capitalization 
 far greater than their original cost, it exhibits the results of the 
 opposite course of dealing. 
 
 The Rapid Transit Board is, however, of the opinion that the pro- 
 posed underground railway is a work of such peculiar character and 
 of such exceptional value to the City, that a departure from the 
 settled policy of recent legislation might be justified. 
 
 It is plain that such justification can only be found in the event 
 of the public credit proving unavailable. That such will be the case 
 is not as yet entirely certain, for the reasons above pointed out. 
 The Board, therefore, recommend that if power is granted them to 
 sell the franchise to construct the road such power shall be additional 
 to their present powers and not a substitute for them. In this way 
 the Board will be enabled to take advantage of varying condi- 
 tions, as they may arise in the future. If the City authorities shall 
 see their way to keep the debt sufficiently within the constitutional 
 limitation, then the Board will be in a position to authorize munic- 
 
64 Proposals by Metropolitan Street Railway Company. 
 
 ipal construction; and, on the other hand, if municipal construction 
 shall prove to be constitutionally impracticable within any reason- 
 able time, the Board may be enabled to arrange for construction by 
 private capital. 
 
 The Board, therefore, ventures to urge that if the Legislature shall 
 determine, that it is wise to permit a resort to private capital the 
 largest measure of authority and discretion compatible with the pub- 
 lic interest shall be intrusted to the Board in order that it may 
 frame such a franchise as will certainly attract sufficient private 
 capital and arouse competition. And the Board deems it of especial 
 importance, if private enterprise is to be enlisted, that the Board 
 may he authorized, in its discretion, to enter into such a contract 
 with the corporation that shall undertake the work as will exempt 
 it from taxation for some limited period, and will insure it for a 
 period of years at least against the possibility of legislative or mu- 
 nicipal interference." 
 
 PEOPOSALS OF THE METEOPOLITAN STREET RAILWAY CO. 
 
 Almost immediately after the presentation of this memorial 
 to the Legislature^ and before action had been taken upon the 
 bill which had been introduced by the Board for the purpose of 
 obtaining the desired powers, a proposition was received from 
 gentlemen closely identified with the Metropolitan Street Kail- 
 way Company, and who were avowedly acting in its behalf, to the 
 effect that, if the Board would grant a perpetual franchise to a 
 new corporation to be formed by them, they would construct a 
 railroad upon the route and according to the general plans 
 adopted by the Board, and would agree to construct the west-side 
 branch to a point north of Fort George within three years, and the 
 remainder of the proposed railroad within two years after the cor- 
 poration should earn five per cent, upon the actual cost of con- 
 structing the first section. They offered, in case such a franchise 
 should he granted to them, to pay therefor th.e annual sum of 
 five per cent, of the gross receipts, "provided that the grantee 
 shall first receive five per cent, net upon the cost of construction." 
 
 The Board was then, as it always has been, unanimous in the 
 belief that the benefit of owning the railroad should be preserved 
 to the City, if it were possible to obtain rapid transit while still 
 
Proposals by Metropolitan Street Railway Company. 65 
 
 preserving such ownership. But, on the other hand, the necessi- 
 ties of the situation imperatively required that the construction 
 of a rapid transit railroad should be obtained in some way, and 
 the Board believed that if, for any reason, it could not be ob- 
 tained under such a plan as would reserve the ownership to the 
 City, it might perhaps be better to commit the work to a private 
 corporation than that there should be no rapid transit at all. It 
 was also the belief of the Board that, if it could present &s an 
 alternative to the plan of municipal Construction another plan 
 which offered an immediate solution of the difficulty through the 
 medium of a perpetual grant to a private corporation, a clear-cut 
 ■ issue would be presented to the public, and that this would compel 
 the City authorities to come to a decision upon the vital question 
 whether the railroad should be constructed with the City's money 
 and be the City's property, or whether it should be constructed by 
 and belong to a private corporation. The Board hoped that, if 
 it became necessary to embrace the alternative of private owner- 
 ship, it could obtain from the Metropolitan Street Railway Com- 
 pany much more favorable terms than those expressed in its first 
 proposition. 
 
 These considerations induced the unanimous adoption by the 
 Board (on March 29, 1899) of a resolution, proposed by Mayor 
 Van Wyck, to the effect that it was the sense of the Board "that 
 it is in the public interest that in addition to the powers already 
 possessed by the Board, the Legislature should grant to the Board 
 the power to contract for the construction and operation of the 
 Rapid Transit Railroad by private capital." 
 
 The introduction of a bill to confer the power of making a per- 
 petual grant of the franchise to a private corporation, in addition to 
 the powers already possessed by the Board, served, however, to show 
 the strength of the popular sentiment in favor of reserving the own- 
 ership of the railroad by the City. Immediately upon the publica- 
 tion of the terms of the proposed bill, it became manifest that the 
 press, and a large majority of the public, were unalterably op- 
 posed to the grant of a perpetual franchise to the Metropolitan 
 Street Railroad Company, or to any other private corporation. 
 
 But although this agitation ultimately accomplished the defeat 
 pf legislation which, by creating a perfectly plain alternative, 
 
66 Withdrawal of Metropolitan Company Proposal. 
 
 miglit have brought the project of municipal construction ap- 
 preciably nearer to accomplishment, it was unquestionably of great 
 service as constituting an impressive demonstration of the strength 
 of public sentiment which could be arrayed in support of the 
 plans already formed by it. The first and most tangible result, 
 however, of this demonstration of public sentiment, was to lead 
 the gentlemen who had advanced the proposition to withdraw it. 
 In a letter, dated April 17, 1899, they stated, among other things, 
 that the opposition which had developed had created such a situa- 
 tion that "success in the enterprise would be impossible." 
 
 OITY AUTHOKITIBS UEGED TO TAKE ACTION. 
 
 In May, 1899, Mr. Morris K. Jesup was elected as President of 
 the Chamber of Commerce, and thus succeeded Mr. Alexander E. 
 Orr as an ex-oficio member of the Board. But at the first meet- 
 ing of the Board held thereafter (on May 11), Mr. John Clafliu 
 resigned as a member of the Board, and Mr. Orr was immediately 
 re-elected as his successor. At the same meeting Mr. Lewis L. 
 Delafield, who had theretofore served as Secretary of the Board, 
 resigned, and shortly thereafter (on June 1) Mr. Bion L. Burrows 
 was elected as his successor. Mr. Starin, the Vice-President of the 
 Board, acted as its President from May 11 to May 23, 1899, when, 
 upon his motion, Mr. Orr was again elected as President. Since 
 that date there has been no change in the constitution of the 
 Board. 
 
 At the meeting held on May 11, 1899, the counsel of the Board 
 reported that the Mayor had that day declined to accept in behalf 
 of the City the amendments to the Rapid Transit Statutes recently 
 passed by the Legislature. This was the bill introduced by the 
 Commission which had been so changed as to hamper seriously any 
 negotiations which the Board might have determined to under- 
 take with a view to construction of the railroad by private capital. 
 The Legislature by this time had adjourned, and in view of the 
 failure of any legislation, the Board deemed it proper to prepare 
 and make public a statement showing the situation of the Rapid 
 Transit problem. 
 
Efforts of the Board in i^pp. 67 
 
 On the 19th of May, the following communication was accord- 
 ingly addressed to the Mayor: 
 
 Office of the Seoretaby of the 
 Board of Eapid Transit Railroad Commissioners, 
 No. Ill Broadway, New York, May 19, 1899. 
 
 To the Honorable Eobert A. Van Wyck, Mayor: 
 
 Sir: — ^The Board of Eapid Transit Eailroad CoimrLissioners of 
 The City of New York respectfully begs to submit this inquiry con- 
 cerning the extent to which the municipal authorities will feel able 
 to promote construction by the City of the proposed rapid transit 
 road. Its routes extend from the City Hall and Brooklyn Bridge 
 northerly along Centre and Elm Streets and Fourth Avenue to Forty- 
 second Street, thence under Forty-second Street to Broadway, thence 
 under Broadway to One Hundred and Fourth Street, the routes there 
 dividing, one continuing to and along the east side to Bronx Park, 
 and the other continuing under Broadway to Kingsbridge. 
 
 These routes and the plan of construction of the railroad were 
 prescribed by this Board on February 4, 1897. They were approved 
 by the Mayor and Common Council on March 25, 1897 ; by the Park 
 Department on April 12, 1897, and by the Commissioner for the 
 Twenty-third and Twenty-fourth Wards on April 19, 1897. Later, 
 and after prolonged litigation, they were approved by the Appellate 
 Division by its order made on April 6, 1898. The routes and plans 
 have, apart from such official and judicial adoption, received general 
 and practically unanimous approval. In the proposal recently made 
 by the Metropolitan Street Eailway Company they were adopted al- 
 most in their entirety as practically the best routes and plan which, 
 in the judgment of that company, were available, even if construc- 
 tion were to be by private capital. 
 
 The Board, without any delay after securing the necessary ap- 
 provals, prepared the form of contract for construction and leasing 
 of the road in conformity with the rapid transit statute, the vote of 
 the people and the provisions of the order of the Appellate Division. 
 Pursuant to section 13 of the Act of 1894, this form was submitted 
 to the Corporation Counsel on April 7, 1898, for his approval as to 
 form; but no communication has as yet been received from him, 
 whether of approval or disapproval. 
 
Efforts of the Board in iSpp. 
 
 Early in the present year the Board submitted to the Legislature 
 a bill designed to give the Board the power, if municipal construc- 
 tion should not be practicable, to resort to private capital. This bill 
 was, however, materially and even seriously amended; and in its 
 amended form it has not been accepted by the City. The result is 
 that the rapid transit road must be built by the City if it is to be 
 built at all. 
 
 The present rapid transit law, although in some respects susceptible 
 of improvement, is nevertheless entirely adequate for municipal con- 
 struction, provided the municipal authorities will co-operate with the 
 Board. In prescribing the routes and plan, in procuring the nec- 
 essary official and judicial approvals, and in preparing the proposed 
 contract for the construction and operation of the road, the Board 
 has done all within its power. It cannot move further until the 
 Corporation Counsel shall give his approval to the form of the pro- 
 posed contract for construction, or shall advise the Board in what 
 respect the contract should be amended in order that it may secure 
 his approval. 
 
 The contract was drafted after the consolidation of the present 
 City had gone into effect, and this Board had clearly before it the 
 possible difficulty incidental to the limits to which the City's debt- 
 incurring capacity was then subject. The proposed rapid transit 
 contract was drawn by the Board, therefore, so as to enable the City 
 to avail itself of the provisions of the act permitting construction of 
 the road in sections and to delay, whenever necessary, any stage of 
 construction until the financial situation of the City should afford 
 the requisite credit. The effort, on the one hand, was to preclude 
 the possibility that the City could incur a debt beyond the constitu- 
 tional limit; on the other hand, the Board sought by the form of 
 contract to make the delay the very least necessary, so that just as 
 soon as the debt-incurring capacity should be sufficient, actual con- 
 struction might proceed. The Board deemed the removal of every 
 source of delay to be clearly necessary in view of the popular vote and 
 of the dominating necessity for rapid transit. 
 
 The Board is advised that the provisions so inserted in the con- 
 tract to meet the debt limit question are sufficient, but if in the 
 opinion of the Corporation Counsel they are not sufficient, the Board 
 desires to be so advised, that the contract may be forthwith amended. 
 Or if, for any reason, the contract ought not to be made until the 
 
Efforts of the Board in iSpg. 69 
 
 new assessment of realty in tlie Oity is confirmed, the Board respect- 
 fully begs that it may be so informed. The Board could thus at 
 least be ready for immediate action at the first moment the new 
 assessment provides adequate debt-incurring capacity. 
 
 That assessment, if confirmed, will add upwards of $42,000,000 to 
 the City's debt-incurring capacity, an amount much more than 
 enough to build the rapid transit road, nor will the use of the 
 City's credit for municipal construction of this road prevent the 
 City from borrowing money for other urgent purposes. 
 
 It is hoped that the constitutional amendment to be voted on by 
 the people next November will still further reduce the existing City 
 debt, so as to make the debt limit no longer an obstruction to rapid 
 transit or to any other municipal improvement. But whether that 
 amendment shall be adopted or not, and whatever may be its effect 
 if adopted, it seems to be clear, upon the information communicated 
 to us by the Comptroller, that the new assessment, with the large 
 annual income, now $12,000,000 or $13,000,000, from sinking funds, 
 will enable the City to construct the rapid transit road without in- 
 terfering with any other necessary improvement. 
 
 The Board begs to repeat that its power to carry out the purpose 
 for which it was created now depends practically, first, upon the per- 
 mission of the Corporation Counsel to make any contract, and, sec- 
 ond, upon the assent of the Board of Estimate to a postponement 
 of the making of other contracts involving large municipal debt until 
 a rapid transit contract actually made shall assure the carrying out 
 of that great public measure. The Board, therefore, respectfully 
 asks your Honor, and through you the other municipal authorities, 
 whether in these two respects it may be aided to secure prompt and 
 actual construction of the rapid transit road by the City. 
 
 The amendment to the Constitution referred to in the foregoing 
 letter provided in substance that the debts of the separate coun- 
 ties which were embraced within the Greater City of N'ew York 
 should not be counted in determining the limitation of the debt- 
 incurring capacity of the City. These debts amounted to about 
 $30,000,000. The amendment, it may be here noted, was, in fact, 
 adopted at the election held in November, 1899. 
 
70 Criticisms of Contract by Corporation Counsel. 
 
 No reply having been received from the Mayor or any action 
 taken either by the Board of Estimate and Apportionment or the 
 Corporation Coimsel in regard to Eapid Transit matters, a further 
 communication was addressed by the Rapid Transit Board to the 
 Board of Estimate and Apportionment on July 13, 1899, in which 
 the subject was again gone over. The attention of the Board of 
 Estimate and Apportionment was called to the fact that the debt- 
 incurring capacity of the City appeared to be not less than $40,- 
 000,000, a sum amply sufficient to build the Rapid Transit Rail- 
 road; that no contract could be made until the Corporation Coun- 
 se] acted ; that the Eapid Transit debt of the City could not be tech- 
 nically created until after a contract had been executed ; and that 
 until such debt was created or authorized other debts might be 
 incurred which would effectually prevent the construction of the 
 road and thus defeat the will of the City as represented by vote of 
 its people. The Rapid Transit Board, therefore, requested that no 
 other debt should be authorized by the City to an amount suf- 
 ficient to reduce the debt limit below the cost of the Rapid Transit 
 road until there should have been reasonable opportunity for the 
 letting of the contract. To this communication no answer was re- 
 turned. 
 
 DRAFT OONTKACT APPROVED BY CITY AUTHORITIES. 
 
 On September 30, 1899, the Corporation Counsel addressed 
 a letter to the Conamission, in which he stated _ that he 
 bad withheld his approval from the draft contract submitted 
 to him in April, 1898, "for the reason that, while the approval of 
 the Corporation Counsel was technically merely an approval as to 
 form, it has always been the practice of this Department in such a 
 case not to approve as to form a contract which could not legally be 
 made." The Corporation Counsel further stated that the City 
 was now in a position to undertake the work and that he had re- 
 cently conferred with one of the members of the Commission 
 and one of its counsel with a view to expediting the business. He 
 criticised the form of contract upon the following grounds : 
 
 1. That the City itself, acting through its Law Department, 
 should have sole charge of all proceedings for the condemnation of 
 lands. 
 
Criticisms of Contract by Corporation Counsel. 71 
 
 3. That the contract ought to provide for the transportation 
 of "light parcels and packages." 
 
 3. That the road should provide the space necessary for the 
 installation of electric wires for lighting and telephone purposes, 
 and to some extent for "gas and sewer pipes." 
 
 4. That the City should be represented upon the work by a 
 supervising engineer, to be selected by the Board of Estimate 
 and Apportionment. 
 
 5. That the work of construction should begin at the upper 
 rather than at the lower end of the island, as this would benefit 
 the value of property in the upper part of the City. 
 
 6. That the terminus of the road should be at the Battery instead 
 of the City Hall. 
 
 7. That the specifications should be carefully examined and 
 that any obscurity which might be found therein should be made 
 clear. 
 
 8. That the provision of the contract regarding compliance 
 with all Jaws relative to the undertaking should be amended by 
 reference specially to the provisions of the labor law as amended 
 by Laws 1899, Chapter 567. 
 
 On September 33, 1899, the Commission addressed a reply to 
 the Corporation Counsel dealing with the various points as fol- 
 lows: 
 
 In reply to the suggestion that the , contract should provide 
 for giving to the Law Department of the City the charge of pro- 
 ceedings for condemnation of lands, it was stated that the law 
 expressly provided that the Corporation Counsel should have 
 charge of such proceedings. 
 
 With regard to the provision "for the transportation of light 
 parcels and packages," it was pointed out that the Eapid Transit 
 Act authorized the use of the railroad for that purpose. 
 
 With regard to the suggestion for a provision of space for elec- 
 tric wires, gas and sewer pipes, the answer was that the Rapid 
 Transit Board had no authority to build anything but a railroad ; 
 that in the first plan of the Board the Board had proposed a sub- 
 way for pipes and wires along Broadway, such an arrangement 
 
72 Criticisms of Contract by Corporation Counsel. 
 
 being necessary because of the limited space along that street; 
 and that that plan had been rejected by the Supreme Couri. 
 
 As to a supervising engineer to be appointed by the City author- 
 ities, the Board stated as its opinion that it could not "legally 
 or with any due regard of its own control of the work delegate to 
 any engineer except its' own any function of authoritative su- 
 pervision/' 
 
 As to beginning construction at the upper end of the island, 
 the opinion was expressed that there were serious objections to 
 such course. 
 
 As to changing the southern terminus of the road from the 
 City Hall to the Battery, the answer was that this could not be done 
 without the adoption of a new general plan and new applications 
 to the municipal. authorities, to the property-owners and to the 
 Appellate Division; all of which would most seriously delay the 
 commencement of construction. 
 
 The suggestion that the specifications should be examined with a 
 view to removal of obscurities was answered by reference to the 
 fact that the specifications had already been scrutinized by Mr. 
 George S. Morison, past President of the American Society of 
 Civil Engineers, and Howard A. Carson, Chief Engineer of the 
 Boston Subway, but that the Board would welcome any specific 
 suggestion of obscurity. 
 
 In reference to the Labor Law, the Board stated it would in- 
 sert the provisions required by the Act of 1899, which, when the 
 contract was drafted, -had not been passed. 
 
 On October 6, 1899, a revised draft of the contract was sent 
 to the Corporation Counsel, containing certain important modi- 
 fications. Of these the most important was a provision intended 
 to put beyond the possibility of doubt the power of the City to 
 make the contract without embarrassment to other needed im- 
 provements. The revised draft, therefore, provided that the City 
 should undertake at the outset an absolute obligation only for 
 the construction of so much of the road as extended from the 
 Brooklyn Bridge to Fifty-ninth Street, and an option on the part 
 of the City to require the contractor to complete the remainder of 
 the work within certain periods therein provided. 
 
Supreme Court reduces Bond, Award of Contract. 73 
 
 After some conferences with the Corporation Counsel the form 
 of contract, as amended, was approved by him on October 11, 
 1899. 
 
 AMOUNT OF SECUEITY KEDTJCED BY THE COURT. 
 
 The subject of the reduction of the amount of the bond for 
 Fourteen million dollars, required by the Appellate Division, was 
 also made the subject of conferences with the Corporation Counsel, 
 and a joint application was made by him and by the Counsel 
 of the Board to the Appellate Division on October 30, 1899. This 
 application was argued before the Court on October 30, and a 
 favorable decision was rendered on ISTovember 10, the presiding 
 justice dissenting. The majority of the Court, in deciding the 
 application, said: 
 
 "The Corporation Counsel, on behalf of the City of New York, 
 having joined with the Rapid Transit Commissioners in this ap- 
 plication, and the Municipal authorities as well as the Rapid Tran- 
 sit Commissioners having represented that in their opinion a bond 
 of Five million dollars will, in view of the form of the contract and 
 the conditions under which the Rapid Transit Road is now to be 
 constructed amply protect the City, the Rapid Transit Commission- 
 ers are relieved from the stipulation which they gave as a condition 
 upon the confirmation of the report of the Commissioners in ap- 
 proving of the construction of this proposed railway to the extent 
 that a bond of Five million dollars will be a compliance with the 
 stipulation." 
 
 {Matter of Rapid Transit Commissioners, 4i App. Div. 
 6S6.) 
 
 COWTEACT AWARDED. 
 
 The legal and technical difficulties having thus been at last 
 surmounted, an invitation to contractors was prepared and or- 
 dered published in six newspapers twice a week for three suc- 
 cessive weeks, and the date of opening bids was fixed for the 15th 
 of January, 1900. Upon that day the Commission received two 
 bids in the form prescribed by the Board, one from John B. Mc- 
 Donald and one from Andrew Onderdonk. Mr. McDonald's bid 
 offered to construct the entire road for $35,000,000. Mr. Onderdonk 
 
74 Award of Contract. 
 
 ofeered to construct the road for $39,300,000, and he further pro- 
 posed that, in case the gross receipts exceeded Five million dol- 
 lars in any one year, to pay, in addition to the rent fixed by 
 statute, five per cent, on the first million dollars in excess and 
 two and one-half per cent, on each additional million up to a 
 maximum of fifteen per cent. Each of these bids was accompanied 
 by a deposit of $150,000. 
 
 It will be observed that while Mr. McDonald's bid offered to 
 construct the road for a smaller sum of money, Mr. Onderdonk's 
 bid provided for a larger rental in certain contingencies, so that 
 it became necessary for the Board to give careful consideration 
 to the question which of these two bids was really the most de- 
 sirable in the interest of the City. A committee was accordingly 
 appointed to examine the bids and also to consider the value of the 
 securities which the bidders offered to deposit and the responsibil- 
 ity of their proposed sureties. On the following day, January 
 16, 1900, the committee, by the Comptroller, one of its members, 
 reported that they had considered the two bids and recommended 
 the approval of that submitted by John B. McDonald. 
 
 A question was, however, raised by the Comptroller as to whether, 
 under .the charter of the Greater New York (which had been 
 passed since the amendments to the Kapid Transit Act), bonds 
 of the City issued to pay for the construction of the road would 
 have to be authorized by vote of the Municipal Council? Also 
 whether the provisions of the charter requiring every contract 
 with the City to be endorsed by the Comptroller with a certificate 
 to the effect that funds had been provided was necessary to the 
 validity of a contract executed under the Eapid Transit Act? In 
 order to set these doubts at rest a bill was introduced in the Legis- 
 lature declaring that the consent or approval of the Municipal 
 Assembly should not be necessary to authorize the issue of bonds 
 for the Eapid Transit work ; that the Eapid Transit Board might 
 request the Board of Estimate and Apportionment to authorize 
 bonds for the full amount of the estimated expense of executing 
 the contract; that in case the Board of Estimate and Apportion- 
 ment should authorize such an issue, the Comptroller might there- 
 upon endorse the contract with his certificate that funds were 
 available for the entire contract; and that no certificate in the 
 
Security finally i-equired from Contractor. 75 
 
 form required by the charter of the Greater N^ew York should 
 be necessary to make the contract binding upon the City of New 
 York. Immediately upon the introduction of this bill.. Governor 
 Roosevelt sent in an emergency message to the Legislature, and 
 it was passed upon the following day; and having been accepted by 
 the Mayor, was approved by the Governor and became a law on Feb- 
 ruary 8, 1900 {Laws 1900, Ch. 7). 
 
 Pending the passage of this act, the time for the execution of 
 the contract, was extended, and some correspondence was had with 
 Mr. McDonald relative to the sureties upon his bonds. It was 
 ultimately agreed with Messrs. August Belmont & Company, to 
 whom Mr. McDonald had applied for assistance in his financial 
 arrangements, that the following general plan should be pursued: 
 
 1st. Messrs. August Belmont & Company to organize a corpo- 
 ration under the laws of the State of New York with a capital 
 of Six million dollars. This company (which was subsequently 
 incorporated under the name of the Rapid Transit Subway Con- 
 struction Company) to enter into a contract with Mr. McDonald to 
 promote the construction of the work, to furnish the security 
 given by him and to finance his undertaking. 
 
 2d. The Rapid Transit Board to make application to the Ap- 
 pellate Division to modify its requirements concerning the bond 
 to be given for securing the construction of the work, by striking 
 out the provision requiring Justification in double the amount of 
 the liability assumed by each surety, and by reducing the minimum 
 amount permitted to be taken by each surety from Five hundred 
 thousand dollars to Two hundred and 'fifty thousand dollars. 
 
 3d. Mr. McDonald to furnish the continuing bond for the pay- 
 ment of rent, etc., in the sum of One million dollars, with sure- 
 ties who would justify in double that amount, and at the same 
 time to deposit with the Comptroller securities of the value of One 
 million dollars, which were ultimately to be substituted in lieu 
 of the bond for that amount. 
 
 4th. The Rapid Transit Subway Construction Company to be- 
 come surety on Mr. McDonald's bond to the amount of Four 
 million dollars, the additional amount of such construction bond 
 to be furnished by various surety companies. 
 
76 Final Execution of Rapid Transit Contract. 
 
 5th. Mr. McDonald to deposit One million dollars in cash, as 
 required by the contract. 
 
 6th. Mr. McDonald to assign to the City his beneficial interest 
 in the bonds to be required of sub-contractors. 
 
 7th. Mr, McDonald to cause an additional One million dollars 
 in cash, or the equivalent in securities, to be deposited with the 
 Comptroller on or before January 1, 1901, such One million dollars 
 to be held as additional security for the performance of the ob- 
 ligation of the sureties upon the bond for construction. 
 
 Inasmuch as this plan proposed security for the City much 
 more available than that required by the Appellate Division, the 
 Court acceded without hesitation to the suggestion and modified 
 its requirements accordingly. 
 
 {Matter of Rapid Transit Commissioners, Jf8 App. 
 Div. 63S.) 
 
 The forms of the several bonds and other documents having 
 been considered and approved by the Board, the contract was ex- 
 ecuted and delivered at the Comptroller's office on February 31, 
 1900, and the money, securities and bonds required from the con- 
 tractor were at the same time duly delivered as above seft forth. 
 
 TEEMS OF THE CONTRACT. 
 
 The contract itself constitutes a printed volume of 180 pages. 
 Omitting formal and technical details, its provisions may be sum- 
 marized briefly as follows: The contractor undertakes to con- 
 struct and equip the Eapid Transit Railroad upon the routes and 
 general plan of the Commission; to put the same in operation; 
 and to use, maintain and to operate it under a lease from the 
 City for the term of fifty years. The City on its part agrees to pay 
 Thirty-five million dollars in case the. whole of the road is coe^ 
 structed, and other specified sums in case it should determine to 
 construct less than the whole. The City stipulates to give the 
 contractor the right to construct and operate the railroad "free of 
 all right, claim or other interference, whether by injunction, suit 
 for damages or otherwise on the part of any abutting owner or 
 other person." All parts of the structure, where exposed to pub- 
 
The Rapid Transit Contract. 77 
 
 lie sight, are required to be designed, constructed and main- 
 tained with a view to the beauty of their appearance as well as to 
 their efficiency, and all the work is to be done in a good, sub- 
 stantial and workmanlike manner, and in accordance with the 
 detailed specifications embodied in, the contract. The work to be 
 done by the contractor is to include all necessary readjustment 
 of pipes, subways or other subsurface structures; the support and 
 care, including underpinning whereyer necessary, of all buildings, 
 monuments and elevated and surface railways; and the reconstruc- 
 tion of street" pavements and surfaces. The construction of sewers, 
 readjustment of mains, pipes and other subsurface structures, and 
 the support,- care and underpinning of buildings, monuments and 
 railways are declared to be essential parts of the construction of 
 , the railway. The contractor is required to provide a complete 
 equipment for the railroad, including not only cars, but also all 
 engines, electric wires, conduits, power houses, and lighting, sig- 
 nalling and ventilation apparatus. The Board reserves the right 
 during the progress of the work to amplify the plans, to add ex- 
 planatory specifications, and to furnish additional specifications 
 and drawings. It also reserves the right to require additional work 
 to be done, on paying the reasonable value thereof to the con- 
 tractor, or to require work to be omitted, in which case a reason- 
 able deduction from the contract price is to be made. The con- 
 tract further provides for the most thorough and minute inspec- 
 tion by the Board of all work and materials from the beginning 
 of their manufacture or preparation, and declares that the work is 
 to be done and the materials are to be furnished in all cases sub- 
 ject to the direction and approval of the Chief Engineer of the 
 Board. 
 
 In case of any dispute or doubt as to the obligation of the 
 contractor, the determination of the Engineer is to be so far bind- 
 ing that the contractor must, without delay, obey the requirements 
 of the Engineer, leaving open the question as to his right to re- 
 ceive compensation for additional work. In case of dispute as to 
 the value of extra work, an appeal may be taken from the decision 
 of the Engineer either by the Board or the contractor to a Board 
 of Arbitration, to be composed as provided in detail in the con- 
 tract. 
 
78 The Rapid Transit Contract. 
 
 The contractor was reqtiired to begin work upon the railroad 
 within thirty days after the execution of the contract, and to 
 complete the entire road within four years and a half. If not 
 completed within that time, the City is to deduct from the amount 
 due to the contractor two per cent, a month until the balances are 
 finally due. In case the contractor shall be delayed by injunction, 
 or by strike, or by any interference of public authority, and can- 
 not make up for the delay so occasioned by speedier work, then 
 the date for completion may be extended by the amount of time 
 of such delay, provided written notice of the delay is given in 
 each case by the contractor to the Board. 
 
 With reference to terminals, the contract provides that the City 
 shall itself purchase the real estate for the. terminals by con- 
 demnation or otherwise, and that the contractor , is to construct 
 them and receive the cost of such construction, with a profit of 
 ten per cent. But it is provided that the total amount to be paid 
 by the City for the terminals shall in no case exceed the sum of 
 $1,750,000. This amount is to be in addition to the $35,000,000 
 paid for the cost of construction. It is also provided that the City 
 shall, if necessary, acquire lands for stations and other purposes 
 of the railroad in an amount not exceeding $1,000,000, and that 
 if the necessary real estate should cost more than that sum, such 
 excess is to be borne by the contractor. It was estimated by the 
 Board that the cost of terminals would be One million doUars, 
 and the cost of other real estate Five hundred thousand dollars. 
 
 The payments to the contractor for the work done by him for 
 the construction of the road are to be made monthly upon written 
 requisitions, accompanied by a certificate of the engineer showing 
 the proportion of the whole work actually done. The Rapid 
 Transit Board is authorized to fix the amount due at such sum as 
 it may itself determine to be the proper actual relative value of 
 such work and materials, and the amount so certified is to be forth- 
 with paid by the City to the contractor. In case the contractor 
 should be dissatisfied with the determination of the Board, an 
 appeal may ' be taken to the Board of Arbitrators, already re- 
 ferred to. 
 
 By the time two-thirds in value of the work, exclusive of equip- 
 ment, is finished, the contractor is bound to begin providing the 
 
The Rapid Transit Contract. 79 
 
 equipment of the railroad and to have such equipment completely 
 ready for use three months in advance of the construction of the 
 road. 
 
 The specifications included in the contract are intended by the 
 Board to be full and comprehensive and show all the work required 
 to be done. "The railroad," it is provided, "is to be constructed 
 for actual use and . operation as an intra-urban railroad of the 
 highest class, adapted to the necessities of the people of The City 
 of New York. . . . The contractor shall construct, complete 
 and fully equip the railroad in the best manner and according to 
 the best rules and usages of railroad construction, so that the 
 railroad shall be thoroughly fitted for safe, continuous, immediate 
 and full operation. . . . lii the event of any doubt as to the 
 meaning of any portion or portions of the specifications or con- 
 tract drawings, or of the text of the contract, the same shall be 
 interpreted as calling for the best construction both as to ma- 
 terials and workmanship capable of being supplied or applied 
 under the then existing local conditions." 
 
 The contractor covenants that the work shall be done without 
 fault or negligence on his part and that it shall not involve any 
 damage to the foundation walls or other parts of adjacent build- 
 ings or structures, and he agrees, at his own expense, to make good 
 any damage which shall be done in the course of construction. 
 He also agrees, during the performance of the work, to maintain 
 safely the trafSc on all streets, to take necessary precautions to 
 place proper guards for the prevention of accidents and to keep 
 at night suitable lights. 
 
 The City leases to the contractor the whole railroad for fifty 
 years from the time of completion. The contractor agrees to pay 
 as rental a sum equal to the interest payable by the City upon the 
 bonds issued by it to provide means for construction, and also one 
 per cent, upon the whole amount of such bonds, — except that for the 
 first five years the payment is not to be made unless the con- 
 tractor's profits amount to five per cent, a year, — and for the 
 next five years the payment is to be only a half of one per cent., 
 unless the contractor's profits amount to five per cent, a year. 
 
 The contractor covenants to "operate the railroad carefully and 
 skillfully, according to the highest known standards of railway 
 
go The Rapid Transit Contract. 
 
 operation." Local trains are to run at a speed on the average, 
 stops at station included, of not less than fourteen miles an hour. 
 Express trains are to be run on the average, stops at stations in- 
 cluded, at a rate of not less than thirty miles an hour. Between 
 one o'clock and five o'clock in the morning trains are to be run, 
 stopping at all stations, at intervals of not more than fifteen min- 
 utes. 
 
 The contractor covenants to save the City harmless from all ac- 
 cidents and to keep the railroad and equipment in thorough re- 
 pair, so that at all times and at the termination of the lease the 
 railroad shall be in thoroughly good and solid condition, and 
 fully equipped for use. Stations and cars are to be kept thor- 
 oughly lighted and heated, so that passengers may conveniently 
 read. The waiting-rooms are to be kept in clean and comfortable 
 condition, proper seating capacity is to be provided and good 
 drinking water, as also sufficient and suitable water closets, which 
 are to be kept in a sanitary condition. All tunnels, stations and 
 cars are to be thoroughly ventilated with pure air, and all tun- 
 nels are to be thoroughly lighted at all times, so as to permit the 
 tracks, walls and roofs to be clearly visible to inspection. . 
 
 The motive power is to be electricity or compressed air; but 
 it is provided that if, in the future development of the railway 
 art, any method of generating or transmitting power superior to 
 electricity, and involving no injury to the purity of the atmos- 
 phere in the tunnels or cars, shall be discovered to be practicable, 
 then the contractor shall have the right to adopt such method, if 
 approved by the Board, on two months' notice. 
 
 The contractor agrees to provide rolling stock of the best charac- 
 ter known at the time, and the Board reserves the right to make good 
 any neglect on this point of which the contractor may be guilty. 
 The rolling stock is to be adequate to the requirements of the trav- 
 eling public, and a schedule is to be filed every six months show- 
 ' ing in detail all of the equipment owned by the contractor. 
 
 The contractor is entitled to charge for a single fare upon the 
 railroad not more than five cents ; but it is provided that "the con- 
 tractor may provide additional conveniences for such passengers 
 as shall desire the same upon not to exceed one car upon each 
 train, and may collect from each passenger in such car a reasonable 
 
Construction. 81 
 
 charge for sucli additional convenience fnrnislied by him, pro- 
 vided that the amount to be charged therefor and the character of 
 such additional conveniences shall, from time to time, be subject to 
 the approval of the Board." 
 
 At the option of the contractor a new lease of the road is to be 
 granted to him for a period of twenty-five years from the expira- 
 tion of the lease provided for in the contract. Such renewal lease 
 is to be in the same general form, but the rent is to be an amount 
 to be agreed upon, not less than the average amount of the annual 
 rental for the ten last years of the lease. In case of failure to 
 agree upon the rental it is to be fixed, subject to such minimum, 
 by arbitration. 
 
 At the final termination of the lease the City is to buy of the 
 contractor the equipment at a price to be fixed by agreement or 
 by arbitration; but at the termination of the lease, even though 
 the price has not been determined on, the equipment is to be turned 
 over to the City for use subject to the future adjustment of the 
 amount to be paid. 
 
 CONSTRUCTION BEGUN. 
 
 On March 24, 1900, the work of construction of the Eapid. 
 Transit Eailroad was formally begun in front of the City Hall, 
 the Mayor of the City turning the first spadeful of earth. The 
 work of construction then began and has since been steadily pros- 
 ecuted. It was not, however, possible, either for the Board or for 
 the contractor, to organize their staffs so as to enable very rapid 
 progress to be made for several months after the formal commence- 
 ment of the work. 
 
 The organization adopted by the Board for its engineering staff 
 consisted of a Chief Engineer (Mr. Parsons), a Deputy Chief 
 Engineer, six division engineers, five general inspectors, a private 
 secretary, an auditor and a photographer. All the above positions 
 were exempted from competitive examination by the Civil Serv- 
 ice Commission. In addition, a number of assistant engineers, 
 inspectors, draughtsmen, stenographers and messengers were re- 
 quired, all of which positions were to be filled by competitive ex- 
 amination pursuant to regulations of the Civil Service Commis- 
 
83 Modification of Contract. 
 
 sion. A statement of the present organization and members of 
 
 the Commissioners' staff appears in the Appendix to this report. 
 
 MODIFICATION OF KOUTE AND PLANS. 
 
 The work of constructing the railroad has proceeded without 
 serious interruption or difficulty and without modification of the 
 plans originally proposed, except in certain matters of minor im- 
 portance. 
 
 On July 13, 1900, the Board agreed to modify the contract as 
 follows : 
 
 1st. The station platforms for local trains above 104th Street, 
 and for express trains below that point wore to be extended to 
 lengths not exceeding 450 feet, thus permitting somewhat longer 
 express trains than were at first contemplated. 
 
 2d. The loop and terminal tracks at the Post Office Building 
 were modified so -that instead of passing completely around the 
 building, tlie entire loop was to be constructed between the City 
 Hall and the Post Office. 
 
 3d. The widening of the Subway at the Spring Street Station 
 for the purposes of the station, was to be extended so as to permit 
 the construction of not more than 600 feet of side-track. 
 
 On June 81, 1900, as the result of considerable discussion, it 
 was resolved to modify the route of the railroad from Fort George 
 to Kingsbridge by diverting the route somewhat to the eastward, 
 so as to pass along Naegle Avenue and Amsterdam Avenue to the 
 Kingsbridge Eoad. The necessary papers were prepared and exe- 
 cuted by the Board, the contractor and his sureties, and were sub- 
 mitted to the municipal authorities for their consent on Novem- 
 ber 1, 1900. No action was taken by the Municipal Assembly on 
 this subject until May 31, 1901, when the proposed change of 
 route was approved by the Assembly and their resolutions were ap- 
 proved by the Mayor on June 1, 1901. Efforts to obtain the con- 
 sent of the property-owners along the line of the proposed road 
 are still pending, the consent of a majority not yet having been 
 obtained. 
 
■ BEOOKLYN EXTENSION. ' ' 
 
 At the first meeting of the Board in 1900 a large and important 
 delegation from Brooklyn appeared to advocate the construction 
 of a tunnel under the Bast Eiver to connect -with the railroad under 
 construction in Manhattan and the Bronx. Immediately after the 
 execution of the contract with Mr. McDonald, the Board on Feb- 
 ruary 26, 1900, instructed the Chief Engineer to investigate the 
 practicability and cost of an extension of the Rapid Transit Rail- 
 road from the City Hall to the South Ferry, and thence under the 
 East River to the Borough of Brooklyn. 
 
 Pending this inquiry, certain statutory difficulties required and 
 received attention. The original Act of 1894, passed before the 
 consolidation of the former City of New York with Brooklyn and 
 other outlying municipalities, contemplated the construction of 
 a Rapid Transit Railroad only within the former City. The vote 
 of the people in November, 1894, had reference also to a road to 
 be constructed within the limits of the former City. It was, there- 
 fore, a question of some doubt whether the Board was authorized 
 to establish a route and general plan for the construction, with 
 the funds of the City, of a road extending into the Boroughs other 
 than Manhattan and the Bronx. Accordingly a bill was intro- 
 duced into the Legislature amending Sections 4, 34 and 35 in 
 such a manner as to extend the powers of the Rapid Transit Board 
 into all parts of the Greater City of New York. This bill was 
 passed by the Legislature, accepted by the City, and became a law 
 on April 33, 1900, with the approval of the Governor {Laws 1900, 
 Gh. 616). 
 
 On several occasions in the month of May, 1900, the Board 
 gave public hearings at which the question of the Brooklyn ex- 
 tension was very fully and thoroughly discussed. In general two 
 routes were favored. The first a route extending from Broad- 
 way to Whitehall Street under the East River and up Joralemon 
 Street, Fulton Street and Flatbush Avenue to Atlantic Avenue. 
 The second, a route following the same line in the Borough of 
 Manhattan, but reaching Hamilton Avenue in Brooklyn, and 
 thence proceeding towards South Brooklyn and Bay Ridge. After 
 
 83 
 
84 Brooklyn Extension. 
 
 extensive study of the question, the Board on January 34, 1901, 
 adopted by formal resolution a general route and plan for a new 
 rapid transit railroad. 
 
 On February 3, 1901, the formal^ resolution of the Board 
 was transmitted to the Municipal Assembly with a communica- 
 tion from which the following is an extract : 
 
 Board op Eapid Transit Eaileoad Commissioners, 
 No. 320 Broadway, New York. 
 
 To the Honorable the Municipal Assembly of The City of New York : 
 
 The Board of Eapid Transit Commissioners for The City of New 
 York, * * * immediately after the contract for the rapid tran- 
 sit railroad within the Boroughs of Manhattan and the Bronx was 
 made in February last, and the work to which the efforts of the 
 Board had so long been directed had been successfully inaugurated, 
 took up the subject of rapid transit between the Boroughs of Man- 
 hattan and Brooklyn; and it now submits its conclusions. 
 
 The rapid transit railroad already begun extends from the end of 
 the Brooklyn Bridge, near the City Hall, in the Borough of Man- 
 hattan, to two termini, one on the west side, near the northern line 
 of the Borough of Manhattan, and the other on the east side, in the 
 northerly part of the Borough of The Bronx. The next rapid transit 
 route in the order of importance is clearly one connecting the Borough 
 of BrooklsTi with the system already begun; and it is obvious that, 
 in establishing that route, it will be convenient to extend the system 
 already begun from the station at the City Hall and Brooklyn Bridge 
 to the South Eerry. At the latter point connection will be made 
 with ferries to various parts of the Boroughs of Brooklyn and Eich- 
 mond. The extension to Brooklyn will thus complete the system in 
 the Borough of Manhattan to the south end of Manhattan Island; 
 and it will, in the opinion of this Commission, serve to improve 
 very materially the communications between Eichmond and the 
 various parts of Manhattan and the Bronx. 
 
 The Brooklyn-Manhattan road, now proposed, will, from a point 
 near the intersection of Whitehall and South Streets, in Manhattan, 
 proceed under the East Eiver to Joralemon Street, in the Borough 
 of Brooklyn, thence under Joralemon Street to Fulton Street, near 
 Borough Hall, thence under Fulton Street to Flatbush Avenue, and 
 
Brooklyn. Extension^ 86 
 
 under Flatbusli Avenue to Atlantic Avenue, near the station of the 
 Long Island Eailroad. The cost, as the Board is advised, will not 
 exceed about Eight million dollars. 
 
 The Board is aware that the route now proposed does not afford 
 a complete solution of the rapid transit problem in the Borough of 
 Brooklyn. It is, however, beyond doubt, the best route for the first 
 rapid transit connection between the boroughs. It reaches two; 
 great distributing points in Brooklyn, Borough Hall Park and the 
 Long Island Railroad Station. The new road can thence be con- 
 veniently extended, as the financial means of the City will permit, to 
 any and every important district in Brooklyn. It is the interest of 
 the City that the rapid transit connection now proposed between the 
 boroughs should be promptly constructed rather than that the City 
 and especially the Borough of Brooklyn should be made to wait sev- 
 eral years for the initiation of a system more nearly complete. 
 
 The road is to be in tunnel, thus permitting easy connection with 
 the Rapid Transit System already begun in Manhattan and The 
 Bronx. A tunnel under the East River will be far less expensive than 
 another bridge over it. 
 
 The principal features of the plan of construction are those with 
 which your Honorable Body is already familiar in the Rapid Transit 
 System now under construction. 
 
 1. The tracks are to be placed substantially upon a level, except 
 when engineering reasons require a greater or less. depression of one 
 track. 
 
 2. The railway, except when under or approaching the East River, 
 is to be as near the surface as street conditions will permit, thus 
 rendering the road more accessible to passengers. Where stations 
 are not near the surface they will be reached by elevators. 
 
 3. The entire depth of excavation necessary for the construction of 
 the railroad and its foundation will, except in approaches from 
 Bowling Green in Manhattan and Borough Hall in Brooklyn to the 
 tunnel under the river, be only about twenty feet. There is no por- 
 tion of the road now proposed where construction conducted with 
 ordinary care involves risk to neighboring buildings. 
 
 4. The method of construction proposed by the Board is neither 
 experimental nor untried. The work will be attacked at as many 
 points along the route as may be desirable. The progress of the 
 construction will be expedited so that the discomforts and delays 
 resulting therefrom will be reduced to a minimum. 
 
86 Proposal as to Connections at Grand Central Station. 
 
 5. The railway tracks are to be of standard gauge and the railway 
 cars will be large and commodious. 
 
 Hearings on the subject of the Brooklyn extension were had be- 
 fore the Municipal Council and a Committee of the Board of 
 Aldermen extending from February 13, 1901, to May 3, 1901. 
 On May 21, 1901, the Municipal Assembly approved the pro- 
 posed extension under the East Eiver to Hatbush and Atlantic 
 Avenues, Brooklyn, and their resolutions were approved by the 
 Mayor on June 1, 1901. The Park Board gave i'ts consent to 
 the construction of the proposed railroad on July 11, 1901. 
 
 The Eapid Transit Board having taken steps to secure the eon- 
 sent of the property-owners along the proposed route, and having 
 failed to secure the consent of- a majority, made application to the 
 Appellate Divisions of the Supreme Court in New York and Brook- 
 lyn for the appointment of Commissioners to determine whether 
 the road should be built. The Appellate Division in the First 
 Department appointed as such Commissioners Messrs. Theron G. 
 Strong, Thomas C. T. Crain and Henry W. Gray. The Appel- 
 late Division in the Second Department appointed as siich Com- 
 missioners Messrs. Wm. C. Bryant, Eichard H. Laimbeer and 
 Frederick E. Kellogg. By agreement between the two Boards of 
 Commissioners these gentlemen sat together to take testimony, 
 thus greatly expediting the proceedings. The Commissioners re- 
 ported favorably to the Court on December 26, 1901 and December 
 27, 1901, respectively. 
 
 CONNECTION AT GRAND CENTEAL STATION. 
 
 In October, November and December of 1900, the President and 
 the Engineer, under the instructions of the Board, took up with 
 the New York Central Eailroad Company the question of connect- 
 ing the Eapid Transit Eailroad with the lines of the various rail- 
 road companies now using the Grand Central Station at 42nd 
 Street, in order that the Eapid Transit trains could be run north 
 over the lines of the New York Central, Harlem and New Haven 
 railroads, so as to supply the demands of the suburban service with- 
 out necessitating a change of ears at Forty-second Street, and on the 
 
Grand Central Station. S'}* 
 
 18th of October, 1900, Mr. Orr addressed Mr. W. K. Vanderbilt 
 the following letter outlining the plan proposed: 
 
 W. K. Vanderbilt, Esq., Grand Central Station: 
 
 My dear Sir — Under my instructions, the Chief Engineer of this 
 Board, Mr. Wm. Barclay Parsons, called uipon you on October 9 
 last, and presented to you and Mr. Callaway our suggestion for con- 
 necting the tracks of the Grand Central Station with those of the 
 Rapid Transit System. Following the line of this interview he has 
 since submitted to your Chief Engineer, Mr. Wilgus, a map and pro- 
 file indicating how such a connection could be made. 
 
 This plan was based upon the fundamental condition laid down by 
 you at the interview, that the Rapid Transit Railway must not at 
 any point be on the Grand Central Station property. Your require- 
 ment necessitates placing the junction in Park Avenue; and even 
 when using our maximum grades, would put it south of Thirty-ninth 
 Street. 
 
 Since submitting the map to Mr. Wilgus, it has been laid before 
 this Board. After a careful consideration of all its features, it is 
 the opinion of the Board that, if your conditions are to be strictly 
 adhered to, the objections to the plan are almost, if not (yiite pro- 
 hibitory ; and this opinion is shared by the officers of the company that 
 will operate the Rapid Transit Railway. 
 
 A connection so made will be extremely expensive. It will re- 
 quire two separate stations — one in Park avenue, near Thirty-eighth 
 Street, and one in Forty-second Street, near Madison Avenue. The 
 junction will be at some distance from the station, at a point where 
 trains will be running at high speed. Above all it will absolutely 
 limit any development of the Rapid Transit System on the east side. 
 It is quite evident that at no very distant day there will be required 
 in New York an east-side line above Forty-second Street distinct from 
 the west-side line, and a junction with the present route will most 
 naturally be made where the latter diverges from Park Avenue to the 
 westward along Forty-second Street. This would be prevented by such 
 a connection as you suggested. 
 
 We are, therefore, unable to see how a proper connection can be 
 made without our tunneling to some extent through the soil on which 
 the Grand Central Station stands. 
 
 A suitable, direct, physical connection between the tracks of the 
 Grand Central Station and those of the Rapid Transit Railway which 
 
Grand Central Station. 
 
 we are now constructing by which your suburban trains could be run 
 south as far as the City Hall or South Ferry, or even to Brooklyn, 
 would seem to be of the greatest value to all concerned. It would, 
 of course, relieve all passengers on such trains from the delays and 
 annoyance incident to change of cars. It would obviously add enor- 
 mously to the comfort and convenience of the numerous commuters 
 on the New York Central, the Harlem and the New Haven roads. By 
 thus stimulating your large and profitable suburban traffic, and by 
 relieving the Grand Central Station — without expense to its owners 
 — of many trains each day, the arrangement appears to this Board 
 likely to be beneficial to all the three roads using the station. It 
 certainly would be" to the interest of the company which will operate 
 the Eapid Transit Railway. 
 
 I am therefore directed by this Board to lay the above facts before 
 you, and to ask that before you come to any final decision, prohibiting 
 the Eapid Transit Railway from occupying any of the space beneath 
 the Grand Central Station, the whole matter may be open to joint 
 investigation. Otherwise I fear that your decision must be regarded 
 as tantamount to a refusal to make any connection. 
 
 I need scarcely say that this Board is most desirous not to interfere 
 in any way with the development of your property. But it seems 
 to us that it would be possible, either by depressing our tracks, or by 
 some other suitable engineering device, to effect a convenient con- 
 nection without any embarrassment to you. To this end the Board 
 directs me to inquire' whether it would be agreeable to you to submit 
 to us, in confidence, such plans as you have in view for the future 
 development of the Grand Central Station, so that we may take up 
 understandingly the question of making a connection at such a depth 
 below the surface, or otherwise, as will not restrict the carrying out 
 of your plans. 
 
 It seems to this Board, speaking from the standpoint of those who 
 use, your railways, that the benefits that will flow from such a con- 
 nection as we have in mind will be as great as any that can flow from 
 any possible improvement, and the Board hopes that the whole ques- 
 tion may be studied in all its bearings before you come to a final 
 decision. Respectfully yours, 
 
 (Signed) A. E. Orr, 
 
 President. 
 
Pipe Galleries. 
 
 After sundry correspondence between Mr. Orr and Mr. Vander- 
 bilt and Mr. Callaway, President of the Kew York Central Eail- 
 road Company, the connection was finally declined by Mr. Calla- 
 way on the grounds that our "plans are, when an electric ot air 
 motor can be had to run our trains any considerable distance, to 
 tunnel underneath the depot and use the space there for our own 
 suburban service. If your line is built across Forty-second Street, 
 a connection can easily be made with this proposed line." 
 
 The Board deeply deplored their failure to make the physical 
 connection by which through trains could be run, but it was found 
 impossible to induce the Directors of the Eailroad Company to 
 co-operate with it. 
 
 Pipe Galleries. 
 
 As already stated, the plans proposed by the Commission in 
 1895, provided for pipe galleries along the line of Broadway, for 
 the reason that the number of pipes and other subway structures 
 in that street made it impossible to replace them unless suitable 
 galleries were provided. The Board was, however, of the opinion 
 that it would have no power to authorize or require the construc- 
 tion of such galleries in any part of the line where they were not 
 essential. In the general plan for the Elm Street route the Board 
 had reserved the power to cause such galleries to be prepared, but 
 it had not included in the contract with Mr. McDonald any re- 
 quirement that they should be constructed. Soon after the execu- 
 tion of the contract the question was brought to the attention of 
 the Board by the Comptroller, and a resolution was adopted instruct- 
 ing the Chief Engineer to prepare an estimate of the cost of the 
 construction of pipe galleries from the City Hall Park to 33rd 
 Street. The Chief Engineer under date of March 16, 1901, reported 
 that there was no need for pipe galleries below Worth Street, and 
 that their cost would probably not exceed $850,000. On March 23, 
 1900, the Chief Engineer further reported that he deemed it nec- 
 essary to have pipe galleries along Elm Street from Worth Street 
 to Astor Place, because, since the specifications of the contract had 
 been prepared, large water and gas mains had been laid along Elm 
 Street in addition to the existing lines, and he therefore advised 
 
90 Pipe Galleries. 
 
 the Board that it was necessary on this part of the line to build 
 galleries at a cost which he estimated at about $425,000. The 
 Board had received a letter from the President of the Kapid 
 Transit Subway Construction Company which the Board had inter- 
 preted as indicating a willingness on the part of the contractor to 
 construct these galleries as a part of his contract, the same to be paid 
 for as extra work, and a requisition upon the contractor to that 
 effect was made by the Board. The contractor accordingly entered 
 upon the work of construction and made Fome progress in building 
 the galleries. 
 
 On November ], 1900, the Board was notified by the Commis- 
 sioner of Sewers that he objected to the proposed plans for the pipe 
 galleries. His letter was accompanied by a statement that the 
 Chief Engineer of the Department of Water Supply concurred in 
 thinking "that it would be to the best interests of both Depart- 
 ments if the pipe galleries were not built at all, and the sewers 
 and water mains were laid in the usual manner." The Board ac- 
 cordingly addressed a communication to the Mayor, the Comptrol- 
 ler, the President of the Board of Public Improvements, the Com- 
 missioner of Sewers, Highways and Water Supply, and the Contrac- 
 tor. In this communication the Board stated that its action in 
 requiring the contractor to build pipe galleries had been widely- 
 published and met, as it supposed, with the approval of the City 
 officials and the public generally, and that it had never had an 
 intimation to the contrary until the receipt of a letter from the 
 Department of Sewers. The Board added: 
 
 "It was our own belief that the building of these galleries would 
 be the inauguration of a great and urgent reform in the construc- 
 tion of underground works. The proposed pipe galleries are not, 
 however, in any way essential to the rapid transit road. The road 
 will be as safe, as complete and as efficient whether the pipes and 
 sewers are placed in galleries or are buried in the earth. But the pub- 
 lic, and especially the property-owners along the line, are vitally in- 
 terested; first, they are intereteted in the proper maintenance of all 
 the innumerable underground conduits on which the life of a mod- 
 ern city so largely depends; and, second, they are interested in 
 avoiding the incessant disturbance of street surfaces which existing 
 methods necessarily entail. The experiment of pipe galleries may 
 
Pipe Galleries. 91 
 
 now be tried on a fairly large scale in Elm Street, under exceptionally 
 jE3,vorable circumstances, because the work can be performed as an 
 incident of constructing the underground railroad, and because it 
 can be done without expense to the City. As the matter is one not 
 directly affecting the construction of the rapid transit railroad, it is 
 the opinion of this Board that the City authorities, — representing the 
 public generally, — ought to declare whether they wish the experiment 
 tried or whether they prefer to adhere to the present system of 
 burying the sewers and pipes. Whatever conclusion the City author- 
 ities may reach in this matter the Rapid Transit Board will be dis- 
 posed to adopt." k 
 
 In reply to this communication letters were received from the 
 Department of Water Supply, the Department of Highways, the 
 Department of Sewers, the President of the Board of Public Im- 
 pioveraents, the Comptroller, and the Contractor. The City author- 
 ities which replied to the Board expressed serious doubt as to 
 whether a plan could be devised for pipe galleries which would be 
 practicable, and they also raised certain difficulties as to the control 
 of the pipe galleries after construction. The Contractor, Mr. 
 McDonald, wrote that, as it appeared that the heads of the City 
 Departments most directly affected by the proposed construction 
 and arrangement were opposed to the plan, and as the construc- 
 tion would involve tmanticipated difficulties, and as no general 
 scheme of extension and development of sub-surface construction 
 had been proposed or authorized, he thought it inexpedient to 
 continue the building of the galleries in Elm Street. 
 
 On November 28, 1900, Mr. McDonald addressed a further let- 
 ter to the Board stating that he had been under some misappre- 
 hension as to the liability of the City and of the contractor with 
 respect to the burden of the maintenance of these pipe galleries. 
 Under these circumstances, and in view of the opposition of the " 
 heads of the City Departments directly concerned, he requested 
 that the plan of constructing these galleries should be abandoned 
 and the orders for their construction rescinded. He further stated 
 that the expense which would be incurrfid as the result of the aban- 
 donment of the pipe galleries would be assumed by him. The 
 Chief Engineer havipg reported to the Board that, on examinatioa 
 
93 Condemnation Proceedings. 
 
 of the existing pipes and sewers, he found it would be at least possi- 
 ble to arrange for their disposal either on the sides or on the top of 
 the subway, the Board resolved to withdraw the requisition upon 
 the contractor for the construction of the pipe galleries. 
 
 Condemnation Peocebdings. 
 
 The Board having taken steps to acquire by condemnation cer- 
 tain property and easements, it was found that various provisions 
 of the law raised* unnecessary difficulty. In particular it was 
 doubtful whether proceedings could be begun to acquire more prop- 
 erty than would ultimately be necessary, — although very necessary 
 at the outset; as, for example, where the road passed under 
 private property so close to the surface that it would be neces- 
 sary to destroy buildings, it was doubtful whether the Act gave 
 authority to do more than condemn a right of way under 
 the surface, although in order to construct the road it might 
 practically be necessary to take down the buildings and 
 to open the ground from the surface. It was believed that much 
 economy would result if the entire fee could be condemned, and 
 that after the construction of the road the surface could be sold 
 subject to the right of way beneath it. It was also considered 
 that a period of six months after the appointment of Commis- 
 sioners of Appraisal was a sufficient time for owners of property 
 to file their claims for damages. Other amendments to the law 
 were also proposed by the Board but were not accepted by the 
 Legislature. 
 
 A biU was passed by the Legislature embodying the specific 
 
 amendments above mentioned to the provisions of the Eapid 
 
 Transit Act in Sections 39 and 55, which relate to proceedings to 
 
 ' condemn rights of property ; and this Act became a law on April 
 
 27, 1901, with the approval of the Governor {Laws 1901, Ch. 587). 
 
 Several proceedings to condemn property have been begun, and 
 are now pending; but the contractor has been put in possession,— 
 the question of compensation being the only one before the 
 Court, 
 
Tbemiitals. 
 
 On December 20, 1900, the contractor addressed a letter to the 
 Board requesting the modification of the plans of the Manhattan 
 Valley Viaduct so as to provide for a three-track structure and 
 the construction of a third track at the 110th, 116th and 145th 
 Street stations. On January 24, 1901, a resolution was adopted 
 authorizing the construction of three tracks on the viaduct over 
 Manhattan Valley, and for a third track with suitable cross- 
 overs and connections through the stations at 104th, 110th and 
 145th Streets. 
 
 Later the contractor requested the construction of a third track 
 to be used mainly for the storage of ears. On March 1, 1901, 
 the Board adopted a resolution authorizing the construction of "a 
 third or storage track" from 103rd to llGth Street, which it was 
 proposed should be treated as part of the terminal facilities of the 
 road, and used for the storage of cars. The cost was to be deducted 
 from the contract allowance for terminals. 
 
 On April 25, 1901, the contractor applied for permission to 
 construct a third track all the way from 103rd Street to 137th 
 Street, a part of which had already been authorized. He also 
 applied for permission to construct three tracks on either side 
 of the main line between- the stations at 137th Street and 145th 
 Street, these, also, to be part of the terminals. The Board accord- 
 ingly on May 2, 1901, adopted resolutions rescinding the resolution 
 of March 7 and authorizing the execution of a contract modifying 
 the original contract, by providing that one track for express trains 
 should be constructed along Broadway from 103rd Street to the 
 southerly side of 137th Street, the work of such construction to be 
 paid for as extra work; and that three additional tracks should be 
 constructed on either side of the main line between the 137th Street 
 and 145th Street stations which should be paid for as terminals 
 out of the $1,750,000 fixed by the contract as the maximum lia- 
 bility of the City f dr the cost of terminals. 
 
 On the east-side line the question of terminals has, the Board 
 trusts, been disposed of by the purchase by the Contractors of a 
 
 93 
 
94 Terminals. 
 
 large tract of land on the Harlem Eiver near 150th Street. If this 
 vtry advantageous arrangement is to be made, it becomes necessary 
 to extend the road from 143rd Street along Lenox Avenue to the 
 site of the terminals. Such extension was voted by the Rapid 
 Transit Board on October 24, 1901, and the communication was 
 sent to the Municipal Assembly on November 35, 1901, asking the 
 consent of the City authorities. The matter is still pending before 
 that body. If the requisite consents are given, it is proposed to 
 construct a station at 145th Street instead of 141st Street, and to 
 start a certain number of trains from that point instead of from 
 Bronx Park. This would greatly promote the convenience of Har- 
 lem travel. 
 
 THE BOARD OF RAPID TRANSIT RAILROAD COMMIS- 
 SIONERS, 
 
 A. E. OER, 
 President. 
 
Appendix I. 
 
 RAPID TRANSIT COMMISSIONERS 
 
 STAFF, 
 
RAPID TRANSIT COMMISSIONERS. 
 
 Alexander E. Orr, 
 
 John H. Starin, 
 
 William Steinway, 
 
 Seth Low, 
 
 John Glaflin, 
 
 DATE OF ELECTION OB 
 APPOINTMENT. 
 
 Appointed by Act of 
 May 22, 1894. 
 
 President N. Y. 
 Chamber of Com- 
 merce, June 8, 
 1894. 
 
 Elected President of 
 the Board, June 8, 
 1894. 
 
 Elected member of 
 Board May 11, 
 1899. 
 
 Re-elerted President 
 May 23, 1899. 
 
 Appointed by Act of 
 May 22, 1894. 
 
 Elected Vice-Presi- 
 dent, May 28, 
 1895. 
 
 Appointed by Act of 
 May 22, 1894. 
 
 Appointed by Act of 
 
 May 22, 1894. 
 Mayor Jan. 1,. 1902. 
 
 Appointed by Act of 
 
 May 22, 1894. 
 Elected Treasurer 
 
 May 28, 1895, 
 Elected member of 
 
 Board Dec' 37. 
 
 1901. 
 
 Resigned, June 8, 
 1894. 
 
 Term of office ex- 
 pired May 5, 1899. 
 
 Now in office. 
 
 Now in office. 
 
 Died Nov. 30, 1896. 
 
 Resigned June 11, 
 
 1896. 
 Now in office. 
 
 Resigned May 11, 
 1899. 
 
 Now in office. 
 
 97 
 
RAPID TRANSIT COMMISSIONERS.— C^»//«?^^^. 
 
 DATE OF ELECTION OR 
 APPOINTMENT. 
 
 Thomas P. Gilroy, Mayor, June 8, 1894. 
 
 Ashbel P. Pitch, , Comptroller, June 8, 
 
 1894. 
 
 REMARKS. 
 
 John H. Inman, 
 William L. Strong, 
 
 Woodbury Langdon, 
 
 George L. Eives, 
 
 Charles Stewart 
 Smith, 
 
 Eobert A. Van Wyck, 
 Bird S. Coler, 
 Morris K. Jesup, 
 
 Edward M. Grout, 
 
 Elected, June 8, 
 1894. 
 
 Mayor, January 1, 
 1896. 
 
 Elected JSTovember 
 19, 1896. 
 
 Elected November 
 19, 189.6. 
 
 , Elected Dec. 10, 
 1896. 
 
 Mayor Jan. 1, 1898. 
 
 Comptroller Jan. 1, 
 1898. 
 
 President N. Y. 
 Chamber of Com- 
 merce, May 5, 
 1899. 
 
 Comptroller Jan. 1, 
 1902. 
 
 98 
 
 Term of office ex- 
 pired Dec. 31, 
 1894. 
 
 Term of office ex- 
 pired Dec. 3], 
 1897. 
 
 Died Nov. 5, 1896. 
 
 Term of office ex- 
 pired Dec. 31, 
 1897. 
 
 Now in office. 
 
 Eesigned Dec. 37, 
 1901. 
 
 Now in office. 
 
 Term of office ex- 
 pired Dee. 31, 
 1901. 
 
 Term of office ex- 
 pired Dec. 31, 
 1901. 
 
 Now in office. 
 
 Now in office. 
 
STAFF OF THE COMMISSION. 
 
 NAME. 
 
 DATE OT ELECTION. 
 
 KBMARKS. 
 
 Wm. Barclay Par- 
 
 Chief 
 
 Engineer, 
 
 
 sons, 
 
 June 18 
 
 . 1894. 
 
 
 Henry E. Beekman, 
 
 Counsel, 
 
 June 18, 
 
 Eesigned, Jan. 1, 
 
 
 1894. 
 
 
 1895. 
 
 Albert B. Boardman, 
 
 Counsel, 
 1894. 
 
 June 18, 
 
 
 Messrs. Tracy, 
 
 Counsel, 
 
 Jan. 1, 
 
 
 Boardman & 
 
 1895. 
 
 
 
 Piatt (Nov/ 
 
 
 
 
 Messrs. Boardman, 
 
 
 
 
 Piatt & Soley), 
 
 
 
 
 Messrs. Parsons, 
 
 Counsel, 
 
 Jan. 1, 
 
 
 Shepard & Ogden, 
 
 1895. 
 
 
 
 Lewis L. Delafleld, 
 
 Secretary, 
 
 June 18, 
 
 Eesigned, June 1, 
 
 
 1894. 
 
 
 1899. 
 
 Bion L. Burrows, 
 
 Secretary, 
 1899. 
 
 June 1, 
 
 
 H. A. D. HoUmann, , 
 
 Auditor, 
 1900. 
 
 May 10, 
 
 
 James Dolan, 
 
 Messenger 
 1894. 
 
 June 38, 
 
 
 99 
 
Appendix II, 
 
 PROCEEDINGS 
 
 ON THE 
 
 PRESENTATION OF A GOLD MEDAL 
 
 TO THE 
 
 Honorable Abram S. Hewitt. 
 
ON THE 
 
 PRESENTATION OF A GOLD MEDAL 
 
 TO THE 
 
 Honorable Abram S. Hewitt. 
 
 At the monthly meeting of the Chamber of Commerce, held 
 October 3, 1901, the Gold Medal ordered by the Chamber was 
 formally presented to the Honorable Abeam S. Hewitt by Mr. 
 MoEEis K. Jbsup, President. 
 
 In accepting the gift, Mr. Hewitt said: 
 
 "Me. Peesident and Gentlemen: I am sure that you and 
 every member of the Chamber will sympathize with my inability 
 to find suitable words to express my profound sense of the honor 
 conferred by the presentation of this beautiful medal, the artistic 
 excellence of which greatly enhances the gratitude which I feel, 
 but to which I cannot give adequate utterance. In the course of 
 a long life, devoted largely to the public service, I have been more 
 accustomed to criticism than to commendation, although at the 
 hands of this Chamber I have never lacked the cordial approval 
 which is so grateful to public servants. The present honor would, 
 perhaps, have been deferred until the completion of the Rapid 
 Transit System, with which this occasion will imperishably link 
 my name. Time, however, moves with relentless tread, and when 
 a man reaches his eightieth year, it may well be supposed, as 
 doubtless it was by the Chamber, that whatever recognition it de- 
 sired to make during my lifetime should be quickly done. I re- 
 gard it, and my family will always look upon it, as the seal of your 
 approbation upon my public career. [Applaiise.] No man need 
 expect a higher honor, for the Chamber of Commerce represents 
 in a unique degree the solid judgment of the leaders of commerce 
 and industry in this great City. Necessarily the gracious remarks 
 of your President have had a personal direction, and in the re- 
 ply which I propose to make, I trust I may be acquitted of any 
 
 103 
 
104 Address by Abravi S. Hewitt. 
 
 want of modesty in narrating the circumstances which have con- 
 nected me with the great system of Rapid Transit now nearing its 
 completion. 
 
 "I am not the author of the idea of rapid transit in this City. 
 It is an old story, but the circumstances probably ought to be re- 
 called on the present occasion, isven at the risk of being somewhat 
 tedious, in order that your records may show how it has come to 
 pass that the Chamber of Commerce is so thoroughly identified 
 with this great enterprise. 
 
 "For many years prior to my election as Mayor in 1886, I had 
 given careful study to the means of communication in the City of 
 New York, and had been connected in various ways with the 
 changes required from year to year since 1850, when I was con- 
 cerned in the manufacture, of the first tram rails for street rail- 
 roads in this, country. For a time the demand for increased move- 
 ment of passengers was met by the construction of these tram 
 roads on the leading avenues of the City. The growth of busi- 
 ness, however, made it apparent that some better mode of transit 
 should be devised in the near future, and at various times propo- 
 sitions were made for building railways overhead and underneath 
 the surface of the streets. In 1868 the Legislature granted a 
 charter to the New York City Central Underground Company, with 
 ample powers as to route, capital and facilities for construction. 
 Under this charter, however, it was found impossible to raise the 
 rnoney reqtiired for the construction of the road. 
 
 "In 1872, therefore, the Legislature incorporated the New York 
 City Eapid Transit Company, authorizing Cornelius Vanderbilt and 
 his associates to construct and operate an underground railway, 
 which would have connected the City Hall with the Grand Central 
 Station. This corporation was duly organized, and the necessary 
 surveys and plans were made for the construction of the rail- 
 road. Unfortunately, however, the criticism which this grant pro- 
 duced in the newspapers and elsewhere, brought Commodore Van- 
 derbilt to the conclusion that he would not construct the pro- 
 posed underground railway, and to this decision the members of 
 his family, who succeeded in the management of the New York 
 Central Eailway, uniformly adhered, although they, as well as he, 
 always insisted that the extension at that time ought to have been 
 
Address by Abram S. Hewitt. 105 
 
 made, and would probably be profitable, at least to the New York 
 Central Eailroad. 
 
 "Various other grants were made by the Legislature, among 
 which the most conspicuous was what was known as the "Arcade 
 Railroad," originally proposed to be built by the Beach Pneumatic 
 Kailroad Company. It was then found, however, that capital could 
 not be secured by any of these companies, and hence the undertak- 
 ings were practically abandoned as early as 1875. In that year, 
 what is known as the Eapid Transit Act was adopted, under which 
 the elevated railroads were constructed. The completion of these 
 railroads relieved the congestion of travel to such an ex- 
 tent that no substantial complaint existed until about the year 
 1884, when the pressure for an underground railroad system re- 
 appeared, and the subject occupied much public attention and very 
 general discussion, which I followed with great interest. It was 
 evident to me that underground rapid transit could not be secured 
 by the investment of private capital, but in some way or other its 
 construction was dependent upon the. use of the credit of the City 
 of ISTew York. It was also apparent to' me that if such credit were 
 used, the property must belong to the City. Inasmuch as it would 
 not be safe for the City to undertake the construction itself, the 
 intervention of a contracting company appeared to be indispensable. 
 To secure the City against loss, this Company must necessarily 
 be required to give a sufficient bond for the completion of the work 
 and be willing to enter into a contract for its continued operation 
 under a rental which would pay the interest upon the bonds is- 
 sued by the City for the construction, and provide a sinking fund 
 sufficient for the payment of the bonds at or before maturity. It 
 also seemed to be indispensable that the leasing Company should 
 invest in the rolling stock and in the real estate required for its 
 power houses and other buildings an amount of money sufficiently 
 large to indemnify the City against loss in case the lessees should 
 fail in their undertaking to build and operate the railroad. 
 
 "These views were communicated to the Common Council in the 
 Mayor's message of January, 1888. They did not receive the ap- 
 proval of the Common Council. In this communication it was 
 suggested that the New York Central Railroad Company might be 
 induced to undertake the construction and operation of the under- 
 
106 Address by Abram S. Hewitt. 
 
 ground road. On consultation with the officers of that Companj, I 
 found that their co-operation could not be secured. Hence in draw- 
 ing the Act, which was submitted to the Legislature, it was made 
 general in its character, and provision was made for competition on 
 the part of any and all responsible individuals or corporations, 
 who might be disposed to undertake the work. The Act thus, 
 drawn was submitted to the Legislature in 1888. The prejudice 
 against the scheme was so great, . however, that it was difficult to 
 find any member of the Legislature who would be responsible for 
 the introduction of a Bill, which was opposed, not only by the 
 Common Council of the City, but by the political organization 
 which controlled the politics of the City. 
 
 "The Mayor appeared, however, before the Committee of the 
 Legislature and made a very elaborate argument as to the neces- 
 sity for increased Eapid Transit facilities, and of the mode under 
 which he proposed to secure them at an early date. The Com- 
 mittee, however, declined to report the Bill back to the Senate, 
 and so far as the session of 1888 was concerned, the proposition 
 entirely failed. 
 
 "Nothing further was done in this business until 1891, when 
 the pressure of travel had become so excessive that some action was 
 demanded by public opinion. The result was the passage of Chap- 
 ter 4 of the Laws of 1891, under which the Eapid Transit Com- 
 mission of that year was appointed, and in October, 1891, reported 
 a plan of Eapid Transit, mostly underground, which in accord- 
 ance with the provisions of the statute, was approved by the Board 
 of Aldermen, by the Department of Public Parks, by the Commis- 
 sioner of Street Improvements of the Twenty-third and Twenty- 
 fourth Wards, and by the Supreme Court. 
 
 "Bids were then invited for the construction of this work by pri- 
 vate capital, as required by the provisions of the Act of 1891. 
 The attempt thus to secure the construction of the line failed, 
 and the whole scheme was practically abandoned, although the 
 Commission still continued, to exist, but without power to take 
 further action. 
 
 "In the meantime the difficulties of the situation became more 
 and more manifest, until at length a proposition was made to the 
 Chamber of Commerce of the State of Few York by a well-known 
 
Address by Abram S. Hewitt. 107 
 
 and responsible banking house in this City to undertake the con- 
 struction of the underground system, provided the City of New 
 York would loan its credit to the corporation undertaking the work 
 to an amount not exceeding thirty millions of dollars. This propo- 
 sition was referred to a Committee of the most prominent members 
 of the Chamber, who, despairing of any other solution of the ques- 
 tion, reported at a meeting of the Chamber in favor of the propo- 
 sition. It was my privilege to point out in the discussion which fol- 
 lowed that such a loan of credit, would be contrary to the Constitu- 
 tion of the State of New York, and that it was not expedient to sub- 
 mit to the people any proposition under which the public credit 
 • could be utilized for private enterprises. The importance of vesting 
 the ownership in the City was insisted upon, and, after full discus- 
 sion, my contention was unanimously approved by the Chamber 
 of Commerce, and a new Committee, of which I was a member, 
 was constituted to formulate a Bill to be presented to the Legis- 
 lature under which the suggestions made by the Mayor in 1888 
 were to be incorporated into the proposed legislation. Taking 
 the original Bill as a basis, and with the aid of the late Henry E. 
 Beekman, who, as Corporation Counsel, had' drawn up the original 
 Bill, a new Bill was prepared and reported to the Chamber of 
 Commerce for its approval. For this unselfish and inestimable 
 service the City owes a debt of gratitude to the memory of Judge 
 Beekman. Having received a unanimous vote in its favor, the 
 Committee caused it to be submitted to the Legislature, where, 
 after full .discussion and some amendments, one of which required a 
 referendum to the people, the Bill was enacted into a law on the 
 33d of May, 1894. Under this Bill the present Eapid Transit Com- 
 mission was organized. Under its provisions the work is to be done 
 as was proposed by the Mayor in 1888 by the issue of bonds under 
 contract open to public competition, providing for an adequate 
 bond for the completion of the work, and for the investment of a 
 large amount of capital, estimated between seven and ten mil- 
 lions of dollars for rolling stock, real estate and appliances, all of 
 which are held by the City as security for the fulfillment of the 
 lease by the lessee. 
 
 "The rental to be paid by the contracting company, is suflBeient 
 to meet the interest upon the bonds issued, and to provide a sink- 
 
108 Address by Abram S. Hewitt. 
 
 lug fund for the payment of the bonds at maturity. The con- 
 tractors take all the risk, of the construction and of the paying ele- 
 ments of the enterprise. The capital required is provided at the* 
 lowest possible cost, and the work being executed by the contrac- 
 tors is also carried on with all the economy which private interest 
 invariably secures. The only concession which is made to the con- 
 tracting corporation is immunity from taxation during the life 
 of the lease. This is, in fact, a concession in theory rather than 
 in practice, because if the work were not constructed there would 
 be no property to be taxed. The great object aimed at was to se- 
 cure the early completion of the work, its continued ownership by 
 the City, and its reversion at the end of fifty years to the City 
 free and clear of all encumbrances of every kind and nature what- 
 ever. The coming generation can therefore arrange for the opera- 
 tion of the road either at cost, or, if it be continued on a profitable 
 basis of fare, for a reduction of general taxation. 
 
 "It is proper here to advert to the misapprehension under which 
 a Justice of the Supreme Court seems to have labored in some re- 
 cent remarks which he has seen fit to make in regard to this leg- 
 islation. The learned Justice did not seem to be aware that the 
 contract had been open to competition to all bidders, and that the 
 reduction in the amount of the bond to be given from fifteen mil- 
 lions to five millions of dollars made by the Supreme Court was 
 ordered before any bids were received or considered. He seems 
 to have been ignorant of the fact that all attempts to secure rapid 
 transit by the investment of private capital involving the exemp- 
 tion from taxation had absolutely failed. He did not seem to 
 know that up to the actual opening of the bids it was extremely 
 doubtful whether any responsible bidders could be secured. The 
 efli'orts of tlie Eapid Transit Commission in that direction were un- 
 remitting, and their applications were not received with favor in 
 responsible quarters whose support they hoped to secure. 
 
 "It is by no means certain that the contracting company wiU, 
 for a considerable time, be able to realize any profit from the opera- 
 tions of the railroad, although the outlook is now much more fa- 
 vorable than at the time when the contract was made. The esti- 
 mate of the profit which was to be made by the contractors out of 
 
Address by Abrani S. Hewitt. 109 
 
 the enterprise was purely conjectural, but is generally agreed by 
 competent men familiar with great public works that the terms of 
 the contract are unusually favorable to the City. One thing is 
 certain that the Rapid Transit System adopted by the Commi Siion 
 will be fully completed and put in operation without involving any 
 additional taxation whatever, and at the end of fifty years it 
 will be the absolutely unencumbered property of the City. Com- 
 pared with other enterprises in other cities it must be conceded that 
 the arrangement made for the construction of this work is the 
 most favorable that has ever been devised or accomplished. [Ap- 
 
 "In achieving this result the Chamber of Commerce has been 
 the prime mover, and I think it is not too much to say that in the 
 future its successful intervention will be regarded as one of the 
 most creditable achievements in its long and honorable history, 
 identified, as it was and is, with the construction of the Erie 
 Canal and of the great system of water supply which has made it 
 possible for more than three millions of people to dwell together 
 in health and comfort. 
 
 "If by the continued efforts of the Chamber of Commerce we 
 can secure a municipal government which will enable great public 
 works to be undertaken and carried to completion with the same 
 economy and honesty as have characterized the execution of the 
 Erie Canal, the Croton Water Works, and the Rapid Transit sys- 
 tem, no reasonable limits can be assigned to the future growth of 
 this City in prosperity and grandeur. \_A'pfla,us&.'\ 
 
 "In conclusion, I take this occasion to thank the members of the 
 Chamber for the confidence which they have uniformly mani- 
 fested in my efforts to serve the public, and I am particularly 
 grateful to Mr. Alexandbe E. Okk, Mr. Ch:aeles Stewart 
 Smith and Mr. William E. Dodge for the gracious remarks which 
 they were good enough to make at the, time when the Cham- 
 ber voted to bestow upon me this medal. It will be treasured by 
 my children as the most precious possession which will descend to 
 them, and be regarded by them, as it is by me, as the crowning 
 honor of a long career, which, by this action of the Chamber of 
 Commerce, is brought to a happy ending. {Great Applause.y 
 
Appendix III, 
 
 OPINIONS OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION 
 UPON THE APPLICATIONS TO THE SU- 
 PREME COURT AND OF THE COURT 
 OF APPEALS UPON THE CON- 
 STITUTIONALITY OF THE 
 RAPID TRANSIT ACT. 
 
APPLICATION 
 FOR THE BROADWAY ROUTE. 
 
 OPINION OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION. 
 
 SUPEEME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DE- 
 PARTMENT, MARCH, 1896: CHAS. H. VAN BRUNT, 
 P. J., GEORGE C. BARRETT, WILLIAM RUMSEY, PAR- 
 DON C. WILLIAMS, GEO. L. INGRAHAM, JJ. 
 
 In the Matter 
 
 OF 
 
 The Application of the Board of Rapid 
 Transit Railroad Commissioners for 
 the City of New York, for the appoint- 
 ment of Commissioners, etc. 
 
 Motion to confirm Report of Commissioners appointed by the 
 General Term of the Supreme Court to determine and report 
 whether the railway determined upon by the Board of Rapid 
 Transit Commissioners ought to be constructed and operated. 
 
 Mr. A, B. Boardman & Mr. E. M. Shepaed of counsel for 
 
 the motion. 
 Mr. Elihu Root, Mr. Franklin Baetlett, Mr. George 
 Zabeiskie, Mr. G. C. De Witt, Mr. J. A. Murray, Mr. 
 Ezra A. Tttttle, Mr. J. E. Roosevelt and Mr. J. C. 
 BusHBY of counsel opposed. 
 
 Van Brunt, P. J.: 
 
 The Board of Rapid Transit Commissioners having adopted a 
 route and general plan, and having failed to obtain the consent of 
 
 113 . 
 
114 opinions of Court on Application for Broadway Route. 
 
 the property owners along the line of the proposed railways, made 
 application to the General Term for the appointment of commis- 
 sioners as provided for in the Eapid Transit Act (Laws 1891, chap. 
 4, and the various acts amendatory thereof) ; and on the 15th 
 of November, 1895, the General Term appointed three commis- 
 sioners to determine and report after due hearing, whether the 
 railway determined upon by the said Board and mentioned in its 
 petition ought to be constructed and operated. These commis- 
 sioners having proceeded with the hearing of the matters referred 
 to them, on the 6th of March, 1895, reported to this court that they 
 were of the opinion and thereby determined and reported that the 
 route proposed by the Board of Eapid Transit Commissioners ought 
 to be adopted, and that the' railway determined upon by said Board 
 ought to be constrilcted and operated. 
 
 The Commissioners after spending months in the taking of testi- 
 mony in regard to the question of the co;-t and the manner of 
 building and operating the railroad in question, and having frankly 
 stated in their report that any conclusion which they could arrive 
 at in respect to the probable cost would be mere conjecture, seem 
 to have cut the Gordian knot by setting aside entirely the question 
 of cost, and looking upon the questions referred to them solely as 
 eugineering problems. It is the first time, we think, in the history 
 of any great enterprise that the question of practicability did not 
 include the , consideration of cost. More than eighteen hundred 
 years ago it was said: "For which of you, intending to build a 
 tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost, whether he have 
 sufBcient to finish it? Lest haply, after he hath laid the founda- 
 tion, and is not able to finish it, q,ll that behold it begin to mock 
 him, saying, this man began to build, and was not able to finish." 
 (St. Luke, chap. 14, verses 38, 29, 30.) 
 
 If the question of cost was not to be considered by these com- 
 missioners, it is difficult to see what question was before them. The 
 legislature and the people had both spoken very emphatically upon 
 the question of the desirability of rapid transit ; and it is well known 
 that there is no problem which engineering science cannot solve pro- 
 vided there are dollars enough behind it to meet the expense. 
 
 But it is urged upon the part of the movers of this scheme that 
 the property owners cannot raise the objection as to cost, because 
 
opinions of Court on Application for Broadway Route. 115 
 
 I hey have no interest in the determination of that question. It is 
 apparent that this is a fallacy. The only justification which can 
 probably be urged to sustain the interference with the use and 
 access of abutting owners to their property which the construction 
 of this railroad will necessarily involve, is that it can and will be 
 completed within a reasonable time after its commencement. If 
 there is a probability that financial diffieuities will be met, and 
 the construction of this road will drag its weary length along for 
 a time which no man can compute, and possibly its construction be 
 absolutely abandoned because of the wreck of the city's finances 
 and the intervention of, constitutional prohibitions, it is manifest 
 that great injury will result to the property of abutting owners 
 for which they can never be compensated. 
 
 In reaching the conclusion arrived at the commissioners ap- 
 pointed by this court seek to justify themselves by reference to 
 the language of the General Term when a former scheme of 
 rapid transit was before it. In so doing they seem to have lost sight 
 of the fact that the plan now seeking our sanction differs in every 
 feature from the one which was then before the court. In the ca-e 
 formerly before the General Term, all that it was necessary for the 
 commissioners to do to protect the city and the abutting owners, 
 was to take such security as wouid enable the city to fiU up the 
 hole made in the course of the work in ease the contractor failed 
 to comply with his contract. The court was of the opinion that 
 the question was simply a financial one, and that it might safely 
 assume that the commissioners would take sufficient security at 
 least to put the street in its then present condition in case of the 
 failure of the contractor, to complete the work, and that if capital- 
 ists would at their own risk undertake the enterprise, they should 
 be allowed to do so. In the case at bar, hawever, the problem is 
 absolutely different. It is the city's money which is to be spent. 
 And it is to be observed that in view of the obligations already in- 
 curred by the City for work in progress it is difficult to see how- 
 money can be provided to meet even the engineers' - estimates of 
 the cost of this work, in consequence of the constitutional pro- 
 hibition against the creation of debt, and if this work was com- 
 menced it would be impossible for the city to raise funds necessary 
 for its completion, and the work must cease although incomplete 
 and absolutely useless. 
 
116 Opinions of Court on Application for Broadway Route. 
 
 It may be said, and it is said, that it is to be presumed that 
 the commissioners will take sufficient security from the party con- 
 tracting with the city to construct this railway upon its behalf. 
 But if our commissioners cannot tell whether this railroad can be 
 constructed for $50,000,000, or $90,000,000 after spending 
 months in investigating this subject— as they have reported— upon 
 what basis are the Eapid 'Transit Commissioners to fix the security:' 
 It has been also suggested that the increase in the value of prop- 
 erty will give an enlarged opportunity to create a debt, but this in- 
 crease will be a matter of time, and the contracts for construction 
 must be made now, the obligation must be entered into noio, and 
 it cannot be done in sections, consequently the debt limits can only 
 be considered as they now exist. 
 
 It is to be observed that the moneys for the enterprise must be 
 furnished by the city, the risk is really that of the city, and it would 
 seem, having in view the other obligations' of the city unless the road 
 can be built for a substantially less amount than the engineers' esti- 
 mates, that the work must stop and the city would not have the right 
 to borrow money enough to put the streets in the condition' in which 
 they were before it had sunk its fifty odd millions of dollars in a 
 vain attempt to carry out this scheme of rapid transit. If our 
 commissioners are unable to ascertain within $40,000,000 what 
 this enterprise is to cost woiild it not be the height of folly 
 to enter upon this construction, knowing as we do that without 
 any exception the cost of every great public work has far exceeded 
 the estimate of the engineers ? We have, for example, the Brooklyn 
 Bridge— estimated cost $8,000,000,— actual cost $16,000,000; the 
 New Aqueduct— estimated cost $14,000,000— actual cost $24,000,- 
 000, with from $6,000,000 to $8,000,000 more of claims which the 
 aqueduct commissioners had incurred, but which the city escaped 
 the payment of only because of the prohibitory character of the 
 legislation on that subject. We have no reason to assume that the 
 Rapid Transit Commissioners will be more careful of the public 
 interest than were the Croton Aqueduct Commissioners. 
 
 In a great work like the one proposed it is impossible to foresee 
 all contingencies, and as the Eapid Transit Commissioners have 
 averred their intention to go as far as the debt limit will allow 
 in the making of their building contract, there will be no question 
 
opinions of Court on Application for Broadway Route. 117 
 
 but that the boundary will be overstepped because of the very nature 
 of the enterprise. Besides by the terms of the act, the city is 
 bound to indemnify the contractor against many and divers things 
 as to the expense of which no estimate can be gr^en. 
 
 The act provides that the city shall secure and assure to the con- 
 tractor the right to construct and operate, free of all rights, claims 
 or other interference, whether by injunction, suit for damages, or 
 otherwise, on the part of any owner, abutting owner or other per- 
 son, — a condition absolutely impossible of fulfillment. How is the 
 city to prevent interference with the work by injunction? That 
 question lies with the courts; and not with the courts of this State 
 alone, for there are cases without doubt in which the courts of the 
 United States would have jurisdiction to act, and when such juris- 
 diction exists they have not hitherto shown much reluctance in 
 acting. 
 
 The Rapid Transit Commissioners have no power to fetter the 
 action of the courts, and they have no right to deprive the con- 
 tractor of this provision of the law, by any restrictions in the 
 contract. 
 
 That legal proceedings will be undertaken which will to some 
 extent, at least interfere with the progress of this work seems to be 
 inevitable ; and if delayed by these, which the city cannot prevent, 
 the contractor might be relieved from his contract with the work 
 half performed, and the city have no recourse against his sureties. 
 
 There is no restriction upon the Eapid Transit Commissioners as 
 to the amount they can render the city liable for, — a power never 
 before given to any board or body, — and they may involve the city 
 in an amount of obligation which would absolutely ruin and de- 
 stroy its credit, and bring about as great a disaster as was oc- 
 casioned by the collapse of the Panama canal, and all other public 
 improvements would necessarily be stopped. 
 
 It has been suggested that under the provisions of Section 34 of 
 the Rapid Transit Act, added to Chapter 4 of the Laws of 1891, 
 by section 9 of Chapter 752 of the Laws of 1894, and thereafter 
 amended by Chapter 519 of the Laws of 1895, the Board of Rapid 
 Transit Commissioners is empowered to contract for the construc- 
 tion of the whole road, or all the roads provided for by their plans 
 in a single contract, or may by separate contracts, executed from 
 
118 Opinions of Court on Application for Broadway Route. 
 
 time to time, provide for the construction of parts of said road or 
 roads, or for the construction at first of two or more tracks over a 
 part of such road or roads, and afterwards of one or more additional 
 tracks over a part or parts of such road or roads, as the necessities 
 of said city or the increase of its population may in the judgment of 
 said board require ; and that under this power the Commissioners 
 may delay the construction of sections of the road until the as- 
 sessed valuation of the real estate of the, city shall increase to such 
 a sum as would allow the incurring of additional indebtedness 
 upon the part of the city over and above that which is now per- 
 mitted by the Constitution. 
 
 In respect to this suggestion it would seem to be sufficient to say 
 that the subsequent provisions of the section in question appear to 
 be inconsistent with the right to make entirely separate contracts, 
 because they require that the contract of construction should also 
 provide that the person, firm or corporation so contracting to con- 
 struct said road or roads shall, at his or its own cost or expense, 
 equip, maintain and operate said road or roads for a term of years 
 to be specified in said contract. Hence, if the road is to be con- 
 structed in sections, there must be sectional provision in regard to 
 operation, and the system would be anything but uniform and uni- 
 formity is an absolute necessity. 
 
 This necessity is contemplated by the provision subsequent to 
 that first quoted, in which it is said that the Board may also in m 
 contract for a part of such road insert a provision that at a future 
 time upon the requirement of the Board the contractor shall con- 
 struct the remainder or any part of the remainder of said road, as 
 the growth of population or the interests of the city may in the 
 judgment of the Board require, and may in such contract insert 
 a provision of a method for fixing and ascertaining at such future 
 time the amount to be paid to the contractor for such additional 
 construction, and to the end of such ascertainment may provide for 
 arbitration or for determination by a court of the amount of such 
 compensation or of any other details of construction which shall 
 not be prescribed in the contract, but which shall be deemed neces- 
 sary or convenient by said Board. If this power is resorted to, the 
 obligation is created at the time of the original contract, the ascer- 
 tainment of its amount only being deferred ; and hence it comes 
 within the present prohibition of the Constitution. 
 
opinions of Court on Application for Broadway Route. 119 
 
 It is to be further observed that the sectional plan assumes that 
 the Board of Eapid Transit shall mortgage for a considerable period 
 of years in the future the debt-creating capacity of the city. Under 
 this scheme it would be impossible for the city to provide for the 
 purchase of land, and for the building of public schools, the im- 
 provement of docks, the furnishing of additional water supply, and 
 the establishment of additional parks — all improvements of a per- 
 manent character, payment for which may properly be provided for 
 by bonds to be payable in the future — and the city would lie help- 
 less, bound hand and foot by this octopus of debt created by these 
 rapid transit contracts. 
 
 It will undoubtedly be claimed that this is an exaggerated pic- 
 ture of the situation, but the disposition seems to be to enter upon 
 this enterprise regardless of and in utter ignorance of the cost, 
 trusting to the distant future to help the enterprise out of the 
 difficulties by which it is admittedly surrounded. This blind con- 
 fidence we are unable to endorse, in face of the adverse finding of 
 our commissioners as to what we think is the crucial fact governing 
 the disposition of this case. They say, after examining the ques- 
 tion of cost, that any estimate they could make would be very like 
 conjecture. 
 
 With these facts staring us in the face — these results almost cer- 
 tain to ensue — ^how can it be said that this enterprise ought lu be 
 commenced? The probabilities indicate that after sinking $51,- 
 000,000 in it without being able to complete it, the enterprise would 
 have to be abandoned since no legislation could afford any relief, 
 "All that beheld it would begin to mock, saying, This city began 
 to build and was not able to finish." 
 
 The motion should be denied. 
 
 All concuk. 
 
 EUMSEY, J.: 
 
 In the examination of the questions presented in this proceeding, 
 it must be conceded that some system by which people may be 
 rapidly and conveniently transported from one extremity of the 
 City of New York to the other, is desirable and would be con- 
 venient. Such is the judgment of the Legislature as evidenced 
 by the statute pursuant to which this proceeding is taken, 
 
laO opinions of Court on Application for Broadway Route. 
 
 and fortified by the judgment of the common council of the city. 
 This conclusion is strengthened by the vote of the people to whom 
 was submitted the question whether a system of rapid transit should 
 be undertaken. It must be remembered though, that when the 
 question was presented to the people the present scheme had not 
 been devised and that the plan upon which the peopla expressed 
 their minds was very much diflEerent from this one, involving a 
 different route, a different system of construction and a 
 very grave difference in the liability which the city should assume. 
 The vote of the people therefore on that subject, while it may be 
 construed as an approval of some scheme of rapid transit, is not 
 to be taken as an adoption of the particular scheme which is pre- 
 sented here. 
 
 Laying aside all constitutional questions, the matter is presented 
 to us in a purely business aspect. The situation of this city is such 
 that healthful and convenient places of residence which are within 
 the reach of persons of moderate means can be secured by them 
 only in the upper portion of the city, and at a great distance from 
 the places of business of many of them. The proposition is to devise 
 some practicable scheme by which these people may be transported 
 conveniently, safely, rapidly and at small expense, from their 
 homes in the extreme upper portions of the city, to their places of 
 business at the lower end of the city, and it is believed that such a 
 scheme if it can be operated, will enhance the wealth of the city 
 and increase largely its desirability as a place of residence. It is 
 manifest that to carry this scheme into effect it is necessary that 
 some means should be devised by which the whole length of the 
 city shall be traversed. It will not do to terminate the proposed 
 road at any point short of the upper limits of the city, because it is 
 there only that room can be found for the dwelling places of those 
 who are most interested in the adoption of this scheme, and for 
 whose convenience it is principally intended. The numerous sys- 
 tems already in operation are sufficient for the transportation of 
 those whose places of residence are below the upper limits of the 
 city, and while those systems are not sufficiently commodious to per- 
 mit the passengers who are carried by them to travel conveniently 
 at all hours of the day, yet they are undoubtedly sufficient for the 
 absolute needs of the community in the central portion of the city. 
 
opinions of Court on Application for Broadway Route. 131 
 
 Therefore no system of rapid transit will be, useful or meet the 
 wishes of the people, unless it shall traverse the whole city and con- 
 nect one end with the other. 
 
 Such being the requirements, the first question is, what is the city 
 at liberty to do by way of meeting the necessities of the case ? The 
 duty of the authorities in that regard is laid down clearly by the 
 statute. In the first place it is the duty of the city to constritct 
 such a system of rapid transit ; to appropriate and raise the neces- 
 sary money to put it in condition for operation at least, whatever 
 the expense may be; to acquire the fee of such land as may be 
 necessary to erect power houses and store cars, and for all other 
 purposes of the proposed road ; to acquire such privileges, terms and 
 easements as the operation of the road shall make necessary, and 
 to do this at its own expense. To that end, after some satisfactory 
 plan shall have been devised, the Board of Eapid Transit Com- 
 missioners, representing the city, is required to make a contract 
 with some corporation or individual by whom the railroad thus 
 planned shall be completed. This corporation after having com- 
 pleted the road is to operate it for a term of not less than thirty-five 
 years, with a contract for its renewal from time to time indefinitely. 
 As has been said the city is to pay. for the construction of this road. 
 ISTot only that, but it is compelled by the law to provide in the con- 
 tract that the city shall secure and assure to the contractor so long 
 as the contractor shall perform the stipulations of the contract, the 
 right to construct and operate the road as prescribed in the con- 
 tract, "free of all right, claim or other interference, whether by 
 injunction, suit for damages, or otherwise on the part of any 
 owner, abutting owner or other, person." - {Laws of 1891, Chapter 
 Ji., §34. as amended by Laws of 1895, Chapter 519, § 10.) This 
 obligation on the part of the city is absolute and the extent of it 
 is difBcult to estimate. The Board of Rapid Transit Commissioners 
 has devised a scheme for the construction of the road ; has procured 
 the consent of the common council of the city, and upon the failure 
 to obtain the consent of a majority of the abutting owners upon the 
 street through which it is proposed to build the road, has applied 
 to this court to obtain its consent to build the road. 
 
 Right here it is necessary to determine what duty is laid upon 
 this court and what considerations should affect it in concluding 
 
laa opinions of Court on Application for Broadway Route. 
 
 whether or not its consent should be given. The statute says that, 
 if the consent of the property owners cannot be obtained, three 
 commissioners shall be appointed by this Court, and if they, after 
 hearing interested parties shall report that such railway ought to 
 be constructed or operated, their report when confirmed by this 
 court, shall be taken in lieu of the consent of property owners. 
 (Sections 4, 5). Manifestly the duty of the court is to con- 
 sider whether the railway proposed should be constructed. This 
 duty is not merely formal and perfunctory. It involves inquiry 
 into all the facts and requires a consideration of grave questions 
 of expediency and public policy. (Matter of Kings County Elevated 
 Railway Company, 82 F. Y., 95.) We are not permitted to examine 
 into the advisability of any general scheme of rapid transit for the 
 expediency of that has already been decided upon. We are to say 
 whether upon all the facts made to appear before us, the scheme 
 presented is feasible and within the limit of the power of the city, 
 and so likely upon the whole to be for the benefit of the city that 
 the railway should be constructed in spite of the refusal of the prop- 
 erty owners to give their consent. That consideration involves 
 an examination into the nature of the scheme; the time probably 
 necessary for its construction; the probable cost; whether or not 
 the expense is within the means which the city has at hand to pay, 
 and whether upon the whole, considering all the advantages and 
 disadvantages presented, the particular scheme is one which it is 
 within the power of the city to carry into effect, having in view 
 other imperative calls upon the city treasury and which when car- 
 ried into efEect, will be likely to afford the advantages which are 
 expected from such a construction. . In this consideration we are to 
 throw out the question of profit to the city. By the terms of the 
 contract the city is not expected to receive ajay profit from the 
 operation of this road. The benefits which it must derive are en- 
 tirely consequential and such as arise from the increased, con- 
 venience to great numbers of its inhabitants, and the probable en- 
 hancement of values in property in certain portions of the city. 
 The only money which the city is at all likely to get directly from 
 the operation of the road, is the annual interest upon a certain 
 portion of the bonds, which it is required to issue, and one per cent, 
 per annum in addition for a sinking fund to be payable after a cer- 
 
opinions of Court on Application for Broadway Route. 123 
 
 tain time. It is quite clear that the sum to be paid to the city will 
 not recompense it for the interest upoii the bonds which it is to issue. 
 Those bonds are to bear interest at the rate of three and one-half 
 per cent, per annum. The rental is to be estimated, not upon all 
 the bonds which, shall have been issued, but upon s.uch of them as 
 shall be left after deducting the bonds which shall have been issued 
 to pay for rights, terms, easements, privileges or property other than 
 lands acquired in fee. So that it will be seen that the amount of 
 bonds issued by the city will be very much larger than the total 
 amount of those upon which the interest by way of rental shall be 
 paid. In addition to that, must be considered the sum which the 
 city may be compelled to pay by reason of its liability for interfer- 
 ence and damages spoken of above, the amount of which cannot be 
 estimated. It is quite true that the amount above mentioned is the 
 minimum rental which can be exacted; but in view of the existing 
 conditions it is clear that no greater sum can be obtained. Indeed 
 since this case was argued, an amendment to the statute has prac- 
 tically authorized the Commissioners to contract for a less rental. 
 For the same reason the one per cent, for a sinking fund to be paid 
 on a portion of the bonds is certain to be very much less than one 
 per cent, on the whole body of the bonds, so that the amount of 
 the sinking fund will be very small in proportion to the whole 
 amount of the bonds. 
 
 It is to be noticed too, that the contract provided for in the 
 statute is so arranged that if the eompany defaults in its agree- 
 ment to operate the road and the city is forced to take possession of 
 it, it can never get, by means of the operation, anything more than 
 the four per cent, upon the prescribed amount of bonds, and the 
 one per cent, upon the sinking fund, because, by the express terms 
 of the statute anything in addition to that above the expenses of 
 the operation, is to be paid to the company and not to go to the 
 benefit of the city. For that reason the element of the probable 
 profit to the city in the building of this road, must be excluded from 
 the calculation. 
 
 The plan as devised has in view an underground railroad, ex- 
 tending from Battery Place through Broadway to Fourteenth street 
 thence dividing, one branch extending up Broadway and under the 
 Boulevard to One Hundred and Eighty-fifth street, and on the east 
 
134 Opinions of Court on Application for Broadway Route. 
 
 side, extending from Tourteentli street through Fourth and Park 
 Avenues to Mott Haven. It will be noticed that neither scheme has 
 in view the extension at present of either branch of the road to the 
 citj' limits, but each branch stops several miles short of them. 
 This constitutes of course a serious defect, but not necessarily one 
 by reason of which it could be said that the road ought not to be 
 built. 
 
 The selection of a plan for an underground railroad cannot be 
 complained of. The engineers seem to agree that it presents no 
 insurmountable engineering difficulties, although a railroad con- 
 structed in that way will undoubtedly cost very much more than 
 one built upon the surface of the ground. But the Eapid Transit 
 Commissioners have concluded that upon the whole, taking into 
 consideration the fact that a road so constructed when finished 
 will not be liable to interruption ; will be entirely free from danger 
 of collision with vehicles; will leave the street above open and can 
 be operated at high speed with comparatively few inconveniences, 
 the advantages of it more than compensate for the increased cost 
 and probable delay in construction. 
 
 It is undoubtedly true and it seems to be conceded, that a road 
 thus constructed will not be as convenient in some respects for pas- 
 sengers, and certainly will not offer as many attractions to them as 
 one built upon or above the surface of the ground, but it must be 
 remembered that such a road is built for use and not for the en- 
 joyment of the passengers, and if it would serve its purpose in, 
 affording means of rapid transit from one end of the city to the 
 other, the minor inconveniences can well be borne. 
 
 We must bear in mind, however, that this underground road is to 
 be constructed along the busiest street in the city of New York, 
 which eonstituAes the main highway of the city; which is con- 
 stantly thronged with vehicles and foot passengers ; which is lined 
 with costly buildings, especially at its lower end, the rental value 
 of which is very great and that this construction will undoubtedly 
 require a considerable time and that during that time passage 
 and commerce upon this great highway will be seriously incon- 
 venienced. It has been claimed that in fact the street will be prac- 
 tically closed during the time that the railroad is constructing. 
 It is stated by the engineer of the railroad company that a mode 
 
opinions of Court on Application for Broadway Route. 125 
 
 of construction can be adopted which will prevent that calamity, 
 but the fair inference from his testimony is that if such a mode of 
 construction is adopted the cost of the road will be increased by a 
 very large amount of money, so that upon the whole it seems quite 
 improbable that, having in view the amount which is at the dis- 
 posal of the city, it would be practicable to use those means in the 
 construction of the road which would be necessary to enable the 
 foot passengers and vehicles to go up and down Broadway while, 
 the excavation was going on under them. If this be true, and it is 
 fairly to he inferred from the evidence, it would follow that while 
 the road was in process of construction, the business done upon this 
 street would be very seriously diminished and of course that would 
 cause a very great loss both in the business profits and in the rental 
 value of buildings to the people whose places of business lie along 
 that street. When it is remembered that the evidence is that it 
 will require upwards of three years, working night and day, to 
 complete this road upon this plan from Battery Place to Fourteenth 
 street, and five years to complete it to Thirty-fourth street, it will be 
 seen that the amount of this loss is hardly susceptible of computa- 
 tion. This of itself, of course, is no reason why the road should not 
 be built, but it is a matter to be seriously considered in deciding 
 whether it should be built or not. 
 
 It appears from the testimony that the construction of this road 
 to Thirty-fourth street will, under the most favorable circumstances 
 occupy not less than five years, if built in the manner proposed. 
 This involves a loss of interest of several million of dollars, and 
 adds very largely to the necessary cost of the city in completing the 
 enterprise, not to mention the considerations of the inconvenience 
 to which the inhabitants of the city, and especially of the business 
 men, upon the street along which it is to be built, will be put. 
 The length of time must also be considered because of the possi- 
 bility that the contractors may not be able to finish the road at 
 all and the city may be left with an unfinished road upon its hands, 
 and with its great thoroughfare practically destroyed for use. 
 
 But the most serious question is that of cost. We do not agree 
 with the counsel for the Board of Eapid Transit Commissioners that 
 this is a matter with which the court has no concern. As we have 
 seen, in conclusion whether this road ought to be built, we must 
 
12G Opinions of Court on Application for Broadway Route. 
 
 take into consideration all the facts and the matter of its ex- 
 pediency and also the question of public policy. Such is the de- 
 termination of the highest court of the State, and in the considera- 
 tion of those questions the probable expense to which the city will 
 be put is an important if not a decisive factor. The question has 
 never been presented to the court upon any other application. All 
 other street railroads have been built by private corporations. 
 The matter of cost to them was a mere matter of profit or loss. If 
 they miscalculated, the result was simply that the road was left 
 unfinished and that some other company could be organized to go 
 on and finish it. There was no limit to the amount that might be 
 expended, except the limit of possible profit. Whether the work 
 was done or not, no great public inconvenience could result because 
 the necessity of restoring the street so far as it was rendered impas- 
 sable by the work, was a matter of small moment, and a thing 
 which could easily be provided for. In this case the conditions are 
 very different. The cost is to be incurred by a municipal corpora- 
 tion, which is not at liberty to expend an unlimited amount of 
 money or to incur unlimited obligations. Its right to incur obli- 
 gations is limited by the constitutional prohibition and its capacity 
 to raise money is controlled by the necessary expenses of the munici- 
 pal government and by the unwillingness of the people to endure 
 oppressive taxation. If there should be a miscalculation in the 
 cost so that the contractors would be unable to finish the road, or 
 to comply with the terms of their contract, the city would have no 
 remedy except to insist upon the forfeiture and the guaranty bond 
 which the statute provides. As every one knows, such things in 
 such an exigency would be but a broken reed and it would be al- 
 most certain that the city would be compelled either to permit the 
 work to be unfinished or to pay the expense of finishing it by direct 
 taxation, in view of its inability to borrow money after it had 
 reached the constitutional limit of its indebtedness. Fo careful 
 business man would undertake any enterprise under these circum- 
 stances, unless he had counted seriously the cost of the enterprise 
 and had become satisfied of his ability to meet the expense whatever 
 it might be. 
 
 It is quite true that the statute permits the Rapid Transit Com- 
 missioners to contract for the construction of a part of this rail- 
 
opinions of Court on Application for Broadway Route. 137 
 
 road at one time, and does not compel 'them to provide by a single 
 contract for the finishing of the whole road. But it is not to be 
 supposed that the . Board would take advantage of this provision 
 unless it were absolutely necessary to do so, because the scheme only 
 becomes useful when it shall' be fully completed and it is quite 
 clear that an underground railroad extending only through the 
 lower portion of the City of New York, and having close com- 
 petition with the su.rface roads, which during the greater portion 
 of the day are of more than sufficient capacity to carry the pas- 
 sengers, would be a complete failure ; and if they do decide to build 
 the road in sections, none the less must they incur the whole obli- 
 gation when the contract is first made. However much the con- 
 struction of the road may be delayed, the question is whether the 
 whole road shall be constructed, and not whether the court shall 
 give its consent to the construction of a portion of it. While we 
 must, and do assume that the Board of Eapid Transit Commis- 
 sioners will do what, in its Judgment, is best for the interest of 
 the city, yet we must also assume that they will proceed as rapidly 
 as possible to the construction of this road for the whole length, 
 for which it is planned, and when our consent is given it is with 
 the understanding, of coiirse, that that is what is intended. 
 
 In considering this question of cost, the first thing that im- 
 presses us is that after all the investigation which the court com- 
 missioners made upon the subject, they were entirely unable to 
 come to a conclusion as to the probable expense. In view of the 
 extremely contradictory nature of the testimony and of the fact 
 that the scheme itself has not been sufficiently worked out to en- 
 able the engineer having it in charge to say precisely what the ex- 
 pense of it will bej that is not at all strange. But the effect of it 
 is to require us to examijie the more carefully into the case and 
 conclude whether there is any reason to believe that this road, or 
 so great a portion of it as would be of advantage to the city by the 
 expenditure of any sum which the city can pay, can be constructed. 
 We have examined with care the testimony upon this subject. We 
 are met at the first with the fact that the whole scheme as presented 
 for our consent is tentative; that the details are not worked out; 
 that even the mode of making the excavation which is by far the 
 greater portion of the expense, is not entirely settled upon. As 
 
128 Opinions of Court on Application for Broadway Route. 
 
 to many of the questions which should be answered to enable the 
 cost to be estimated with any accuracy, we are left entirely in the 
 dark. For instance with regard to the amount of the underpin- 
 ning and shoring of buildings which may be necessary in the lower 
 part of Broadway, there is a serious and distressing conflict of testi- 
 mony which would indicate that the matter has not been examined 
 with sufficient care. This single item may add hundreds of thou- 
 sands of dollars to the expense of this excavation. Indeed, the 
 cost of the excavation itself is entirely unsettled; in the nature 
 of things it cannot be settled. That cost depends of course upon 
 the depth at which this tunnel is to be run, and that depends upon 
 the depth below the ground at which the tracks are to be laid, and 
 the disposition which is to be made of the constructions now exist- 
 ing in the street. As we understand the testimony, the depth at 
 which the tracks are to be laid beneath the street is not settled, and 
 the plan presented is only tentative and liable to be changed if any 
 change should be discovered in the conditions which have been 
 supposed to exist. This change may add largely to the expense 
 of the road. There are many other considerations from which it 
 appears that the probable expense of this road has not yet been esti- 
 mated with any approximation to accuracy. In examining the 
 testimony upon this subject we find that the lowest estimate is that 
 made by the engineer of the Eapid Transit Commissioners. That 
 estimate is something over $49,700,000. The estimate of the board 
 of experts, which is furnished to us for the construction of the road 
 between the same points, is $50,000,000. On the other hand we 
 have the estimate of Mr. O'Eourke who says that in his judgment 
 the cost of the road, excluding the interest upon the construction, 
 will be something over $79,500,000. While we cannot adopt this 
 last estimate in all its entirety, yet a careful comparison of it with 
 the other two estimates satisfies us that it is worthy of consideration 
 and that the actual cost is likely to be much greater than that esti- 
 mated by the consulting engineer of the Board. Indeed, that is 
 the history of all great public and private enterprises, no matter 
 how carefully planned or how honestly carried out. It needs no 
 reference to particular instances to satisfy every intelligent man 
 that architects' and engineers' estimates of any work, whether build- 
 ing a house, constructing a railroad or an aqueduct or any great 
 
opinions of Court on Application for Broadway Route. 129 
 
 public improvement, arc always sure to largely fall short of the 
 actual and necessary cost. 
 
 But assuming that the cost of this enterprise shall be only Ihat 
 which is estimated by the engineer for the Eapid Transit Com- 
 missioners, that amounts in round numbers, to $50,000,000. He 
 makes no estimate for the payment of damages; for the expense 
 of acquiring property in fee for the incidental uses of the road, 
 nor does he make as indeed he could not make, any estimate 
 whatever for the contingent liability of the city arising out of 
 its requirement to agree to secure and assure to the contractor 
 the right to construct and operate the road, free of all right, 
 claim or other interference, whether by injunction, suit for damages 
 or otherwise, on the part of any owner, abutting owner or other 
 person. The extent of that liability may be something appalling. 
 It cannot be estimated but it must be taken into consideration in 
 coming to a conclusion whether upon the whole the city ought tc 
 undertake a work, carrying with it the possibility of such serious 
 financial burdens. If, however, as we said we take simply the esti- 
 mate made by the consulting engineer and add to that the $5,000,- 
 000 of bonds which must be issued to pay for the acquisition of 
 property as provided by Section 37 of the Act, there at once arises 
 the necessity of issuing upwards of $55,000,000 of bonds. It is 
 plain that the city is not now in a situation to incur any such in- 
 debtedness. The assessed valuation of the city is something over 
 $1,646,000,000. The actual debt now existing, not including out- 
 standing obligations is something over $109,000,000. The limit of 
 the constitutional power to incur indebtedness is $164,600,000, leav- 
 ing as an amount of indebtedness which the city may incur above its 
 present indebtedness, $55,000,000. But we are bound to know that 
 outstanding obligations have consumed a considerable portion of 
 that amount. -The bonds which the city must issue for obligation? 
 already incurred, is upwards of $19,000,000, which would leave only 
 $36,000,000 that could be issued for this purpose. It is conceded 
 on all hands that such a sum is entirely insufficient for the. com- 
 pletion of this work. But if even that amount of bonds should be 
 issued, thus bringing the indebtedness of the city up to its full 
 limit, there is no doubt that the results might be quite seri- 
 ous. From that time on all expenses, however onerous, could 
 
1 30 Opinions of Court on Application for Broadway Route. 
 
 be met only by taxation. In whatever public enterprise it should 
 be necessary to engage, from any unfore:een exigency which 
 might arise, there would be no power to incur any indebted- 
 ness however useful the existence of such a power might be. If 
 it should be necessary. to build school houses or to improve the water- 
 front, or to repave a street, each of those things could be done only 
 upon condition that the money to pay for it should be at once raised 
 by taxation. The serious consequences of such a condition of 
 affairs can easily be understood. The actual necessity of leaving. 
 soitie margin of the power to incur indebtedness so that the city, 
 may provide for unforeseen emergencies, must be conceded, and the 
 propriety of undertaking any enterprise which would take away that 
 power must be questioned seriously. But if as. is quite possible, 
 the work should prove considerably more expensive than the. esti- 
 mates, the consequences would be much more serious. In that 
 case undoubtedly the work must stop, or it could be continued only 
 by a resort to direct taxation to pay for it, which added to the. 
 necessary taxation for the expenses of the city government, might 
 be exceedingly oppressive. If taxation should not be resorted to, 
 the necessary result would be that the work would come to an end, 
 and probably the money already invested would be totally lost. 
 
 It may be said that this is altogether too sombre a view to, take 
 of this affair, but the answer is as has already been said, that the 
 history of such enterprises is uniform in showing that the estimated 
 cost always falls short of the actual expense of construction, and in 
 looking at a business matter a wise business man will always take 
 into consideration the most unfortunate condition that might occur, 
 in order that he may be prepared for whatever shall happen. If 
 it be said that the natural increase of values in this city will be 
 such as within no long time to permit a great increase in its debt, 
 the answer is that we are dealing and must deal, with existing 
 conditions. The necessity of contracting indebtedness goes hand in 
 hand with the increase in the power to do so. When one examines 
 into the propriety of engaging in any enterprise which will not 
 yield him a substantial profit, such as this one is he should consider 
 not what may possibly occur in the future, but what is the present 
 condition of affairs, and whether that condition will warrant him 
 in incurring the liability which he is about to assume. Any en- 
 
opinions of Court on Application for Broadway Route. 131 
 
 tcrprise which might, or even may, seriously impair the credit of 
 this city or heavily burden the tax payers, is not to be lindertaken 
 without grave misgivings. An extraordinary eScigency must exist 
 to justify the authorization of any such thing. In our judgment 
 that exigency does not exist with reference to this road. 
 
 While the convenience of a system of rapid transit must be 
 conceded, and while it cannot be denied that the desire for it has 
 been expressed by the municipal authorities and by the people, yet 
 in view of all the considerations which have been presented to us, 
 we are of the opinion that it would not be proper for us to consent 
 that the city shall undertake the building of this road upon this 
 particular plan at this time, in view of the fact that the road when 
 built will not furnish a complete system of rapid transit from one 
 end of the city to the other; that it is doubtful whether any large 
 portion of it can be built with the money now at the disposal of the 
 eityj and that it is certain that the expenditure of the vast sum of 
 money even now authorized by the Legislature, will take away the 
 power of the city to engage in any other public work, however neces- 
 sary; and may possibly so impair its credit that it will not be able 
 to recover in the course of many years. 
 
 Motion Denied. (5 App. Biv. 390,) 
 
APPLICATION FOR THE 
 ELM STREET ROUTE IN 1897. 
 
 OPINION OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION. 
 
 STJPllBMB COUET, APPELLATE DIVISION, PIKST DE- 
 PARTMENT, DECEMBEE, 1897: CHAS. H. VAN 
 BEUNT, P. J., WILLIAM EUMSEY, PAEDON C. WIL- 
 LIAMS, EDWAED PATTEESON, GEOEGE L. INGEA- 
 HAM, JJ. 
 
 In the Matter 
 
 OF 
 
 The Application of the Board oe Eapid 
 Transit Eailroad Commissioners for 
 the City oe New York, for the appoint- 
 ment of three Commissioners, etc. 
 
 M^otion by the Board of Eapid Transit Eailroad Commissioners 
 of the City of New York to confirm the report of Commissioners. 
 
 Albert B. Boardman and Edward M. Shepakd, for the 
 
 motion. 
 George Zabriskie and Cephas Brainerd, Jr., opposed. 
 
 Van Brunt, p. J.: 
 
 The imperious necessity of improved means of transit in the city 
 of New York has long been recognized. It had become so evident 
 that in the year 1892 the people determined that, as there seemed 
 
 133 
 
134 Opinions of Court on Application for Elm Street Route, 1897. 
 
 to be no other means for its accomplishment, it should be brought 
 into existence even by the pledge of the credit of the city. This 
 necessity seems to have addressed itself so strongly to the people that 
 they considered that the accomplishm'ent of this end should be at- 
 tained though the ability of the city to carry on contemplated im- 
 provements might be thereby curtailed. 
 
 It has been said that the people have not by their vote approved 
 of the plan now presented to the court, but another scheme, which 
 differed in many of its characteristics from the plan now under con- 
 sideration. I think, however, that a reference to the history of the 
 rapid transit enterprise will show that the people did nOt give their 
 vote to any particular detail by which rapid transit was to be ob- 
 tained, but rather in faver of a result to be reached in any manner 
 which might be found to be practicable. 
 
 The presentation of the plan now before the court, and the proofs 
 and developments surrounding it, constitute striking evidence of 
 the correctness of the conclusion of this court in condemnation of 
 the previous scheme which was submitted to it. This plan, how- 
 ever, calling as it does for an expenditure of from $30,000,000 to 
 $40,000,000 less than the scheme presented to the court before, 
 still involves grave questions of law as to the possibility of its com- 
 pletion. 
 
 The report of the Supreme Court commissioners concedes, and 
 the arguments of counsel in favor of the application seem to admit, 
 that if the total cost of the building of the proposed rapid transit 
 road is to be deemed as incurred by the city at the time of the 
 making of the contract, and there is added to this all the indebted- 
 ness of the city of New York then existing, whether funded or con- 
 tingent, and its obligation to assume, on the first day of January 
 of the coming year, the indebtedness of the adjacent cities and coun- 
 ties, as provided by the new charter, the limit of indebtedness ..will 
 be exceeded. Whether any of these elements can be excluded in 
 determining as to the legality of any contract which the rapid 
 transit commissioners might make or propose to make for the 
 building of this road, presents serious questions of law which in my 
 judgment ought not to be determined upon this application, for the 
 reason that if the court on this application should come to a con- 
 elusion upon these questions adverse to the legality of such proposed 
 
opinions of Court on Application for Elm Street Route, i8gj. 135 
 
 contract, no review conld be had of its determination, although in- 
 volving only questions of law. 
 
 It is stated in the report of the Supreme Court commissioners 
 that the suggestion that no contract for the construction of the 
 -read can be made without i'pso facto creating a debt to the full ex- 
 tent of its estimated cost is not reasonable. The question of the 
 reasonableness of a constitutional inhibition is not open to discus- 
 sion, and an examination of the authorities in this State upon the 
 question of what constitutes indebtedness or debts due may show 
 that this unreasonable proposition has very respectable authority, 
 viz., our Court of Appeals. 
 
 It cannot for a moment be assumed in considering these ques- 
 tions that independent and separate contracts of constniction with 
 different contractors could, from time to time, be entered into, for 
 the reason that every contract of construction must necessarily em- 
 brace a contract for the operation of the line by the constructing 
 contractor, and to have the , operation of the rapid transit system 
 controlled by divers and various operators would of itself neces- 
 sarily absolutely condemn the scheme. It would seem, therefore, 
 that the contract initiating the work must also contain provisions 
 for its completion and final operation. It is proposed by deferring 
 construction and payment to throw (as it is stated) the indebted- 
 ness into future years, and thus obviate the constitutional objec- 
 tion; 
 
 It is further urged that a considerable amount of the apparent 
 indebtedness of the city of New York is only imaginary and not 
 real; that, for example, assessment bonds are outstanding which it 
 is anticipated will, in the future, be paid by the receipt of assess- 
 ments for the benefit levied upon neighboring property ; that lands 
 acquired for Croton Aqueduct purposes, which are to be used only 
 for sub-surface constructions, may be sold for nearly what was paid 
 for them, and that indebtedness thus reduced, and that the excess 
 of indebtedness of the adjacent cities and counties over the limit 
 provided by the Constitution is not to be charged against the city 
 at this time, becaiise the actual assumption has not taken place, 
 although the obligation to assume at present exists. Whether these 
 devices in respect to the contract, and these theories as to the exist- 
 ing indebtedness of the city, will finally obtain, ought to depend 
 
136 Opinions of Court on Application for Elm Street Route, iSgj. 
 
 upon the decision of our court of last resort, and should not be de- 
 termined, as has been already stated in this proceeding, where they 
 cannot be reviewed. 
 
 There are other questions in regard to other species of indebted- 
 ness. We Imow, for instance, little, if anything, from the evidence 
 before us, of the floating indebtedness of the territory which the 
 city of New York is bound to assume on the first of January next. 
 These uncertainties may, upon some application in reference to the 
 contract, be cleared up, so that the exact truth in respect thereto 
 may be known. 
 
 Upon the whole, although it is evident that beyond peradventure 
 the entrance by the city into this enterprise will materially cripple 
 its power to carry on other contemplated improvements (unless the 
 money therefor is produced by immediate taxation), and although 
 weighty questions of law must necessarily arise as to the legality of 
 any contract which may be entered into for the construction of this 
 road, I think that as the cost of construction is established with rea- 
 son.?ible accuracy, and the ability to meet such cost is shown,. pro- 
 vided the position of the Supreme Court commissioners and the 
 rapid transit commissioners in respect to what constitutes the in- 
 debtedness of the city under the Constitution finally prevails, what- 
 ever may be our opinion upon those subjects, we should confirm the 
 report of the Supreme Court commissioners and allow these legal 
 questions to be settled in the future, particularly as, if it should be 
 determined that the debt limit was exceeded by any contract which 
 the commissioners might make, no liability could possibly be im- 
 posed upon the city. {Litchfield v. Ballou, 114 U. S. 190.) 
 
 In view of the magnitude of the undertaldng which we are asked 
 to approve, and the vital interest which the city has in the prompt 
 completion of the contract for the building of the road when en- 
 tered into and its eifective equipment, maintenance and operation, 
 we think that we should, before consummating our confirmation of 
 the report of the Supreme Court commissioners by the entry of 
 an order to that effect, have some assurance that the powers of the 
 rapid transit commissioners in respect to security provided by section 
 34 of the Eapid Transit Act (Laws of 1891, chap. 4, as amended by 
 Laws of 1895, chap. 519) to be taken by them for the payment of 
 the rental specified in the contract and for the faithfiil perform- 
 
opinions of Court on Application for Elm Street Route, iSpj. 137 
 
 ance of all the conditions, covenants and requirements provided for 
 in the contract, should be exercised so as to protect the interests of 
 the city in a substantial manner; and to that end a stipulation 
 should be filed by the rapid transit commissioners that the penalty 
 of the bond specified in section 34 of the Eapid Transit Act virill be 
 fixed at not less than $15,000,000. This amount, in view of the 
 large interests of the city involved in its advances of credit for the 
 work as it progresses, is not more than .sufficient security to the 
 city in the event of the failure of the contractor to perform his or 
 its contract, and to enable it to carry the road to completion and 
 equip the same in case the enterprise is thrown on its hands by the 
 default or forfeiture of the contractor. 
 
 Upon the filing of the stipulation referred to in the foregoing^ 
 opinion, an order will be entered upon the usual notice confirming 
 the report of the Supreme Court commissioners. 
 
 EuMSET, Williams and Patterson, J J., concurred ; Ingeaiiam, 
 J., dissented. 
 
 Ingeaham, J. (dissenting) : 
 
 The question to be determined by this court upon this applica- 
 tion is presented on a motion to confirm the report of commissioners 
 who have determined that an underground railroad ought to be 
 constructed upon or under certain streets in the city of New York, 
 notwithstanding the refusal of a majority of the property owners 
 upon such streets to consent thereto. 
 
 Prior to the year 1874, it was for the Legislature to determine 
 whether a road should or should not be built. Whatever the rule 
 had been as to roads or highways where the public had only ac- 
 quired an easement, it had become the settled law of this State that 
 where the fee of a street or avenue had been acquired by a municipal 
 corporation to be used as a street or avenue, the Legislature had the 
 exclusive power to determine when such street or avenue should be 
 used for the construction and operation of a railway. Neither the 
 municipal corporation, in whom was vested the fee of such street 
 or avenue, nor the owners of property abutting thereon, were re- 
 quired to be consulted as to the construction or operation of such a 
 road. At the general election in 1874, an amendment to the Con- 
 
138 Opinions of Court on Application for Elm Street Route, i8p7. 
 
 stitution-, radically limiting the power of the Legislature to grant 
 such franchises, was adopted by the people and became a part of the 
 fundamental law of the State; and that provision was in substance 
 continued in the new Constitution adopted by the people in the year 
 1895. {N. Y. Const, art. 3, § 18.) The Legislature was pro- 
 hibited from passing a private or local bill granting to any cor- 
 poration, association or individual the right to lay down railroad 
 tracks, with a further provision that "the Legislature shall pass 
 general laws providing for the cases enumerated in this section, and 
 for all other cases which, in its judgment, may be provided for by 
 general laws. But no law shall authorize the construction or opera- 
 tion of a street railroad except upon the condition that the consent 
 of the owners of one-half in value of the property bounded on, and 
 the consent also of the local authorities having the control of that 
 portion of a street or highway upon which it is proposed to construct 
 or operate such railroad, be first obtained, or in case the consent of 
 such property owners cannot be obtained, the Appellate Division of 
 the Supreme Court, in the department in which it is proposed to be 
 constructed, may, upon application, appoint three commissioners, 
 who shall determine, after a hearing of all parties interested, 
 whether such railroad ought to be constructed or operated, and their 
 determination, confirmed by the court, may be taken in lieu of the 
 consent of the property owners." 
 
 Here, for the first time, was recognized the right of owners of 
 property upon a street to be consulted before that street should be 
 used for railroad purposes; and the Legislature, being prohibited 
 from passing a special law granting that power, was also prohibited 
 from passing a general law under which such right could be ac- 
 quired, unless there was a provision that the consent of the property 
 owners should be obtained for the use of the streets or avenues for 
 the purpose of such a road. But it was recognized that an occasion 
 might arise when the public interests in the construction and opera- 
 tion of a railroad in certain streets or avenues would be so great as 
 to overshadow the wishes or whims of the property owners upon the 
 street or avenue and to present a case where the rights of individuals 
 must give way to the public interest; and provision was made in 
 such a case for the appointment of commissioners, who were to hear 
 all the parties interested, take the evidence offered, and determine, 
 
opinions of Court on Application for Elm Street Route, i8gj. 139 
 
 after hearing all objections offered for or against the construction 
 •.of the road, whether it ought to be constructed and operated. As 
 was said by. Mr. Justice Eumsey, when the report of the commis- 
 sioners of 1896 was before the court: "We are to say whether, upon 
 all the facts made to appear before us, the scheme presented is 
 , feasible and within the limit of the power of the city, and so likely 
 -upon the whole to be for the benefit of the city that the railway 
 should be constructed in spite of the refusal of the property owners 
 to give their consent. That consideration involves an examination 
 into the nature of the scheme ; the time probably necessary for its 
 construction ; the probable cost ; whether or not the expense is with- 
 in the means which the city has at hand to pay ; and whether, upon 
 the whole, considering all the advantages and disadvantages pre- 
 sented, the particular scheme is one which it is within the power 
 of the city to carry into effect, having in view other imperative calls 
 upon the city treasury, and which, when carried into effect, will be 
 likely to afford the adraiitages which are expected from such a con- 
 struction." {Matter of Rapid Transit R. R. Commissioners, 5 App. 
 Div. 300.) 
 
 The commissioners, after hearing the parties interested upon this 
 application, have determined that this road ought to be constructed 
 ■and operated; and upon us devolves the duty of saying whether that 
 report should be confirmed. 
 
 In determining whether a great work should be undertaken, the 
 first question v,'hich must be considered is as to the financial ability 
 of those upon whom will fall the obligation of providing the money 
 required, and the power or authority of the contracting parties to 
 make the necessary contracts. Unless there is an affirmative deter- 
 mination of that question, it is the height of folly to attempt to 
 make a contract, or to attempt to proceed with the work. And on 
 this application, considering the nature of the work proposed and 
 the fact that the municipal corporation of the city of New York is 
 required to make the contract and to, furnish the money to pay the 
 cost, we must first consider, in determining this application, as to 
 whether the city has the power to make the proposed contract 
 and the ability to furnish the necessary money. We have not to 
 determine whether a private individual should be allowed to con- 
 struct a work, which it is conceded would be of great public utility, 
 
140 Opinions of Court on Application for Elm Street Route, i8gj. 
 
 out of his private means, and where all that is required for the 
 protection of the public is to see that proper security is given to 
 make it certain that the contract vi^ill be completed. There the 
 question of the limit of cost is only material upon a determination 
 as to how much security will be required, or the nature of such se- 
 curity. Where, however, the money is to be furnished by the public, 
 whether by the State or by a municipal corporation, a different ques- 
 tion is presented. And this becomes especially important when 
 the State officers or the municipal corporation are limited, 
 either by the Constitution or by law, as to the amount of indebted- 
 ness that can be imposed upon or incurred by the authority or muni- 
 cipality which is to make the contract or to be responsible for the 
 cost of the undertaking. It does not seem to me to require argu- 
 ment to show that if the incurring of such a liability, or the making 
 of a contract which will involve a liability of a municipal corpora- 
 tion largely in excess of that which the municipality has the power 
 to incur — in other words, if, because of the fundamental law of the 
 State, a contract to build the road when made by a municipal cor- 
 poration would be absolutely void, because such contract would im- 
 pose upon the municipality a liability in excess of that allowed — 
 it is the duty of the court to refuse its approval of a report recom- 
 mending that the road which would require the making of such a 
 contract should be built. If the obligation on the part of the city 
 to pay the amount which is to be paid for the doing of the work is 
 void, it is apparent that the contract never could be performed and 
 that no advantage would result from the making of the contract, 
 cither to the city or to those interested in having the public work 
 completed. A city which has incurred indebtedness to the limit of 
 the amount allowed by the Constitution is absolutely helpless to 
 provide means for the payment of any new obligations imposed 
 upon it, except by a resort to taxation ; and even this power of taxa- 
 tion is limited by the same section of the Constitution which limits 
 the power of municipal corporations to borrow money. The lia- 
 bility of the municipal corporation to creditors, whether upon bind- 
 ing contracts and obligations of the city, or upon claims against the 
 city which arise from the neglect of its agents in the performance 
 of their duties, or whether imposed upon the city in any other man- 
 ner, still exists ; and those obligations must be met, or the city itself 
 
opinions of Court on Application for Elm Street Route, 18^7. 141 
 
 becomes bankrupt; and its whole taxing power iaust be used to 
 supply the money necessary to meet such obligations, imposing upon 
 all the property of the city burdens appalling to contemplate, and 
 for which no advantage derived from means of communication be- 
 tween different parts of the city could possibly be a compensation. 
 
 Providing that the city had power to contract, the construction 
 of this railroad would impose upon the city, not only the cost speci- 
 fied in the contract, but other indefinite and uncertain liabilities, the 
 amount of which no one has attempted to estimate, and which it 
 seems to me cannot be ascertained until after the road is built and 
 in operation. .Thus, by section 34 of this act (Chap. 4, Laws of 
 1891, as amended by chaps. 538, 753, Laws of 1894, and by chap. 
 519, Laws of 1895), it is provided: "Such contract shall further 
 provide .by proper stipulations and covenants on the part of the said 
 city, that the said city shall -secure and assure to the contractor, so 
 long as the contractor shall perform the stipulations of the contract, 
 the right to construct and to operate the road as prescribed in the 
 contract, free of all right, claim or other interference, whether by 
 injunction, suit for damages or otherwise, on the part of any owner, 
 abutting owner or other person." By section 37 of the act amended 
 as aforesaid, it is provided: "For the purpose of providing the 
 necessary means for such construction at the public expense of any 
 stieh road or roads, and the necessary means to pay for lands, 
 property, rights, terms, privileges and easements, whether of own- 
 ers, abutting owners or others, which shall be acquired by the city 
 for the purposes of the construction or the operation of such road 
 or roads as hereinafter provided, and of meeting the interest on the 
 bonds in this section hereinafter provided for accruing thereon 
 prior to the completion and readiness for operation of the portion 
 of such road or roads for the construction of which such bonds shall 
 have been respectively issued, the board of estimate and apportion- 
 ment, or other local authority in said city in which such road or 
 roads are to be constructed, having power to malce appropriations 
 of moneys to be raised by taxation therein, from time to time, and 
 as the same shall be necessary, and upon the requisition of said 
 board of rapid transit railroad commissioners, shall direct the comp- 
 troller, or other chief financial officer of said city, and it shall there- 
 upon become his duty to issue the bonds of said city." 
 
142 Opinions of Court on Af plication for Elm Street Route, iSpy. 
 
 This liability, to be imposed upon the city by the contract to be 
 made by the rapid transit railroad commissioners, is without limit 
 as 1:o amount. Just what are the rights of the owners of property 
 abutting upon a street or avenue, the fee in and to the soil under- 
 neath the surface of which has been acquired by the city of New 
 York, so far as the same is not required for the ordinary city uses 
 of gas or water pipes, or others of a like character, has never been 
 finally determined. We have now the example of the elevated rail- 
 road, constructed and operated in the city of New York under legis- 
 lative and municipal authority for nearly twenty years, which has 
 been compelled to pay many millions of dollars to abutting property 
 owners for the easement in the public streets apjiropriated by the 
 construction and maintenance of the road, and still the amount that 
 the road will have to pay is not ascertained. What liabilities will 
 be imposed upon the city under this contract ; what injury the con- 
 struction and operation of this road will cause to abutting property, 
 and what easements and rights will have to be acquired before the 
 road can be legally constructed and operated, it is impossible now to 
 ascertain, Yet these charges must be met by the city, and if the 
 city has no power to borrow money to pay them, it must either 
 realize the money necessary from taxation, or default in the pay- 
 ment of its obligations. It seems to me- clear that, to- justify our 
 approval of the construction of this road by the city, we are bound 
 to inquire as to the effect of the imposition upon the city of the 
 obligations which will be created by the execution of this contract, 
 upon the general financial condition of the city, and if there is any 
 serious doubt as to the power of the city to provide money to meet 
 the obligations which will be imposed by the contract, together with 
 the money necessary to provide for the efficient government of the 
 city, it is our duty to refuse our consent. With whatever regret we 
 may be compelled to stop an improvement which is one ardently 
 desired, the duty imposed upon us is one which we must perform 
 by a conscientious exercise of judgment regardless . of consequences. 
 
 It. is well here to call attention to the fact that the situation has 
 materially changed since this act was passed by the Legislature, and 
 since the people of the present city of New. York voted in favor 
 of the construction of this road by the municipality. Since that- 
 time what is known as the Greater New York charter has- been 
 
opinions of Court on Application for Elm Street Route, i8gj. 143 
 
 passed, creating a new municipality, upon which will devolve the 
 responsibility of providing the means for the construction of this 
 road and those necessary to meet all the engagements imposed upon 
 the city by the contract to be executed by the rapid transit com- 
 missioners. By the charter of this new municipality (Laws of 
 1897, chap. 378), which takes efEect January 1, 1898, there is 
 created a greater city, in which are united the present city of New 
 York and a territory largely exceeding that of the present city. 
 Such new city is declared by the 1st section of the Greater New 
 York charter to be "the successor corporation in law and in fact 
 of all the municipal and public corporations united ^nd consolidated 
 as- aforesaid, with all their lawful rights and powers, and subject 
 to all their lawful obligations, without diminution' or enlargement 
 except as herein otherwise specially provided." By section 4 of this, 
 charter it is provided : "All valid and lawful charges and liabilities 
 now existing against any of the municipal or public corporations, 
 or parts thereaf which by this act are made part of the corporation 
 of tlie said The City of New York, including the county of Kings 
 and the county of Eichmond, or which may hereafter arise or accrue 
 against such municipal and public corporations, or parts thereof, 
 including the said counties of Kings and Eichmond, which but for 
 this act would be valid and lawful charges or liabilities against the. 
 same, shall be deemed and taken to be like charges against or lia- 
 bilities of the said city of New York, and shall accordingly be de- 
 frayed and answered unto by it to the same extent and no further 
 than the said several constituent corporations would have been 
 bound if this act had not been passed. All bonds, stocks, contracts 
 and obligations of the said municipal and public corporations, in- 
 cluding the county of Kings and the county of Eichmond, and such 
 proportion of the debt of the county of Queens and of the town, of ■ 
 Hempstead as shall be ascertained as hereinafter prescribed, which 
 now exist as legal obligations, shall be deemed like obligations of 
 the city of New York, and all such obligations as are authorized 
 or required to he hereafter issued or entered into shall be issued, or 
 entered into by and in the name of the corporation of the. city of 
 New York." By section 5 of the said charter it is provided: "All: 
 the valid debtp of the municipal and public corporations mentioned 
 in the first section of this act, including the county of Kings and 
 
144 Opinions of Court on Application for Elm Street Route, iSp?. 
 
 the coiinty of Richmond, and the proportion of the debt of the 
 county of Queens and of the town of Hempstead aforesaid, and 
 the valid debts of the towns, incorporated villages and school dis- 
 tricts herein united and consolidated with the corporation hereto- 
 fore known as the mayor, aldermen and commonalty of the city of 
 New York, into The City of New York, as well as the debts of the 
 latter corporation, shall be the common debt of The City of New- 
 York as hereby constituted. * * * it being the intent hereof 
 that the obligations and liability of The City of New York as the 
 successor of municipalities and public corporations consolidated 
 into it shall be the same as and not otherwise or greater than the 
 respective obligations and liabilities of the Eeveral constituent 
 corporations, and that The City of New York shall succeed to all 
 of their rights as well as to their obligations and liabilities in re- 
 spect thereof, except as herein otherwise specially provided." And 
 by section 8 of the act it is provided : "In consideration of the fore- 
 going provisions, whereby The City of New York, as hereby consti- 
 tuted, assumes as aforesaid the valid debts, obligations and lia- 
 bilities of the municipal and public corporations, including the 
 counties', towns, incorporated villages and school districts as afore- 
 said, and to carry out the scheme and purpose of this act, all of the 
 public buildings, institutions, public parks, water works and prop- 
 erty of every character and description, whether of a public or 
 private nature, heretofore owned and controlled by any of the said 
 municipal and public corporations or parts thereof, hereby consoli- 
 dated into The City of New York, including any and all such 
 property owned by the county of New York, the county of Kings 
 and the county of Richmond, wherever situated, and by the county 
 of Queens situated in that portion thereof which is included within 
 the liinits of The City of New York as constituted by this act, and 
 all the right, title and interest of the said municipal and public 
 corporations and counties as aforesaid, or any of them, in and to 
 such property, are hereby vested in The City of New York and di- 
 vested out of the said corporations and counties, and the power of 
 said municipal and public corporations and of the said counties of 
 New York, Kings and Richmond to become indebted, shall cease 
 upon the consummation and taking effect of the consolidation here- 
 in provided for." 
 
opinions of Court on Application for Elm Street Route, iSpy. 145 
 
 We have, therefore, on the 1st day of January, 1898, a public 
 municipal corporation to come into existence, upon which is im- 
 jiosed the liability for all indebtedness and obligations of the var- 
 ious counties, municipalities, towns and villages of the territory 
 therein incorporated; and, in consideration of the imposition of 
 these liabilities upon the new municipal corporation, the right of 
 the people in the various portions embraced within its limits to con- 
 ~ duct their own affairs and to dispose* of the property of the corpora- 
 tions formerly existing, is taken away and vested in the new muni- 
 cipal corporation. So far as this new municipal corporation is 
 affected, this act imposes upon it the obligations and indebtedness 
 of these various existing corporations and municipalities, and the 
 liability of the new' city for any contract or obligation made by 
 either of the cities or niunicipal or other corporations embraced 
 within the territory of the greater city, must be limited by the 
 power of this greater city to assume such obligations, or by the 
 power of the Legislature to impose them upon the new city on the 
 1st day of January, 1898, when this consolidation goes into effect. 
 
 The people of the State have expressly limited the right of 
 municipal corporations to incur indebtedness, as they have limited 
 the right of the Legislature to impose indebtedness upon them. 
 "No county or city shall be allowed to become indebted for any 
 purpose or in any manner to an amount which, including existing 
 indebtedness, shall exceed ten per centum of the assessed valuation 
 of the real estate of such county or city subject to taxation." 
 (Const, art. 8, §10.) 
 
 It is difficult to conceive of a more absolute prohibition of indebt- 
 edness, above the limit named, than is provided for by this section 
 of the Constitution. No city or county is to be allowed to become 
 indebted for any purpose, or in any manner, to an amount which, 
 including existing indebtedness, shall exceed ten per cent, of the 
 assessed valuation of the real estate of such county or city subject 
 to taxation, and all indebtedness in excess of such limitation, ex- 
 cept as it existed at the time of the adoption of that provision, 
 "shall be absolutely void." Thus, neither the Legislature nor the 
 officers of the municipal corporation, nor the people residing in such 
 county or municipal corporation, in their corporate capacity, could 
 make any obligation or incur any indebtedness that could be bind- 
 
146 Opinions of Court on Application for Elm Street Route, iSgj. 
 
 ing upon the municipal corporation when such obligation carried 
 the total indebtedness of the city above the limit imposed; and 
 the only exception recognized by the section is that it shall not be 
 construed to prevent the issuing of certificates of indebtedness or 
 revenue bonds issued in anticipation of the collection of taxes for 
 amounts actually contained or to be contained in the taxes for the 
 year, when such certificates or revenue bonds are issued and pay- 
 able out of such taxes, nor to prevent the issue of bonds to provide 
 for the supply of water. In order, however, that there could be 
 no evasion of the prohibition by the issuance of such certificates in 
 anticipation of taxes or obligations for a water supply, it was pro- 
 vided that all such certificates and indebtedness not retired within 
 five 5'ears after their date of issue, bonds issued to provide for the 
 supply of water, and any indebtedness incurred by any portion or 
 part of a city, should be included in ascertaining the power of the 
 city to become otherwise indebted. Thus, under the express pro- 
 visions of this article, when this charter takes efEect, all certificates 
 of indebtedness issued in anticipation of the payment of taxes, 
 which have not been retired within five years after their date, and 
 any debt incurred by any portion of the greater city to provide for 
 a supply of water, and any debt incurred by any portion or part 
 of the city for any purpose, shall be included in ascertaining the 
 power of the new city to become otherwise indebted. 
 
 What is meant by the term "indebtedness" as contained in this 
 provision of the Constitution? "Ordinarily, it imports a sum of 
 money arising upon a contract express or implied. In its more 
 general sense it is defined to be that which is due from one person 
 to another, whether money, goods or services; that which one per- 
 son is bound to pay or perform to another." (5 Am. & Eng. Ency. 
 of Law, 143.) In construing the meaning to be given to such a 
 term as "indebtedness" in the Constitution, we must consider the 
 object sought to be attained by this provision of the Constitution 
 under consideration. "The mischief to be prevented was the 
 creation of an excessive debt for local improvements or public 
 works, or the loaning of municipal credit, so payable that the bur- 
 den should not fall upon those who contracted the obligations or 
 on their revenues, but on posterity." {Bank for Savings v. Grace, 
 103 K Y. 318.) 
 
opinions of Court on Application for Elm Street Route, iSgj: 147 
 
 Here we have a provision for the purpose of preventing either a 
 municipal corporation or the Legislature from incurring indebted- 
 ness beyond a certain limit. Is it not clear that such provision 
 could only be effectual by construing the term "indebtedness" to 
 mean any obligation or liability required to be discharged by the 
 payment of a sum of money? This word "indebtedness" has re- 
 ceived its construction by the Supreme Court of the United States 
 in the ease of- Litchfield v. Ballon (114 U. S. 190). It seems that 
 in the Constitution of the State of Illinois there is a provision that 
 "no county, city, township, school district or other municipal cor- 
 poration shall be allowed to become indebted in any manner or 
 for any purpose to an amount, including existing indebtedness, in 
 the aggregate exceeding five per centum on the value of the taxable 
 property therein," the language being almost identical with 
 that in use in the Constitution of this State now under considera- 
 tion. The Supreme Court of the United States, in construing 
 this provision, says: "It (the city) shall not become indeited. 
 Shall not incur any pecuniary liability. It shall not do this in any 
 manner. Neither by bonds, nor notes, nor by express or implied 
 promises. Nor shall it be done for any purpose, no matter how 
 urgent, how useful, how unanimous the wish. There stands the 
 existing indebtedness to a given amount in relation to the sources 
 of payment as an impassable obstacle to the creation of any further 
 debt, in any manner, or for any purpose whatever. If this pro- 
 hibition is worth anything, it is as effectual against the implied as 
 the express promise, and is as binding in a court of chancery as a 
 court of law." 
 
 In the case of Berlin Iron Bridge Co. v. City of San Antonio 
 (62 Fed. Eep. 882) the same construction was given to a provision 
 of the Constitution of the State of Texas, and it was held that a 
 contract to build a bridge, made by a city, by which the city obli- 
 gated itself to pay a sum of money for the building of such bridge, 
 created a debt, and that such contract was not binding upon the 
 city, being prohibited by the Constitution of the State of Texas, 
 which provided that no debt shall ever, at any time, be created by 
 any city, except upon certain conditions which were not complied 
 with in the execution of the contract in question. 
 
148 Opinions of Court on Application for Elm Street Route, iSgj. 
 
 The same question was presented again in the Supreme Court of 
 the United States, in the case of Lake County v. Bollins (130 U. 
 S. 662). There it was held that a prohibition contained in the 
 Constitution whereby no county should contract any debt by loan, 
 in any form, except for certain purposes, was in fact a limitation 
 upon the power of the county to contract any and all indebtedness, 
 and the same principle has been applied in construing the provisions 
 of the Constitution of the State of Illinois (see City of Spring- 
 field v. Edu-ards 84 111. 636; Prince v. City of Quincy, 105 id. 138, 
 215; id. 443; Culbertson v. City of Fulton, 127 id. 30), and also 
 by the Supreme Court of Iowa in the cases of Grant v. City of 
 Davenport (36 Iowa, 396) and City of Council Bluffs v. Stewart 
 (51 id. 385). 
 
 In the case of Leggett v. The Banlc of Sing Sing (24 N. Y. 
 284) it was held that the words "debt due" included the contingent 
 obligation of an indorser of a promissory note held by a bank, al- 
 though the note itself was not due and the liability of the indorser 
 was only contingent upon the failure of the maker of the note to 
 pay it. The court was unanimously of the opinion that the words 
 "debt due" would include an obligation that existed, although it 
 was contingent and not payable until a future time. Judge Story, 
 in the case of Carver v. Braintree Mfg. Co. (2 Story, 450), says: 
 "It seems clear that in common parlance, as well as in law, the 
 term (indebtedness) is, in an enlarged sense, sometimes used to de- 
 note any kind of a just demand." 
 
 In Smith v. City of Newburgh (77 IST. Y. 132) a statute was 
 under consideration, which gave certain power to the water com- 
 missioners of the city of Newburgh to acquire property for a water 
 supply, but provided that if the said commissioners "at any time 
 deem that the interests of said city call for and require the expendi- 
 ture of money exceeding the sum of ten thousand dollars in en- 
 larging, altering and improving . the water works of said city, or 
 for any of the purposes of this act, before any such enlargement 
 or improvement shall be entered upon or any contract or purchase 
 relating thereto shall be made," the same should be approved at a 
 special election to be held in the manner provided for by the act in 
 question. The water commissioners of the city of ISTewburgh leased 
 a parcel of land for a term of twenty year? at an annual rent of 
 
opinions of Court on Application for Elm Street Route, i8gj. 149 
 
 $1,500 for the first ten years, and $2,100 for the next ten years, 
 payable semi-annually, with the privilege to the city to purchase 
 the property, at $30,000 at any time during the term. It was held 
 that the lease was void, as the obligation exceeded the sum of $10,- 
 000, and was not authorized by the vote of the taxpayers pro- 
 vided for by the statute. Miller, J., in delivering the opinion 
 of the court, says: "The rents in all would amount to $36,000; 
 the purchase price, if made at any time during the term, to $30,- 
 000, so that; in no contingency was a less sum than $10,000 to 
 be paid by the city. That the rent was distributed for a long period 
 of time, and to be paid semi-annually, did not lessen the amount. 
 The whole liability was incurred upon the execution of the lease, 
 and the common council undertook to bind the city for an amount 
 exceeding $10,000, in direct violation of section five, last cited." 
 It was further held that no subsequent ratification of an illegal 
 act can bind a corporate municipality where a contract is unlawful 
 when it is made, and that no subsequent act could make the con- 
 tract effectual. 
 
 Would the city of New York, upon executing this contract to pay 
 $35,000,000 at various times within five years from the date of the 
 contract, become indebted for any purpose, or in any manner? I 
 think it clear that it would. The indebtedness would not be im- 
 mediately payable. It might be a liability, which would be con- 
 tingent upon the contractor's complying with his contract, but it is 
 clear that it would be an obligation upon the city on the date when 
 the contract was executed, payable, it is true, at certain specified 
 times in the future, but still an existing obligation of the city to 
 pay that sum upon the contractor's completing, the work as called 
 for by the contract. And is not such a liability. or obligation to 
 pay just as much an indebtedness as if evidenced by a bond pay- 
 able twenty years from date? This provision of the Constitution 
 would be of no effect in limiting the power of a city to incur in- 
 debtedness, unless this meaning were given to the word "indebted- 
 ness." I think, therefore, that no contract can be made, or obliga- 
 tion entered into, or liability incurred by any municipal corpora- 
 tion in this State, calling for the payment of a sum of money 
 which, with existing debts, obligations or liabilities of every kind 
 and description, will impose upon the municipal corporation an 
 
150 Opinions of Court on Application for Elm Street Route, iSgj. 
 
 obligation to pay, either at present or in the future, an aggregate 
 sum of money exceeding ten per cent, of the assessed valuation of 
 the real estate subject to taxation embraced within the limits of 
 such municipal corporation at the time the contract or obligation 
 is made or assumed, and that the new city of New York will have 
 no power to make any contract or obligation which will or can in- 
 crease its debt above this limit. 
 
 As before stated, the obligation upon the city of ISTew York, 
 under the contract that these rapid transit commissioners must 
 make to build this railroad, is to some extent indefinite. It 
 will have to pay the amount provided for in the contract for the 
 building of the road. What that amount will be no one can tell 
 until the contracts are made. We have the opinion of the engineers, 
 which is confirmed by that of the commissioners, that the railroad 
 can be built for $35,000,000 or less; but whether contractors can be 
 found to build it for that amount does not appear. Assuming, 
 however, that a contractor can be found who will build the road for 
 that amount, the obligations to be imposed upon the city of New 
 York are not confined to the specific amount to be paid to the con- 
 tractor, but, in addition, the city is to be compelled to acquire all 
 real estate that the board of rapid transit commissioners shall de- 
 termine to be necessary for the purpose of constructing or operat- 
 ing the road, "including necessary stations and station approaches, 
 or for the purpose of operating or securing the operation of the 
 same free of interference and right of interference and of action 
 and right of action for damages or otherwise, whether by abutting 
 owners or others, or to provide, lay or maintain conduits, pipes, 
 ways or other means for the transmission of electricity, steam, 
 water, air or other source or means of power, or of signals or mes- 
 sages necessary or convenient for or in the construction or opera- 
 tion of such road, or for the transportation of materials necessary 
 for such construction or operation, or to provide a temporary or per- 
 manent way or course for any such conduit, pipe or other means or 
 source of transportation." (§39 of chap. 4 of the Laws of 1891, 
 as amended by chap. 519, Laws of 1895, §15.) And in addition 
 to the amount necessary to acquire such land, the city is at all 
 times to guarantee the contractor freedom from any obligation by 
 unauthorized suit for damages, or otherwise, on the part of any 
 
opinions of Court on Application for Elm Street Route, iSpj. 151 
 
 owner or abutting owner, or other person, that would prevent him 
 from operating the said road as constructed under the contract. 
 The amount of this contingent liability imposed upon the city, in 
 addition to the amount required to be paid for the construction of, 
 the road, is incapable of being definitely ascertained, and no rea- 
 sonable estimate can be made as to its' amount ; but the city will be 
 required to pay therefor. (Chap. 519, Laws of 1895, §30.) Ac- 
 cepting the report of the commissioners that the road, as proposed, 
 and of' which our approval is asked, can be built for the sum of 
 $35,000,000, a liability for that amount will be imposed upon the 
 city, in addition to the amount that will be needed. for stations 
 and other real estate acquired in fee, and also the amount neces- 
 sary to acquire the easements of those whose property will be in- 
 jured by the construction and operation or maintenance of the 
 road; and upon the execution of the contract these various sums 
 will become an existing indebtedness of the city and county of New 
 York, and, as such, will be imposed upon the new corporation to 
 come into being upon the 1st day of January, 1898. 
 
 The question then comes, would such an indebtedness, taken 
 with the indebtedness which must be assumed by the said new 
 municipal corporation, be in excess of that for which such new cor- 
 poration can become indebted, under the provisions of the Con- 
 stitution before cited ? In discussing the amount of the indebted- 
 ness which under the new charter, will be imposed upon the new 
 city of New York, we must bear in mind that it is impossible to as- 
 certain the full amount of the obligations of the various rriuhicipal 
 corporations, counties and other political subdivisions included 
 within the territory which will constitute the new city. There Is 
 nothing before us to show what obligations or liabilities, absolute 
 or contingent, have been incurred by these various' municipalities 
 and corporations. There was before the commissioners evidence as 
 to certain existing obligations and liabilities which, under the pro- 
 visions of the new charter, would become obligations or indebtedness 
 ,of the new city, but it is clear that there are obligations or lia- 
 bilities other than those specified. It is also clear that the pro- 
 hibition of the Constitution against indebtedness is entirely irre- 
 spective of the resources of the municipality to pay such indebted- 
 ness. An amount of money which a municipal corporation is bound 
 
152 Opinions of Court on Application for Elm Street Route, iSgf. 
 
 to pay is not any the less an indebtedness because it is to be paid 
 in return for property to be transferred or acquired by the cor- 
 poration which will produce a revenue for the corporation. There 
 can be no doubt that the city of New York, with its sinking fund 
 for the payment of principal and interest of its debts and its power 
 of taxation, will be able to pay as they become due all of its obliga- 
 tions or indebtedness. But a debt that a corporation or an indi- 
 vidual is bound to pay is no less a debt or obligation, because such 
 person or corporation has the means to pay the debt when it be- 
 comes due, 'and where a municipal corporation is prohibited from in- 
 curring a debt, it is as much prohibited from incurring one which 
 it can pay as one which it cannot pay. The Constitution says that 
 the city of New York shall not be allowed to incur any indebtedness 
 exceeding the limit fixed, and that any indebtedness exceeding 
 that limit, assumed or attempted to be imposed upon such corpora- 
 tion, shall be absolutely void. It. is not at all material, as to the 
 power of a corporation to enter into a contract by which it obli- 
 gates itself in the future to pay a sum of money, to show that in 
 the future, relying upon the growth of the city and the increase 
 in the value of assessments, when that sum of money becomes due 
 the limit will be so raised that it would then be able to incur the 
 indebtedness. The prohibition applies to the present time, and pre- 
 vents the creation of an obligation to pay in the future a sum of 
 money when by such an obligation the total amount of its indebted- 
 ness exceeds ten per cent, of the assessed valuation of the real estate 
 included within the corporate limits subject to taxation at the time 
 when the indebtedness was sought to be incurred. The opinion of 
 the comptroller and the finding of the commission that within the 
 next few years the present' city of New York would, if it continued 
 to exist, be able to incur an indebtedness of $135,000,000 without 
 exceeding the constitutional limit, is no answer to the objection 
 that by the last assessment of property subject to taxation within 
 the city, the proposed contract would increase the indebtedness 
 above ten per cent, of such assessed value of taxable property. 
 Not are we justified in eliminating all present contracts and obliga- 
 tions of these municipalities which have been entered into and 
 which will call for the payment of large sums of money for public 
 improvements now under way. Such contracts and obligations arc 
 
opinions of Court on Application for Elm Street Route, iSgj. 163 
 
 present liabilities of the city payable in the future, and constitute 
 indebtedness of the city as much as this proposed contract would 
 be an indebtedness if it were executed. What we must do is to as- 
 certain what the indebtedness of the new city of New York will be 
 on January 1, 1898, and then determine whether or not this pro- 
 posed increase of indebtedness will be valid within the constitutional 
 prohibition; and unless we can see that such a contract would not 
 increase the debt to such an 'extent as to bring the total debt of the 
 city in excess of the requirements of the Constitution, I think it 
 is our duty to say that this road should not now be built. 
 
 The consolidated stock and certificates of indebtedness of the 
 present city of New York, deducting the certificates of indebted- 
 ness issued in anticipation of taxes, and the gross amount of the 
 obligations of the city held by the sinking fund, i.e., the net funded 
 debt on August 31, 1897, appears to have been $130,412,895. In 
 addition to that, it appears from the testimony of the comptroller 
 that balances due or to grow due upon contracts for public improve- 
 ments made by the city of New York, unpaid on August 31, 1897, 
 amount in the aggregate to the sum of $20,185,675.80. There 
 must be further added to the obligations of the city the amount 
 which the city will be compelled to pay for a large amount of real 
 estate taken by the city, the most of which has actually been taken 
 possession of, and the value, of which is now being determined. 
 The evidence as to the value of this property is, of course, indefinite, 
 and the actual amount that the city will be required to pay is not 
 easily to be ascertained. The commissioners, in their report, esti- 
 mate the amount to be $10,000,000, but it would seem that the 
 amount which the city will have to pay will be much larger than 
 that, and will undoubtedly exceed $20,000,000. We have thus for 
 these three items an aggregate city debt of about $170,000,000. It 
 appears, however, that the city has on hand, as the proceeds of bonds 
 sold, and which it is claimed is included in the amount stated as due 
 on account of these contracts and this obligation for lands taken by 
 the city and also in the amount of the funded debt, the sum of 
 $9,901,763.49. Assuming that this should be deducted from the 
 aggregate amount of indebtedness shown, there is a total indebted- 
 ness of $160,696,807.31. In addition to this total existing debt, 
 which is clearly a present existing liability of the city, as appears 
 
154 Opinions of Court on Application for Elm Street Route, iSgj. 
 
 from the testimony of the comptroller, there are bonds and stocks 
 of the city which had been authorized by the board of apporLion- 
 ment and other city authorities, and on August 31, 1897, he was 
 required to sell an aggregate of $16,038,792.50. How far these 
 bonds have since been issued does not appear. Under the law as it 
 then stood, however, these bonds or obligations were required to be 
 issued and the proceeds applied to the purposes specified, and the 
 comptroller could be compelled by a judicial proceeding to sell 
 such obligations for the purposes specified; and, from a descrip- 
 tion of the objects for which the bonds were to be issued, it seems 
 that a large portion, if not all, of this sum is required to meet 
 actual existing obligations of the city, which will have to be met by 
 money procured in some way by the city. It also appears that there 
 are other liabilities for the opening of streets, proceedings to ac- 
 quire the title to which are now pending; liabilities of the city upon 
 claims made against it for damages sustained in consequence of 
 the closing of streets, and other like claims, which aggregate sev- 
 eral millions of dollars. Leaving out of consideration, however, 
 these liabilities of the city, which are somewhat indefinite, and the 
 amount of which it is impossible to fix, we have, as before stated, 
 upon the three items of indebtedness specified, after deducting the 
 amount of money held by the city realized from the sale of bonds 
 which is included in the indebtedness, and which will be applica- 
 ble to the payment of the amount due upon the contracts or other 
 obligations specified, a total net debt of the city of New York of 
 $160,696,807.31. Ten. per cent, of the assessed valuation of the 
 real estate of the present city subject to taxation is $187,708,679. 
 Deducting the total debt as above indicated, of $160,696,807.31, 
 shows that the present city has no power to incur an indebtedness 
 in excess of $27,000,000, and that is without considering any of 
 the liabilities above specified, the amount of which cannot be ac- 
 curately determined from the evidence before us, but which evi- 
 dently imposes upon the city liability for a large amount. 
 
 As before stated, we are not now concerned with the amount of 
 property which the city has Wherewith to pay its indebtedness, or 
 the money it will receive which is applicable to that purpose. In- 
 debtedness has no relation to the assets of the debtor. A debtor's 
 assets has relation to his solvency or ability to pay his debts ; but no 
 
opinions of Court on Application for Elm Street Route, iSp7. 155 
 
 matter what the assets of a municipal corporation may be, no matter 
 what its resources, the value of its property, or the amount 
 on hand applicable to the payment of the indebtedness, its indebted- 
 ness is what it owes — what it can be compelled to pay to creditors 
 — and when a municipal corporation is restricted by law as to the 
 amount of debts which it may incur, that restriction is not afEected 
 by the fact that it has or will have assets sufficient to pay its debts. 
 The Constitution declares any indebtedness incurred in excess of 
 the limit imposed by law absolutely void, no matter what the fin- 
 ancial condition of the city, no matter what its resources, no matter 
 what its power of payment. 
 
 It is hardly necessary to discuss the claim made by the counsel 
 for the commissioners, that if the city found itself without means 
 to pay for this rapid transit road it could sell its parks and school 
 houses> police station houses, and property used for its fire depart- 
 ment. For, even assuming that it would be for the advantage of 
 the city to destroy the public parks, abandon the police and fire 
 departments, and its system of free education, it is by law re- 
 quired to provide this machinery for the government of the city, 
 and these parks and schools for the well-being of its inhabitants. 
 
 We have now considered the amount of the debts of the present 
 city of New York, and have seen that, assuming that the report of 
 the commissioners is correct as to the cost of this proposed road, an 
 indebtedness for such cost would exceed the present power of the 
 city to incur indebtedness. Turning to the condition of affairs 
 upon the consolidation, which will take place upon the Ist of Jan- 
 uary, 1898, it appears that the amount of indebtedness virhich the 
 new city can incur will be considerably less than the amount which 
 the present city of New York can become indebted for. It is im- 
 possible to ascertain from the evidence before the commissioners 
 just what the indebtedness of the new city will be. It is conceded, 
 however, that the city of Brooklyn has reached the limit and has 
 no power to incur any additional indebtedness. In addition to 
 this, the debt of the county of Kings, which exceeds $14,000,000, 
 becomes a part of the indebtedness 'of the new city; and all the 
 debts of Eichmond county and the various towns and villages in 
 that county, and a portion of the debt of Queens county, and the 
 debts of the various municipalities, towns and villages in Queens 
 
166 Opinions of Court on Application for Elm Street Route, iSgj. 
 
 county embraced within tlie new city of New York are to be as- 
 snmed by the new city. Considering the funded debt of the terri- 
 tory embraced within the new city of New Yorlt, without counting 
 the other liabilities of the counties, cities, towns and villages we 
 then find that the total assessed valuation of real property within 
 that territory subject to taxation amounts in the aggregate to 
 $2,448,149,794. The funded debt of the city of New York is 
 $130,412,895. The funded debt of the city of Brooklyn is $50,- 
 965,593. The funded debt of the county of Kings and towns 
 annexed to Brooklyn is $18,701,508. The debt of the county of 
 Eichmond and of the towns and villages therein is $3,082,660, 
 and the debt of the county of Queens and of the cities and towns 
 therein annexed aggregates $11,328,754, making a total aggregate 
 of $220,491,410. This amount, deducted from that for which the 
 new city of New York can become indebted, leaves a balance of 
 $24,323,569; and this balance, as above stated, is without con- 
 sidering any of the liabilities upon contracts executed before Jan- 
 uary 1, 1898, and for property taken for public use, and allowing 
 nothing for any of the various claims that have been made against 
 the several cities and municipalities within the greater city of New 
 York. The amount of legal liability of the present city of New 
 York, outside of its funded debt, is much more than this amount. 
 It is certain that an addition to the present indebtedness of the 
 existing counties and municipal corporations of the amount called 
 for by such a contract as is contemplated for the building of this 
 road would make the obligation of the Greater New York far in ex- 
 cess of the amount of indebtedness which the Legislature could 
 impose upon the new city under the provisions of the Constitution 
 before cited. By the Greater New York charter a new municipal 
 corporation is created, and, by the act creating it, a liability is im- 
 posed upon the corporation thus created. It seems clear that any 
 act of the Legislature imposing upon such new municipality an in- 
 debtedness in excess of ten per cent, of the value of real property 
 as assessed for taxation within the boundaries of the new city would 
 be absolutely void, and would impose no obligation or liability upon 
 the new city. By the act itself the old municipalities are destroyed. 
 Their officers have either ceased to be officers in consequence of the 
 expiration of their terms, or are by the new charter legislated out 
 
opinions of Court on Application for Elm Street Route, iSgj. 157 
 
 of office, and no representatives of old municipal corporations will 
 exist after January 1, 1898. 
 
 If the act of the Legislature, imposing a liability for these obli- 
 gations upon the new municipal corporation, because of the fact 
 that such liabilities exceed ten per cent.' of the value of real estate 
 as assessed for taxation, is void, a situation is created which cer- 
 tainly is most serious, the consequences of which it is impossible to 
 conceive. Just what effect it would have upon the new- charter, 
 upon the validity of the whole scheme consolidating these cities, 
 upon the liability of the several cities, towns and villages embraced 
 within it, or upon the rights of creditors and bondholders, is most 
 uncertain. But certainly the situation as suggested, considering 
 the enormous interests involved, the enormous amount of property 
 in question, and the confusion that would necessarily result from 
 any doubt about the responsibility of the city, should make any 
 public official, upon whom rests the responsibility of determining 
 whether or not a new obligation should be created, hesitate before 
 approving the imposition of such a new obligation. 
 
 I have come to the conclusion that the city of New York, as at 
 present constituted, and the new city which, will come into being on 
 January 1, 1898, have no power to make a contract involving the 
 payment of a sum of money which would be sufficient to construct 
 this 'road ; that such a contract would be in direct violation of the 
 provisions of the Constitution, and would be absolutely void. If 
 , Ihis is so, it seems to me clearly to follow that this court should not 
 approve the building of this road, and that the report of the com- 
 missioners should not be confirmed. 
 
 With a sincere desire to approve of this report — a sincere desire 
 to enable the means of rapid transit to be provided for the city of 
 New York, which is ardently desired, and which is conceded to be 
 so necessary for the future development of the city, I have been 
 confronted by this provision of the Constitution which, to my mind, 
 is an absolute bar to the contraction of an obligation for the pay- 
 ment of this sum of money 'by the city of New York to accom- 
 plish that purpose. It is needless to say that courts of law are 
 bound to administer the law as they find it and, regardless of con- 
 sequences, are bound to enforce the provisions of the Constitution. 
 For this court to approve a plan which would involve a violation of 
 
158 Opinions of Court on Application for Elm Street Route, iSgj. 
 
 a constitutional provision by a municipality, upon the principle 
 urged by the counsel for the commissioners, that if this is true no 
 one will make a contract with the city, or because, if such a con- 
 tract would be void, that question could be determined in some other 
 proceeding, and some other court could stop the making of the con- 
 tract or the building of the road, would be an evasion by this court 
 of the duty imposed upon it by the Constitution, and a refusal of 
 the court to perform such duty. The Constitution and laws of this 
 State have imposed upon this court the obligation to determine 
 whether this road should be built. In the performance of its duty 
 the court must be satisfied that the road should be built by the city 
 of New York under the conditions which were found to exist when 
 the application for the approval was made. We cannot delegate 
 the obligation of determining that question to any other tribunal. 
 We can no more avoid the responsibility of making such a deter- 
 mination than we can relieve ourselves from the responsibility of 
 determining any other question submitted, or justify a wrong de- 
 termination of any question when it is inconvenient or disagreeable 
 to perform the duty, upon the ground that an appellate court ezists 
 which will correct an erroneous decision of the question submitted 
 to the court. The Constitution has not imposed this duty upon the 
 Court of Appeals nor upon any other court or tribunal. If the exe- 
 cution of this proposed contract by the city of ISTew York is illegal 
 or if the contract is one which the city cannot make, and this 
 plainly appears from the facts before us, and we still approve of it, 
 so that the contract may be made, notwithstanding that its in- 
 validity when made is conceded, it seems to me to be a plain viola- 
 tion by the court of its duty, and a refusal by the court to enforce 
 the Constitution of this State, a duty which is expressly imposed 
 upon every judge when he accepts the trust imposed on him by the 
 people. ' 
 
 I am satisfied that, upon this record, a contract made by the city 
 of ISTew York to build this road by which the city undertakes to pay 
 the cost, would impose upon the city an indebtedness in excess of 
 that allowed by the provisions of the Constitution ; that the contract 
 would be absolutely void in its inception, and could never result in 
 the building of any road called for by the plan before the commis- 
 sioners, and that the making of such a contract, or the attempt to 
 
opinions of Court on Application for Elm Street Route, i8gj. 159 
 
 build the road under its provisions, would result in nothing but 
 disaster to the eitj^ of New York and to the property owners along 
 the line of the road. 
 
 For these reasons, in ray opinion, the report of the commissioners 
 should not be confirmed. 
 
 Upon the filing of the stipulation referred to in opinion, order 
 will be entered upon the usual notice confirming the report of the 
 Supreme Court commissioners. (23 A'pf. Div. 472.) 
 
APPLICATION FOR REARGUMENT 
 OR MOr3IFICATION. 
 
 OPINION OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION. 
 
 SUPEEME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DE- 
 PARTMENT, FEBRUARY, 1898: CHAS. H. VAN 
 BRUNT, P. J., WILLIAM RUMSEY, EDWARD PATTER- 
 SON, GEORGE L. INGRAHAM, JJ. 
 
 In the Matter of the Application 
 
 OF 
 
 The Board of Rapid Transit Commis- 
 sioners. 
 
 Application upon the part of the Board of Rapid Transit Railroad 
 Commissioners for reargument or modification, and application 
 upon the part of certain proporty owners for the settlement of the 
 order upon the decision of the Appellate Divisions heretofore ren- 
 rlerod. 
 
 Mr. A. B. BoARDMAN qnd Mr. E. M. Siiepard for the 
 Board of Rapid Transit Commissioners. 
 
 Mr. George Zabeiskte and Mr. Cephas Braineed, Jr., 
 for Property Owners. 
 
 Van Brunt, P. J.; 
 
 It is claimed upon the part of the Board of Rapid Transit Rail- 
 road Commissioners that the court had no power to require that cer- 
 
 161 
 
163 Opinions on Application for Reargument or Modification. 
 
 tain conditions should be complied with prior to its giving its eon- 
 sent to the construction of the road by confirming the report of the- 
 Supreme Court Commissioners. 
 
 As the court has the authority absolutely to refuse to confirm 
 that report for any reasons which might seem to it to justify such 
 action, it is difficult to see why it has not the power to require that 
 certain things shall be done which in its judgment are a necessary 
 prerequisite to its confirmation of siTch report. It was the exer- 
 cise of precisely this power by the Common Council and the Gen- 
 eral Term in 1884, when consents were given for the construction 
 of the Broadway Surface Eailroad below Fifteenth Street, which 
 resulted in the present receipt by the city of a sum annually ex- 
 ceeding in amount the interest (at the rate at which the city bor- 
 rows money) upon three or four times the then claimed value of the 
 franchise; and the imposition upon the company of the obligation 
 in respect to repairing the streets and keeping the same free from 
 snow and ice. Prior to the confirmation of the report of its com- 
 niissioners in that case, the General Term exacted the execution of 
 an agreement upon the part of the corporation to conform to these 
 requirements ; and after the execution of such agreement, the report 
 of its commissioners was confirmed. There would seem^ therefore, 
 to be no doubt in regard to the power of the court; and the only 
 question remaining to be considered is as to whether there should 
 be any modification in reference to the amount of the bond re- 
 quired by the original decision. 
 
 It is app;n-cnt upon an inspection of the application of the 
 Board of Eapid Transit Eailroad Commissioners that tho security 
 proposed to be taken by them is clearly inadequate to protect the 
 city from, the loss of a large part of the money it might advance to- 
 wards the construction of the road in the event of the failure of the 
 contractor to complete and equip the same. 
 
 It is suggested by the Board that the deposit by the contractor 
 of $1,000,000 in cash or its equ.ivalent pursuant to the statute 
 (which is to be returned to the contractor upon the construction and 
 equipment of the road) ; the withholding of a reasonable percentage 
 of the price of construction, to be paid to the contractor only upon 
 completion and equipment; a bond or several bonds to secure con- 
 struction and equipment but not rental, the total amount of such 
 
opinions on Application for Reargument or Modification. 163 
 
 bonds not to exceed $7,500,000; a lien upon the equipment to be 
 furnished by the contractor pursuant to the statute; and lastly,. a 
 bond under Section 34 of the Rapid Transit Act (Laws of 1891, 
 Chapter 4 as amended by Laws of 1895, Chapter 519) in an amount 
 which, with the cash value of the equipment shall be equal to the 
 estimated rental for seven years, would be the proper security to be 
 given by the contractor to the board. 
 
 It is apparent that the bond last mentioned, upon the basis sug- 
 gested, would be a mere nominal bond. Assuming that the road 
 could be constructed for $30,000,000, as estimated by the board, 
 the aggregate rental would not much exceed $7,000,000 ; and as the 
 cost of equipment would be from $7,500,000 to $12,000,000, there 
 would be no excess of rental over the cost of equipment to make up 
 the penalty of the bond. 
 
 In respect to the withholding of a reasonable percentage of the 
 price of construction until completion and equipment, we are in no 
 way informed as to what the commissioners think would be such 
 reasonable percentage; and it will be apparent upon a moment's 
 - reflection that such a system of security is the most 'onerous to the 
 contractor and of the least benefit to the city, that can well be 
 devised; because it is requiring the contractor to put up security 
 in cash, when, by the giving of a proper bond, he might attain the 
 same object by credit. In respect to the city, the security would 
 increase in proportion as the work progressed and would be the 
 greatest when it would be least needed — namely, when the con- 
 struction and equipment were completed; whereas the city needs 
 the greatest protection from the failure of the contractor to carry 
 out his contract of construction in its earlier stages. 
 
 Tlie only other question that it is necessary to consider is as to 
 whether the amount of the bond required by the Appellate Divi- 
 sion is excessive. I think that it will be seen, when we consider 
 the obligations of the contractor, that if he, after entering upon the 
 work, abandons the contract, $15,000,000 would be insufficient 
 to put the city in the same position which it would have occupied 
 had he completed the contract. The cause of such abandonment 
 will only be for the reason that the cost of construction is much 
 greater than the contract price which the city is required to ad- 
 vance ; and the only way in which the city can receive any benefit 
 
164 Opinions on Application for Reargument or Modification. 
 
 irom tlie millions of money wliich it will have embarked in this 
 enterprise, will be by the com.pleting of the work itself — which 
 will ]iecessarily be at a cost to it, largely exceeding the contract 
 price; and this difference the sureties upon the bond should supply. 
 
 Furthermore, the only money which the contractor is to put into 
 the enterjjrise at his own risk, is that required for the equipment 
 of the worlv after construction, upon which the city is to hold a 
 lien to secure the provisions of the contract — which will then be 
 those as to rent, maintenance and operation. It is estimated 
 ihat this equipment will cost at least $8,000,000. In the event of 
 the failure of the contractor, and of the city being compelled to 
 cumplote the construction, this equipment will also have to be fur- 
 nished by the city, and the amount expended therefor will be charge- 
 able against the bond- It is thus at once seen that the indemnity 
 exacted is not onh' not excessive, but would not in reality save 
 the city from loss ^n case of the failure of the contractor to com- 
 plete, if it occurred in the early stages of construction. The 
 $7,000,000 of the bond remaining after providing for equipment, 
 would undoubtedly be more than swallowed up by the increased cost 
 of construction, if the city were compelled to complete. 
 
 It is undoubtedly true that the city will be largely protected 
 PS to rents, maintenance and operation, by the lien which is given 
 to it by statute upon the equipment to be furnished by the con- 
 tractor. But it is imperatively necessary that it should have adequate 
 protection by way of security in the matter of construction and 
 equipment. 
 
 There is no difficulty in the giving of a bond with several condi- 
 tions and limited obligations. We are of opinion that the eondi- 
 ticns of the bond should provide that $14,000,000 of the bond 
 should be conditioned upon construction and equipment; and that 
 $1,000,000 should be a continuing security, applicable to con- 
 slruetion, equipment, rents, maintenance and operation; and that 
 such bond may be executed by two or several persons or corpora- 
 tions, each bound for at least $500,000 of the penalty, and justify- 
 ing according to the statute. 
 
 We do not see how any adequate protection can be furnished to 
 the city without the execution of .'security such as above required. 
 
 KuMSEY and Patterson, J J., concue, 
 
opinions on Application for Reargument or Modification. 1(55 
 
 Ingraham, J.: 
 
 I dissent, upon the ground that the report should not be con- 
 firmed. 
 
 Application denied. Conditions of stipulation settled as stated 
 in opinion. (26 Af-p. Div. 608.) 
 
APPLICATION FOR MODIFICATION 
 OF THE STIPULATION. 
 
 OPINION OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION. 
 
 SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DE- 
 PARTMENT, OCTOBER, 1899: CHARLES H. VAN 
 BRUNT, P. J., GEORGE G. BARRETT, EDWARD PAT- 
 TERSON, GEORGE L. INGRAHAM, JJ. 
 
 "^ '- \ 
 
 In THJi Mattjsr oe the Application j 
 
 OS \ 
 
 I 
 
 The Board of Rapid Transit Commiss- \ 
 
 signers. i 
 
 Mr. Edward M. Shepard and Mr. Albert B. Boardman 
 for the Board oe Rapid Transit Commissioners and 
 
 Mr. John Whalen, Corporation Counsel, for the applica- 
 tion. 
 
 Mr. George Zabriseie, opposed. 
 
 Per Curiam: 
 
 The Corporation Coiinse] on behalf of the City of New York 
 having joined with the Rapid Transit Commissioners in this ap- 
 plication, and the municipal authorities, as well as the Rapid 
 Transit Commissioners having represented that in their opinion a 
 bond of five million dollars will, in view of the form of the con- 
 tract and the conditions under which the Rapid Transit Road is 
 now to be constructed, amply protect the city, the Rapid Transit 
 
 167 
 
1H8 Opinions on Application for Modification of the Stipulation. 
 
 Commissioners aie relieved from the stipulation which they gave 
 as a condition upon the confirmation of the report of the commis- 
 sioners in approving of the construction of this proposed railway 
 to the extent that a bond of five million dollars will be a com- 
 pliance with the stipulation. 
 
 Van Beunt, P. J.: 
 
 I cannot concur with the majority of the court in the disposition 
 of this application. While in view of the evidence produced of the 
 difficulty of procuring a bond in the siim of fourteen million dol- 
 lars to secure the performance of the proposed rapid transit eon- 
 tract so far as it related to construction and eqtiipment, a reduc- 
 tion in the amount of such bond might be justified, yet it does not 
 seem to me that in justice to the property owners such a reduction 
 should be made as virtually to deprive them of the security which 
 upon the original application was by this court deemed absolutely 
 necessary for their protection and upon which the consent of the 
 court was founded. 
 
 So far as the consent of the city authorities to the road is con- 
 cerned, that in no way protects those whose interests the Appellate 
 Division in passing upon this application is bound to protect. 
 
 The argument advanced that the security demanded is in excess 
 of that which has ever been required in similar contracts, is of no 
 possible weight; because there has never yet been a contract en- 
 tered into presenting any of the peculiar features which are so 
 prominent in the proposed Eapid Transit contract. While a ten 
 per cent, bond might possibly be a reasonable security for construc- 
 tion, it is after constraction is completed that the main burdens of • 
 the contractor begin; he is then for the first time required to in- 
 vest in the enterprise his own money to the extent of over. thirty 
 per cent, of the entire cost of construction, and in order to secure 
 this advance a bond of less than one-half the amount is required. 
 
 It is conceded upon the moving papers that the security required 
 by the city of Boston upon its Subway contracts was twenty per 
 cent., which would amount in the case at bar to a bond of from 
 $8,000,000 to $10,000,000. The security required by the United 
 States government is twenty-five per cent, amounting in the case 
 at bar to a bond from $10,000,000 to $12,000,000; and no case 
 
opinions on Application for Modification of the Stipulation. 16!) 
 
 can be cited where a work of the remarkable character required 
 by the contract m question is to be prosecuted, that it has been al- 
 lowed to proceed upon the giving by the contractor of such grossly 
 inadequate security as has now been determined upon. 
 
 It is to be observed that this peculiarity of the contract was the 
 reason for fixing the bond at the amount mentioned upon the 
 original application, and these conditions have not changed. After 
 construction, the expenses of which are to be paid by the city, the 
 contractor out of his own money is bound to equip and run the 
 road, towards which latter expenditure the city is required to con- 
 tribute nothing; and this agreed contribution must necessarily 
 amount to $8,000,000 or $10,000,000— a feature which is en- 
 tirely different from any contract which the city has ever entered 
 into before or probably will be called upon to fulfill again. If the 
 contractor fails in the performance of the contract, as was origi- 
 nally stated, it must be because the expenses of construction and 
 equipment are greater than he anticipated, and the city must neces- 
 sarily furnish the many additional millions required to complete 
 and make the work useful. (44 Afp. Div. 636.) 
 
THE SUN 
 PRINTING & PUBLISHING ASSOCIATION 
 
 vs. 
 THE MAYOR, ETC. 
 
 OPINION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS. 
 
 IN THE COUET OP APPEALS, MAECH, 1897: CHAELES 
 ANDEEWS, Gh. J., JOHK C. GEAY, DENIS O'BEIEN, 
 EDWAED T. BARTLETT, ALBERT HAIGHT, CELORA 
 B. MAETIN, lEVlNG G. VANN, JJ. 
 
 Haight, J. : 
 
 This action was brought to restrain the rapid transit commission- 
 ers, the mayor, aldermen and commonalty and other officers of the 
 city of New Yorlc from incurring any debt or obligation of the city 
 ander the Laws of 1891, chapter 4, as amended by the Laws of 
 1893, chapters 102 and 556; Laws of 1894, chapters 528 and 752, 
 and the Laws of 1895, chapter 519, commonly known as the Rapid 
 Transit Acts. 
 
 The acts, in brief, create a rapid transit commission and pro- 
 vide that the commissioners shall, in case they deem it necessary 
 and upon the written reqiiest of the local authorities, proceed to 
 locate a roiite and provide the plans and specifications for a rail- 
 way through the city. That, after they shall have so located the 
 route and provided the plans upon which the railway should be 
 built, they may sell at public auction the right, privilege and fran- 
 chise to construct, maintain and operate such railway; oa if the 
 people shall determine by vote of a majority of the electors that 
 such railway shall be constructed for and at the expense of the city, 
 then the commissioners shall enter into a contract with anv person, 
 
 171 
 
172 Opinion of Court of Appeals on Constitutionality of Act. 
 
 firm or corporation best qualified in their opinion to fulfill and 
 carry out the contract, for the construction of such road upon the 
 route, and in accordance with the plans and specifications adopted. 
 In case the road shall be built at the expense of the municipality, 
 the officers of the city, upon requisition of the commissioners, are 
 required to issue the bonds of the city, to the amount of $55,000,- 
 000, payable in gold, with interest not to exceed three and one-half 
 per cent., free from taxes, with which to pay for such construction. 
 It is further provided that the commissioners may also enter into 
 a contract with the contractors for the building of the road, for the 
 lease and operation of the same for a period not less than thirby- 
 five years, nor more than fifty years, at a rental agreed upon, to 
 be not less than the interest on the sum paid by the city for the con- 
 struction, and one per cent, in addition, and that the same may be 
 renewed from time to time, as the lease shall expire, upon such 
 terms as shall be agreerl upon; that in case of default in paying 
 the annual rental provided for, or in case of the failure or neglect 
 on the part of -the contractors to faithfully observe and fulfill the 
 requirements of the contract, the city, by its rapid transit commis- 
 sioners, may take possession of the road and equipments, and as 
 the agents of the contractors, either maintain and operate the road 
 at their expense, and upon their liability, or enter into a new eon- 
 tract with other persons for its operation. The acts also provide 
 that in case the road shall be constructed by the municipality, it 
 shall be and remain the absolute property of the city, and shall be 
 deemed to be a part of the public streets and highways of the ci^v, 
 to be used and enjoyed by the public, upon the payment of such 
 fares and tolls, and subject to such reasonable rules and regulations, 
 as may be imposed and provided by the board of rapid transit com- 
 missioners. 
 
 Pursuant to the provisions of these acts, the Commissioners en- 
 tered upon their duties, and upon the request of the authorities of 
 the oily of .N"ew York located a railroad to be built under the streets 
 through the main portions of the city, and then tried to induce 
 private capitalists to undertake its construction. Failing in this, 
 they submitted to the voters of the city the question as to 
 whether the road should be constructed at the expense of the city, 
 and a considerable majority thereof answered in the afRrmative. 
 
jOpinion of Court of Appeals on Constitutionality of Act. 173 
 
 It is claimed that these acts are violative of the Constitution; 
 that they are pernicious, wantonly extravagant and dangerous ; Ihat 
 they tend to foster socialism and paternalism, and are a departure 
 from our principles of government which has never before found 
 favor. Upon this review we can only deal with the constitutional 
 questions presented, but it will at once be seen that they are of 
 grave importance, far-reaching in consequences, and not free from 
 difficulty. We have given to their consideration careful study and 
 serious reflection, hoping to reach a result that will afEord neces- 
 sary relief to the people of the city, and at the same time preserve 
 the general policy of our system of government. 
 
 The Constitution (Article 'VIII. §10), among other things, pro- 
 vides that, "Nor shall any such county, city, town or village be al- 
 lowed to incur any indebtedness except for county, city, town or 
 village purposes.'' Is the building of the proposed railroad a "city 
 purpoi-e" within the meaning of this provision ? We are aware that 
 the expenditures of ou.r city governments have become enormous, 
 and that appropriations have been made for a great variety of pur- 
 poses, many of which may be open to criticism, and that a com- 
 plete definition of "a city purpose" may not be possible, in view of 
 the fact that reasons may arise which we are unable to foresee or 
 now consider. The authorities, in so far as they have spoken upon 
 the subject, have only attempted a definition as to certain specified 
 purposes. (People ex rel. Murphy, v. Kelly, 76 N. Y. 475, 487; 
 In the Matter of the Mayor, etc., 99 N. Y. 569, 585 ; In the Matter 
 of the Niagara Falls & Whirlpool B. Go., 108 N. Y. 375; Hequsm- 
 bourg v. City of Dunkirk, 49 Hun, 550.) We shall not now at- 
 tempt a definition, except in general terms, further than is neces- 
 sary to determine the meaning of the acts which we have under re- 
 view. Generally, we think, the purpose, must be necessary for the 
 common good and general welfare of the people of the municipality, 
 sanctioned by its citizens, piiblic in character and authorized by the 
 legislature. Common highways have always been regarded as under 
 the special care, supervision and control of municipal govi3rnments, 
 upon which devolves the duty of keeping them in suitable repair 
 as well as the duty of providing sufficient ways to satisfy the re- 
 quirements and answer the convenience of the public. Highways 
 are not only necessary for the welfare and convenience of the peo- 
 
174 Opinion of Court of Appeals on Constitutionality of Act. 
 
 pie, but are required by them. They are ijublic in character and 
 authorized by the legislature. Under the civil law they belonged 
 to the king; under the common law the king and his subjects have 
 a right of passage over them, whilst the owner of the abutting land 
 may possess the fee and the easements of light, air and access. In 
 this state the common law is in force, but the sovereign power rests 
 in the people. Highways have existed from earliest times. They 
 were constructed for the passage of persons and the carriage of 
 goods. They may consist of a jDath through a wilderness, a pass 
 over a mountain or a broad street in a populous city. Formerly the 
 chief transportation of freight and passengers on land was made 
 with teams of animals. This necessitated improved ways, such as 
 turnpikes and plank roads. In recent years railroads have been 
 constructed and come into general use, so that now a very large per- 
 centage of the transportation of the country is done upon these 
 roads. This is evident from the fact that, in the year 1893, 4.65,- 
 000,000 persons wore transported over the railroads in the city 
 cf ISTew York. These roads in this city are operated upon the 
 streets; some are elevated, others are surface roads. They are all 
 owned by individuals or corporations, but their service is public. 
 They are not common highways in the sense that they are under the 
 care and management of the municipality, but as to their purpose, 
 which is the transportation of persons and property for the public, 
 they are as distinctly highways as the ordinary street. It is trnie 
 that a uniform fee is charged for persons taking passage over them, 
 but this does not differentiate them from other highways; tolls 
 were charged on turnpikes and plank roads, and yet they were public 
 highways ; nor does the fact that, the road is occupied by rails in 
 such a manner as to prohibit its use by teams and persons traveling 
 on foot distinguish it from others, for highways are often con- 
 structed for different uses. There are ways for pedestrians, others 
 for teams and vehicles, and still others for equestrians. If a high- 
 way may be constructed for these different uses, why may it not b3 
 constructed with rails upon which the millions may travel ? In the 
 case of the Niagara Falls and Whirlpool Railway (supra), Ax- 
 PREWS, J., in delivering the opinion of the court, says: "The oround 
 upon which private property may be taken for railroad uses, with- 
 out the consent of the owner,. is primarily that railroads are high- 
 
opinion of Court of Appeals oil Constitutionality of Act. 175 
 
 ways furnishing means of communication between different points, 
 promoting traffic and commerce, facilitating exchanges, in a word, 
 they are improved ways. In every form of government the duty of 
 providing public ways is acknowledged to be a public duty." In 
 Cooley's Constitutional Limitations (p'. *533) it is said that "Every 
 government is expected to make provision for the public ways, and 
 for this purpose it may seize and appropriate lands. And as the 
 wants of traffic and travel require facilities beyond those afEorded by 
 the common highway, over which any one may pass with his own 
 vehicles, the government may establish the higher grade of 
 highways, upon some of which only its own vehicles can be allowed 
 to run, while others, differently constructed, shall be open to use by 
 all on payment of toll. The common highway is kept in repair by 
 assessments of labor and money; the tolls paid upon turnpikes or 
 the fares on railways are the equivalents to these assessments, and 
 when these improved ways are required by law to be kept open for 
 use by the piiblic impartially, they also may properly be called 
 highways, and the use to which land for their construction is put 
 be denominated a public use." 
 
 In Fe.O'pU v. Kerr (37 IST. Y. 188, 194) the court says: "The 
 right of the public, that is of the people of the State, in a street 
 or highway, is a right of passage. In the ordinary use of the 
 highway, it is a right to pass and repass over its surface on foot or 
 in carriages at pleasure. * * * jf ^j^g legislature or municipal 
 authorities, under their sanction, should construct such a track (re- 
 ferring to railroads) in a particular street or road, and while allow- 
 ing all persons to use that track freely with vehicles adapted to it, 
 should close the road to every other kind of travel or use, it would, 
 nevertheless, continue to be a highway, ajid devoted to a publicuse. 
 * * * These structures are public ways and public uses of prop- 
 erly, and those by whom they are constructed and who receive their 
 emoluments whether corporations or individuals are qvMsi public 
 agents." 
 
 In Olcott V. Supervisors (16 Wallace, 678, 694) it was stated 
 by Mr. Justice Strong in delivering the opinion of the court: 
 "That railroads, though constructed by private corporations and 
 owned by them, are public highways has been the doctrine of nearly 
 all the courts ever since such conveniences for passage and trans- 
 
176 Opinion of Court of Appeals on ConstHutionality of Act. 
 
 portation have had any existence. * * * And the reason why 
 the use has always been held a public one is that such a road is a 
 highway, whether made by the government itself or by the agency 
 of corporate bodies, or even- by individuals when they obtain their 
 power io construct it from legislative grant." 
 
 Is such a highway for "a city purpose?" We are aware that 
 under another provision of the Constitution, which we shall consider 
 later on, municipal governments are prohibited from loaning their 
 credit to a railroad corporation, but this does not apply to a railroad 
 constructed and owned by the city or affect the character of the use 
 or the purpose for which it was constructed. Common highways 
 are clearly within the provisions of the Constitution for a "city 
 purpose." Eailroads, as we have shown, are highways and con- 
 structed for the same purpose as the common highways. They are 
 necessary for the common welfare of the people, required for their 
 use, public in character and authorized by the legislature, and when 
 constructed and owned by the city are for a "city purpose" within 
 the meaning of the Constitution. 
 
 We have thus far considered the question independently of the 
 provisions of the statute, which we deem conclusive upon the ques- 
 tion. As we have seen, the statute provides that, if the road shall 
 be constructed at the city's expense, the road or roads shall "b? 
 deemed to be a part of the public streets and highways of said city." 
 Whilst the legislature cannot by an act create a city purpose out of 
 that which is entirely foreign to a municipal government, it may. 
 upon doubtful questions, give a legislative interpretation as to the 
 meaning of words and phrases used in the provisions of the act 
 which the courts are bound to respect. Here we have an e.xpress 
 provision in aid of the aiithorities making the proposed road a part 
 of the public streets and highways of the city, placing it upon the 
 same footing, entitling it to the same consideration, and designing 
 it for a "city purpose," with the same force and effect as if it wa"s 
 an ordinary public street. 
 
 The contention that such roads are highways, and as such may bt 
 for "a city purpose" within the meaning of the Constitution, is not 
 in conflict with the prior subdivision of section ten of article eighth 
 of the Constitution, which provides that: "No county, city, town 
 or village shall hereafter give any money or property, or loan its 
 
opinion of Court of Appeals on Constitutionality of Act. 177 
 
 money or credit to or in aid of any individual, association or cor- 
 poration, or become directly or indirectly the owner of stock in, or 
 bonds of, any association or corporation." This provision should be 
 construed with reference to the evils it was intended to correct. It 
 first found place in the Constitution in 1874. Prior to this, there 
 had been upon the statute books that which was commonly known 
 as the Town Bonding Act. Under it numerous railroads had been 
 built upon the bonds procured from towns through which they were 
 constructed in return for stock issued by the corporations. The in- 
 habitants of the towns were induced to give their consent through 
 supposed benefits that would result to their property and upon repre- 
 sentations that the earnings of the road would provide dividends 
 upon the stock, Avith which they could pay their bonds. In some 
 instances the bonds were procvircd and sold and the roads never 
 built. In many other cases the roads in a few years were sold out 
 under foreclosure of mortgages and the stock cut off. So great was 
 the evil and so heavy M-as the burden upon the towns that relief was 
 sought through a constitutional provision. It was this evil that the 
 provision in question was intended to correct, and with this situa- 
 tion in view it should be construed. There had been, at that time, 
 no attempt on the part of municipalities to construct and own rail- 
 roads. Such a project had not been publicly promulgated, dis- 
 cussed or contemplated. The towns had subscribed for the stock 
 in private corporations and in most instances they had lost. Hence, 
 the provision that they should not give any money or loan their 
 credit to or in aid of any individual, association or corporation, or 
 become owners of stock or bonds of any such individual, association 
 or corporation. This was not intended, nor does it prohibit muni- 
 cipalities from constructing their own roads and paying therefor 
 when necessary and authorized by the legislature. In the case of 
 People, ex rel. Murphy v. Kelly (76 N. Y. 475) a corporation had 
 been organized for the construction of a bridge over the East Kiver 
 between the cities of ISTew York and Brooklyn. The cities had each 
 subscribed to the capital stock of the company. After the bridge 
 had been partially constructed the amendment to the Constitution 
 of 1874 went into effect, prohibiting the further loaning of credit 
 of municipalities to private corporations. The following year an 
 act was passed permitting the two cities to acquire the stock of the 
 
178 Opinion of Court of Appeals on Constitutionality of Act. 
 
 corporation, and for its dissolution and the continuance of the struc- 
 ture of the bridge by the cities as the owner. It was held that thii 
 was not in conflict with the amended provision of the Constitution, 
 and that the construction of the bridge was for "a city purpose." 
 
 The acts in question, under a fair construction, do not require 
 the city to loan its credit to or in aid of any individual, association 
 or corporation. It is provided that in case the road shall be con- 
 structed by and at the city's expense, then and in that event the road 
 so constructed shall be and remain the absolute property of the 
 city so that whatever the municipality expends in the construction 
 of the road is for the creation of its own property and is not in any 
 sense a loan to an individual or corporation. It is said, however, 
 that there is a provision for a lease of the road for a period not less 
 than thirly-five nor more than fifty years and for successive re- 
 newals thereof; that a lease in perpetuity would be equivalent to 
 ownership, and that the bonds issued by the city for construction 
 would, in effect, be a loan of the credit of the city to the parties 
 leasing the road ; but such a construction would manifestly be viola- 
 tive of its spirit and intent. It would be in conflict with the ex- 
 press provision that the road should be and remain the absolute 
 property, of the city. It would not be in accord with the provision 
 limiting the terms for which a lease may be made, and would not be 
 in harmony with the provision requiring an appraisement or valua- 
 tion of the property of the lessee employed in the equipment and 
 operation of the road at the end of the lease in case it should not 
 be renewed to the same individual, association or company. The 
 provisions for a lease are not objectionable ; they are rather in ac- 
 cord with our American form of government, which leaves trade and 
 commerce to be carried on by individual industry and enterprise. 
 The government has annually expended large sums in the construc- 
 tion of highways, in the digging of canals, in the building of har- 
 bors, and in the improving of the channels of rivers, for the purpose 
 of aiding and promoting trade and commerce. Yet, its policy 
 hitherto has been to leave the conduct of such business to individual 
 enterprise. The city of Kew York is the owner of ferry rights, 
 together with docks and piers which it has constructed upon its 
 rivers. The docks and piers afford access to its water highways. 
 These, with its ferry rights, it leases from time to time for specified 
 
opinion of Court of Appeals on Constitutionality of Act. 179 
 
 terms. In that way it furnishes highways in which its inhabitants 
 may engage in the transportation of persons and property, 'thus 
 promoting the commerce of the city. N"othing more is author- 
 ized to be done with reference to the leasing of the proposed rail- 
 road. It would be used for the same purpose and promote and 
 facilitate the travel of persons and the commerce of the city. JSTor 
 do we think that a lease in perpetuity is permissible under tht 
 prsvisions of the acts. If such was contemplated, why limit the 
 terms and provide for renewal leases? The evident intention was 
 that, at the expiration of each term for which the road had been 
 leased, a new contract should be made for the re-leasing of the road 
 upon such terms and conditions as to the board should fhan seem 
 just, not upon such terms and conditions as shall be fixed at the 
 time of entering into the original lease. That this construction 
 was intended is made apparent from the clause of the statute which 
 follows, providing a valuation of the equipment used in operation 
 in case the parties should not agree for a renewal of the lease, so that 
 at each reciirring period for renewal, the situation of the municipal- 
 ity and of the operator of the road, may then be taken into con- 
 sideration, and the renewal then made upon such terms as shall be 
 just. This view of the statute gives point to the provision declar- 
 ing the read to be the property of the city, and it dissipates the 
 theory of ownership by the lessee by reason of a lease in perpetuity. 
 We do not understand that the views above expressed are in con- 
 flict with the Ohio eases. In that state the Constitution does not 
 limit municipal expenditures to "a city purpose." We do not, how- 
 ever, wish to be understood as approving of those cases, especially 
 in so far as they sustain the right of a city to construct a railroad 
 mainly outside of its own territory and state. In the case of Wdlher 
 V. City of Cincinnati (31 Ohio St. 14) it was held to be within the 
 legitimate scope of legislative power to authorize a city to construct 
 railroads or other public improvements in which the city had a 
 special interest and to impose taxes upon its citizens for that pur- 
 pose. The question presented for consideration in that case was 
 as to the constitutionality of an act of the General Assembly of the 
 state under which the city of Cincinnati proposed to construct a 
 railroad from its city to the city of Chattanooga, in the state of 
 Tennessee. The Constitution provided that the General Assembly 
 
180 Opinion of Court of Appeals on Constitutionality of Act. 
 
 shall never authorize any county, city, town or township, by vote 
 of its citizens or otherwise, to become a stocldiolder in any 
 joint stock company, corporation or association whatever, or 
 to raise money or loan its credit to or in aid of any such company, 
 corporation or association. It was held that the act was not viola- 
 tive of the Constitution. In the case of Taylor v. Commissioners 
 of Ross County (23 Ohio St. 23) the question raised was as to the 
 constitutionality of an act which authorized a town to construct a 
 railroad and to levy taxes on the taxable property of the town for 
 the purpose of building so much of the road in the town as could 
 be built for the amount so raised, and for the issuing of bonds to 
 complete the same, the road to be connected with another to be 
 constructed through an adjoining town. It was held that the act 
 was an attempt to evade the provisions of the Constitution and that 
 it was in conflict therewith and, therefore, void. And to the same 
 effect are the cases of Wyscaver v. Atkinson (37 Ohio St. 80) and 
 Counterman v. Dublin Township (38 Ohio St, 515). 
 
 We might have some difficulty in sustaining the Eapid Transit 
 Law, if its constitutionality depended upon its being general instead 
 of local. It is provided that the legislature shall not pass a private 
 or local bill granting to any corporation, association or individual 
 the right to lay down railroad tracks (Const, art. III., §18), but we 
 are of the opinion that the corporation, association or individual 
 here referred to has no application or reference to a municipality, 
 and that a county, city, town or village is not included within its 
 provisions. 
 
 There are numerous other provisions which it is claimed are in 
 conflict with other provisions of the Constitution. But these ques- 
 tions have been sufficiently discussed in the courts below. 
 
 Our government was established by the people for their own pro- 
 tection and welfare. Their policy was to foster and protect indi- 
 vidual industry and enterprise. To such policy we owe our ad- 
 vancement as a nation, and to such we must look for our future 
 prosperity. The Constitution should be construed with reference 
 to this general policy, and, ordinarily, railroads should be con- 
 structed and operated by private capital. The situation, however, 
 in the city of New York is most peculiar. A long, narrow island 
 lies between two rivers, so narrow in places that there are practically 
 
opinion of Court of Appeals on Constitutionality of Act. 181 
 
 but two or three streets through which the masses miist reach its 
 business center. The population of the city during the last half 
 ceutury has increased from three hundred thousand to over a mil- 
 lion and a half of people. The travel upon its existing railroads 
 during the last twenty years has increased from 150,000,000 in 
 1874 to upwards of 448,000,000 in 1894. It was conceded upon 
 the argument that the crowded and congested condition of the travel 
 upon the streets in the city renders the proposed structure necessary. 
 These considerations have induced us to give to the provisions of the 
 act a most liberal construction. The commissioners located the 
 road and tried to induce private capital to construct and operate it. 
 In this they have failed, and the situation is such that the city must 
 itself construct the road or go without it. Here we have a demand 
 for a great public highway, which private enterprise and capital 
 will not construct. It is necessary for the welfare of the people and 
 is required by them. It is public in character and is authorized 
 by the legislature. 
 
 Our- conclusion is that, under the circumstances and situation 
 here presented, the proposed road may properly be held to be "for 
 a city purpose," and that the acts are not in contravention of the 
 provisions of the Constitution. 
 
 The judgment shoiild be aflSrmed, with costs. 
 
 Andrews, Qli.. J., Gray, Bartlett and Martin, JJ., concui!. 
 O'Brien and Vann, J J., dissent. Opinion by O'Brien, J. (153 
 iV. Y. 262.) 
 
REPORT 
 
 OF THE 
 
 CHIEF ENGINEER, 
 
N'ew York, January 1, 1902. 
 Alexander E. Ore, President, 
 
 Board of Eapid Transit Eailroad Commissioners. 
 City of New York. 
 
 Sir: — I have the honor to present to you, in accordance with the 
 instructions contained in a resolution of the Board, a report upon 
 the work done under the authority of the Board from the com- 
 mencement of construction in March, 1900, to December 31, 1901. 
 
 Previous to the letting of the Contract for the work now under 
 construction, the Board had had prepared full and complete plans 
 for a railway, part of whose route lay along Broadway from South 
 Perry to 42d Street, the undertaking of which was prevented 
 by an adverse decision of the Appellate Division of the Supreme 
 Court. In the preparation of these plans there were made pre- 
 liminary but thorough investigations, not only of the needs for 
 additional transportation facilities, but of the conditions attending 
 the general problem of local passenger distribution in Few York, 
 and the physical features surrounding the carrying ou.t of any com- 
 prehensive plan. One part of these investigations covered complete 
 studies of ihe underground conditions of that portion of the city 
 traversed by the route as to soil, building foundations, mains, pi]oes, 
 sewers and other subsurface structures, and another part included a 
 personal inspection of all railways, both in this country and Europe 
 used for rapid intra-urban passenger transportation. Asa result of 
 all these studies and investigations, the Board came to certain gen- 
 eral conclusions which, though in the first instance had reference 
 to a Broadway route, nevertheless were so general in character as 
 to govern the location of the route, and the design of the structure 
 of any other railway, and consequently the one afterwards con- 
 tracted for. 
 
 These general conclusions were, first, that in order to relieve the 
 congestion of 'travel there was needed a railway located either di- 
 rectly along or as near as possible to the major lines of travel; 
 secondly, that in order to bring the extreme limits of the city into 
 closer relations, provision must be made for the running. of trains 
 with higher speed than was .possible on any of the existing elevated 
 
 185 
 
186 Types of Subways. 
 
 railways in New York, or in fact on any other intra-urban railway • 
 in any other city; thirdly, that underground construction should 
 only be considered for those portions of the route along impor- 
 tant thoroughfares; and, fourthly, that a route through private 
 property in the lower portion of the city was neither feasible nor 
 economical. These conclusions evidently demanded, therefore, that 
 whatever railway was laid out must be either along Broadway or 
 dose to it ; that it must have four tracks, and that in general it must 
 follow street lines and be under ground. On this basis and with 
 the above limitations the railway now under construction has been 
 planned. 
 
 The general design of the structure itself is, so far as possible. 
 Of the shallow excavation type — that is, with the rail level as close 
 to the surface of the street as gradients and local conditions will 
 permit. In the original study of the problem three general types 
 presented themselves for consideration. 
 
 First, the deep-tube type, a form of construction that had been 
 employed in London in 1885-1890 in the City and South London 
 Kailway, and subsequently in the Waterloo and City, the Central 
 London and other lines now under construction or projected, and in 
 the Glasgow District Subway. These tubes are composed of cast- 
 iron segments and are put in place in a circular excavation made 
 by means of a "shield." The tunnels are driven in this manner at 
 a depth varying from fifty to one hundred feet without regard to 
 surface conditions. During construction access is had through 
 shafts, which subsequently are used for elevator shafts to the sta- 
 tions when the railway is completed. 
 
 Second, an arched masonry tunnel, constructed in open, exca- 
 vation, but at such depth as to avoid the necessity for readjusting 
 the water mains, gas pipes, electric conduits and other subsurface 
 structures, and of many of the sewers. This is the general type 
 of the Metropolitan and District Railways of London, the first 
 "underground railways" to be constructed. 
 
 Third, a subway built as close to the surface of the street as 
 possible. This involves a flat roof in order to avoid the loss of head- 
 room in the curve of an arch, and also the complete readjusting of 
 all sewers, mains, pipes and other similar structures. This type was 
 projected in the plans of the "Arcade," "District" and other private 
 
Types of Subways. 187 
 
 railway schemes proposed for New York fifteen to thirty years 
 ago ; was adopted as the type for the Glasgow Central Eailway. con- 
 structed in 1888-1894; by the Eapid Transit Commission of New 
 York in 1891 ; by the company that built the railway in Buda- 
 pesth, Hungary, in 1894-96, and by the Boston Transit Commission 
 for the subway in that city in 1894. 
 
 Each type lias its advantages and disadvantages, which vary 
 grcat'y according to local conditions, so that what may be the best 
 in one case may not necessarily be so in others. In general it 
 may be said that the advantages of the deep-tube type are the 
 avoidance of interference with street traffic during construc- 
 tion ; the necessity and expense of caring for or readjusting the 
 other subsurface structures, and the ability to build the railway 
 on any desired profile without regard, except in a moderate degree, 
 to surface topography. Private property can also be passed under 
 without serious encroachment. The disadvantages are that ele- 
 vators are necessary to convey passengers between the platforms and 
 street surface, and the cost of tube railways is apt to be greater than 
 those constructed in open excavation on account of the greater 
 expense attending tunneling operations, feven when the expense of 
 readjusting the sewers and mains, incident to surface work, is taken 
 into account. The elevators are expensive to install and to operate, 
 the cost per passenger being an appreciable amount. when fares are 
 limited to five cents ; they involve delay and cannot accommodate 
 the occasional maximum rush on some extraordinary occasion. 
 
 The arched tunnel at moderate depth is usually a compromise 
 without attaining the benefits of either the deep or shallow types. 
 The trench is deep, with a cost per linear foot substantially as great 
 as tunneling. The ' subsurface structures have to be supported 
 during construction, if not readjusted, and though elevators, are 
 avoided, the distance from street to platfortti level is too great for 
 convenient or easy walking. 
 
 • The third type is a subway built as close to the surface of the 
 street as possible. The great advantage of this form is the reducing 
 of the distance from the platform to the street level to the minimum, 
 thus rendering access most easy. The disadvantages are incon- 
 venience to abutting property owners and to street traffic during 
 construction, and the necessity for and expense of readjusting all 
 
Types of Sulnvays. 
 
 sewers and mains encountered along the route. To the method of 
 constructing railways in open excavation the expressive name of 
 "Cut and Cover," originally given in England, is now universally 
 applied. 
 
 These three types were considered by the Board. After weighing 
 all the advantages and disadvantages your Engineer recommended 
 the adoption, so far as possible, of the shallow excavation type on 
 account of the greater convenience when completed and probable 
 less expense to construct, a recommendation subsequently adopted 
 by the Board as the basis of the general design. 
 
 Heretofore similar railways have been constructed for a single 
 service with all trains stopping at all stations, with sometimes a 
 limited express or through service on a third track, on which trains 
 could run in the direction of the heaviest travel, according to the 
 demands of the hour, and stopping at longer intervals than the 
 other trains. It is obvious that this arrangement can furnish 
 express facilities in only one direction at a time, and that the 
 capacity of such a railway is only slightly greater than an ordinary 
 double-track road, for the limit of capacity is determined by that 
 of the single track on which the trains from both the other tracks 
 are returned. In the case of the work now under contemplation it 
 was recognized at the outset by all without discussion that this 
 railway should represent a step in advance, and consequently it Avas 
 determined that over the portion of the route where the traffic was 
 heaviest four tracks should be constructed at once in order to pro- 
 vide for a double express service, and that over the balance of the 
 route two or three tracks should be constructed. 
 
 When, in 1897, the Courts finally decided adversely to the con- 
 struction of a railway imder Broadway south of Thirty-fourth 
 Street, the Board directed the Engineer to prepare plans and report 
 the same to the Board for some route other than Broadway that 
 would probably meet with the approval of the Court. At that time 
 the proceedings relating to the opening of Elm Street, by which a 
 thoroughfare parallel to Broadway and distant therefrom but 400 
 feet, had been completed, so that this route at once suggested itself 
 as an effective and available alternative for Broadway. Plans were 
 prepared and adopted by the Board on the 14th day of January and 
 the 4th day of February, 1897. In order that the cost might not 
 
Sub-surface Conditions. 189 
 
 exceed a limit of $35,000,000, which the Court had intimated would 
 be the maximum that the judgment of the Court would a;pprove 
 as a proper expense for the municipality to incur, the southern, ter- 
 minus was fixed at the General Post Oflfice, and thence four tracks 
 were laid out along Park Row, Centre and Elm Streets, Lafayette 
 Place, Fourth Avenue, 42d Street and Broadway to 104th Street 
 At this point the line divided, the West Side branch continuing 
 with two tracks under Broadway to Port George, and thence 
 with a viaduct along Kingsbridge Road to Kingsbridge. An east 
 line extended under 104th Street, Central Park, Lenox Avenue, 
 Harlem River, East 149th Street to Third Avenue, and thence by a 
 viaduct over Westchester Avenue, Southern Boulevard and Boston 
 Road to Bronx Park. The total length of line thus laid out was 
 20.81 miles. 
 
 Immediately after arriving at a decision as to route, an investi- 
 gation was begun as to the topographical and geological features, 
 the nature of abutting buildings and their foundations, the sewer- 
 age system affected, and the presence of other surface and subsurface 
 structures, such as elevated and surface railways, water mains, gas 
 pipes, compressed air and steam conduits, subways for telegraph, 
 telephone, light, power and other electric wires, etc. 
 
 It was found that south of Astor Place no rock would be encoun- 
 tered, the soil being for the most part sand, coarse in quality at the 
 southerly end of the route but becoming finer to the north, and 
 generally of a grade proper for use in mortar and concrete. North 
 of Astor Place the micaceous gneiss, which is the normal rock for- 
 mation of Manhattan Island, was encountered near enough to the 
 street surface to be met with in the depth required for even a shal- 
 low excavation. Owing to the undulations of the rock surface not 
 being parallel with the street surface, the borings indicated that 
 north of Astor Place our work would be partly in rock and partly in 
 caxth, with abrupt transitions from one to the other on account of 
 the faulty or irregular formation of the rock itself. Except along 
 Lenox Avenue, where sand was found, the earth overlyiag the rock 
 was found to be usually of glacial deposit, being clay with boulders 
 of trap-rock, the latter having been carried from what is now ITew 
 Jersey and deposited on Manhattan Island during the ice epoch. 
 
190 Sub-surface Conditions. 
 
 Topographically the Borough of Manhattan of the City of New 
 York is low at the south end, whence the surface gradually rises 
 with a ridge along the axis of the island to the high ground begin- 
 ning with the plateau of Morningside Heights on the west, thence 
 extending across the upper end of Central Park, where the surface 
 is about 130 feet above sea level, to the East Eiver. This plateau 
 is sharply terminated by the Manhattan Valley and the "Harlem 
 Flats" at lS5th Street and 110th Street, the street surface having an 
 elevation of but 30 feet. On thewest, the ground immediately rises 
 with similar abruptness to form the ridge along the Hudson River 
 known as Washington Heights, extending from 135th Street to Fort 
 George, where another sharply defined termination occurs, the ele- 
 vation of the surface falling from 235 feet to 30 feet. On the east, 
 the low ground continues to the north side of the Harlem River, 
 where it rises in a rock formation and continues well above sea level, 
 ' except for a few local depressions, to the Bronx River. 
 
 Of artificial constructions for which provision had to be con- 
 sidered there were the elevated railways, the surface railways and 
 the various subsurface structures. Along the route adopted there 
 occurred five crossings of the elevated railway, at four of which 
 the elevated structure would have to be underpinned and new 
 foundations put in. Pour surface electric railway tracks, of con- 
 duit type, were located on Park Row, and double tracks of the same 
 on Centre Street, Fourth Avenue and Lenox Avenue. On 42d 
 Street and Broadway there was, when the route was adopted, a 
 double-track horse railway, but this was changed to conduit electric 
 traction before the commencement of subway construction. On 
 Westchester Avenue and Southern Boulevard there was a double- 
 track electric trolley railway. 
 
 The subsurface structures were ascertained to be complex. The 
 sewerage system of New York is the "combined" plan ; that is, both 
 house drainage and storm water are admitted into the same conduits, 
 so that some sewers are necessarily very large and require that 
 their capacity be maintained at all times during any reconstruc- 
 tion to provide for a sudden heavy rainfall. Fortunately for the 
 most part the route followed closely the top of the ridge that runs 
 centrally north and south with the city, so that only in a few cas^s 
 were large cross sewers intercepted. The notable cases of this char- 
 
Sub-surface Conditions. 191 
 
 actcv were at Canal Street, West 45th Street, West llOth- Street, and 
 at Eailroad Avenue. Of mains, pipes and electric subways of all 
 kindf; there was the usual assortment to be met with in a large city, 
 but m which regard New York stands rather pre-eminent in the way 
 of variety and complexity of arrangement. The gas pipes varied 
 in size from 4- inch to 36-inch; the water mains from 6-inch to 
 48-inch, and the electric subways containing cables whose duty 
 ranged from the delicate current for telephones . to the powerful 
 high-tension main currents of the street railway with 6,500 volts, 
 and in addition there were the compressed air tubes of the postal 
 system. All of these lines had to be maintained in operation, and 
 most of them moved to new locations iii the same or other streets, 
 without material, interruption of service, in order that both the 
 Rapid Transit Subway and the pipes themselves could be ac- 
 commodated. As unfortunately the pipe system of Kew York is 
 a matter of growth without attempt; at systematic arrangement, 
 resulting in the various mains 'being interwoven as best they may at 
 the time of their laying, the provisions for the mains and pipes had 
 to be carefully worked out in advance. 
 
 Owing to the great and at times abrupt changes in topography and 
 geological formation, it was not possible at all points to adhere to 
 the general scheme for shallow construction. In preparing the 
 design, while this method was adhered: to whenever possible, radical 
 departures were made locally. From the southern terminus to 
 33d Street, from 41st Street to 103d Street, along Broadway from 
 103d to 122d and 135th to 150th Streets, and along Lenox Avenue 
 and part of Bast 149th Street, the rail level was laid out approxi- 
 mately parallel with and close to the street surface. At 33d Street, 
 in order to avoid interference with the tunnel of the Metropolitan 
 Street Railway Company, the Rapid Transit Subway was divided 
 into two two-track tunnels to be driven beneath Murray Hill, one 
 at each side of, but below, the street-car tunnel. On the East Side 
 a two-track tunnel was planned from Broadway to the main drive 
 in Central Park near Lenox Avenue in order to maintain reason- 
 able gradients, and similar tunnels were found necessary on the 
 West Side line between 150th and 155th Streets, and 158th Street 
 and Port Gteorge, and in the Bronx on 149th Street between Gerard 
 Avenue and the Harlem Railroad yards. On the other hand, in 
 
192 Design of Structure. 
 
 order to overcome depressions, viaducts were introduced on the West 
 Side line between 132d and 135th Streets and north of Fort George, 
 and on the East Side line north of Third Avenue. The amount of 
 the three general types of construction is as follows : — cut and cover, 
 10.46 miles; tunnel, 4.55 miles; viaduct, 5.8 miles. The accom- 
 panying map and profile of the railway show where the several 
 types occur. 
 
 In designing the structure it was decided to secure the absolute 
 minimum of depth, the allowed limit of clearance between the street 
 surface and the top of the subway being the depth of the yokes 
 of the surface of the electric railway, which was 30 inches. The 
 roof of the railway was made flat and as thin as possible. To 
 meet the latter requirement columns were introduced between 
 each track so that the roof beams need be deep enough to span 
 but one track only, an arrangement that was found to be eco- 
 nomical in expense and, by making individual members smaller, 
 facilitated erection; The standard type was therefore a rectangular 
 structure consisting of a concrete floor with steel ribs set five fSet 
 apart, with arches of concrete turned between them. In executing 
 this design the procedure has been to lay down a bed of concrete, and 
 on that erect, to a height of several feet, thin sidewalls of hollow 
 brick. On this floor and against the walls is then spread the water- 
 proofing, consisting of alternate layers of felt and asphalt, in num- 
 ber from two to six, according to the amount of ground water pres- 
 ent. On top of this waterproofing course is spread another layer 
 of concrete, and on top of the latter are set the foundations for the 
 walls and centre columns. Then against the sidewalls are laid up 
 terra-eotta ducts in double row, the hollow brick outer wall with the 
 waterproofing being carried up in advance. Then the steel frames 
 are erected, the Jack arches turned and the waterproofing spread 
 over the roof, over which is laid a protecting layer of concrete. 
 The waterproofing has thus been protected from outside damage 
 by the thin guard-walls of brick and the top layer of concrete. As 
 a rule, there has been no hydrostatic pressure from ground water, 
 the principal exceptions being in the neighborhood of Canal Street 
 and on the approaches to the Harlem Eiver. One great fealure of 
 this design is that it can be constructed in sections for either the full 
 or part width, with an absolute certainty that the several sections 
 
Reconstruction of Sewers. 1&3 
 
 will fit together, connections between the rigid members being made 
 of plastic and easily molded concrete. 
 
 ■ The sections in the tunnels presented no novel features except 
 that the plans called for concrete lining. With the exception of the 
 Murray Hill tunnel, where a three-centre arch was designed in order 
 to lower the roof, the section has been semi-circular. This same 
 section was also used in certain deep cuttings in the two-track lines 
 where, owing to local topography, the spa;ce above the roof permitted 
 an arch to be constructed. In such cases an arch was found to be 
 more economical than steel frames. The steel viaduct followed, in 
 general features of design, other similar elevated railways, except 
 that it was designed stronger than such structures for urban rail- 
 ways usually are, in order to accommodate extra heavy rolling 
 stock, viz., a motor car weighing 50 tons with a length of 46 feet. 
 
 As sewers in New York are usually laid at a depth of about 
 13 leet, and as the excavation for the railway was to be over 18 
 feet at the minimum, it was evident 'that a complete reconstruction 
 of the sewerage system along the route would be necessary, involving 
 the building of 7.21 miles of sewers along the route of the railway, 
 and 5.13 miles of sewers in streets other than that followed by the 
 route. 
 
 The general plan of procedure in dealing with sewers has been, 
 where sewers have been encountered along the route, to plan and 
 build two new sewers, one at each side of the railway and imme- 
 diately next to the abutting houses, and to diminish to the min- 
 imum all cross-connections either over or under the railway. Where 
 sewers cross the route said cross sewers have, so far as possible, 
 been gathered together and passed beneath the railway in iron 
 pipes with leaded joints buried in concrete, and a new outfall sewer 
 has I been built from the lower end of said cross-counjection on a 
 new gradient to such a point as is rendered necessary by the topog- 
 raphy of the street to make a new connection with the already 
 existing system. In this 'way all siphons, with one exception, have 
 been avoided and the sewers left in a self-cleansing condition. 
 Where sewers have been intersected, notably at Canal Street, at a 
 point where the bottom of the railway passes below tide water, such 
 a general scheme was not possible to follow. In this case a new route 
 was selected for a new sewer and the flow diverted. Heretofore 
 
194 Water and Gas Mains. 
 
 the area extending easterly from Elm Street to Allen Street, 
 and northerly from Leonard Street to Houston Street (190 acres), 
 has, owing to the topography of the ground, found access for 
 its drainage westerly along Canal Street from Elm Street to the 
 Hudson Elver. A new sewer was planned to be built from Elm 
 and Canal Streets easterly along Elm to Centre Streets ; along Cen- 
 tre to Leonard Streets; along Leonard Street across Mulberry Bend 
 Park to Mulberry Street, and through Worth Street to Chatham 
 Square, where the natural divide at Chatham Square was cut at a 
 depth of 31 feet. The route then followed Oliver Street to the East 
 Eiver where an outfall was selected under Pier 34. This sewer, a 
 mile long, was completed April 8, 1901, since which date the one 
 above described has had its discharge into the East Eiver instead of 
 the Hudson Eiver. Three maps are appended showing the amount 
 of the sewer reconstruction, while the accompanying pictures illus- 
 trate the details of such work. 
 
 The problem of preparing for the pipes was one of intricate detail, 
 calling for special plans for particular points where they existed 
 in number. As a general scheme it was proposed to leave the 
 small pipes, i. e., those of 12 inches in diameter and under, on top 
 of the roof, but the large mains were to be moved to or rebuilt in 
 a new location at the side of the subway, if there was not sufficient 
 space on top. At cross streets where the distance between the 
 pavement and the top of the roof was insufficient to allow the longi- 
 tudinal and lateral mains to cross each above the normal form of 
 roof, additional space was secured by .constructing a flat metal 
 trough between adjacent roof beams and laying the lateral mains in 
 it. If this additional space were still insufficient to accommodate 
 large mains, it was planned that such mains could be subdivided in- 
 to smaller pipes, but enough in number to provide a capacity equal 
 to the undivided main. The original plans called for a buckled 
 plate with concrete as the bottom of these troughs, involving a loss 
 of about six inohes. As a matter of fact, in practice we have used 
 3-inch beams resting on the flanges of the main roof beams with con- 
 crete between, and in extreme cases where every inch had to be saved 
 a steel plate set flush with the bottom flanges of the roof beams has 
 been supported by angles along the edges, thus reducing the thick- 
 ness of roof to one-half inch. 
 
Contract Sections. 196 
 
 Tljft detailed plans and specifications having been prepared they 
 were submitted, at the request of your Engineer, to Messrs. George 
 S. Morison, Past-President of the American Society of Civil Engi- 
 n(^rs, and Mr. Howard A. Carson, Chief Engineer of the Boston 
 Transit Commission, for their examination. These gentlemen re- 
 ported to the Board their approval, their letters appearing in the 
 minutes of the Board under date of 18th December, 1897. 
 
 The several legal and financial difficulties which had prevented 
 actual comjnenc'ing of operations having been overcome during 
 the autumn of 1899, the Board on November 15 of that year began 
 the advertising of the contract as provided by law. In order not 
 to exceed the limit of the debt-incurring capacity on the part of 
 the City, bids were invited from contractors on the basis of dividing 
 the whole route into four sections ; the right being reserved by the 
 Board to award contracts for the several sections beginning with 
 the first, at intervals of not more than one year. These sections 
 were as follows : 
 
 Section. 1. — From the southern terminus at the City. Hall to 
 and including a station at 59th Street and Broadway. 
 
 Section 3. — All of the railroad on the north of such station at 
 59th Streert, to and including a station at the intersection of 137th 
 Street and Broadway; and on the East Side, from the Junction at 
 103d Street and Broadway to and including a station at 135th 
 Street and Lenox Avenue. 
 
 Section 3. — All of the railroad on the West Side north from n 
 station at 137th Street to and including a station at Fort George; 
 and on the East Side, from a station at 135th Street to and includ- 
 ing a station at Melrose Avenue. 
 
 Section 4. — The remainder of the railroad from Fort George 
 to Kingsbridge, and from Melrose Avenue to Bronx Park. 
 
 The lengths of railway covered by these various sections were 
 as follows: 
 
196 
 
 
 Work to be done. 
 
 
 
 SECTION. 
 
 1 
 
 4-TRACK 
 SUBWAY. 
 MILES. 
 
 5.00 
 
 2-TRACK 
 SUBWAY. 
 MILES. 
 
 3-TRACK 
 
 VIADUCT. 
 
 MILES. 
 
 TOTAL. 
 
 5.00 
 
 3 
 
 2.26 
 
 3.43 
 
 .51 
 
 6.30 
 
 3 
 
 
 4.33 
 
 . . > 
 
 4.32 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 5.39 
 
 5.39 
 
 Total 7.36 7.75 5.80 30.81 
 
 The terms of the contract provided that the Contractor was to 
 construct the four sections for a fixed sum, but to receive in addition 
 the cost of all real estate necessarily acquired, and the expense of 
 terminals at actual cost of the land and cost plus 10 per cent, of the 
 improvements. The former amount was limited to $1,000,000, and 
 the latter to $1,750,000. The Contractor was also required to fur- 
 nish all equipment, on which the City was to have a first lien. Ac- 
 cording to the Rapid Transit Act, equipment is defined as includ- 
 ing all motors, cars, whether used for passengers, freight, express 
 or any other purpose, and all other rolling stock, all boilers, engines, 
 wires, ways, conduits, mechanisms, machinery, power houses, all real 
 estate upon which any such power houses shall stand or which shall 
 be necessary for the generation or transmission of motive power, 
 and all tools, implements and devices of every nature whatsoever 
 used for such generation or transmission of motive power, and also 
 all apparatus and devices for lighting, signalling and ventilation. 
 
 At noon on January 15, 1900, two bids were opened in the office 
 of the Board and in the presence of all the Commissioners, Alex- 
 ander E. Orr, President; John H. Starin, Vice-President; Wood- 
 bury Langdon, George L. Rives, Charles Stewart Smith, Morris K. 
 Jesup; Robert A. Van Wyck, Mayor, and Bird S. Coler, Comp- 
 troller. There were also present Bion L. Burrows, Secretary; Ed- 
 ward M. Shepard and Albert B. Boardman, Counsel; and Wm. 
 Barclay Parsons, Chief Engineer. Bid No. 1 was from John B. 
 McDonald, of New York, as follows : 
 
 If for Section 1 $15,000,000 
 
 If for Sections 1 and 3 36,000,000 
 
 If for Sections 1, 3 and 3 33,000,000 
 
 If for all four sections 35,000,000 
 
 Equipment. — Estimated at $6,000,000 
 
Bids Received. 197 
 
 Bid N"o. 2, from Andrew Onderdonk, of New York, was as fol- 
 lows: 
 
 If for Section 1 $17,000,000 
 
 If for Sections 1 and 2 38,000,000 
 
 If for Sections 1, 2 and 3 35,500,000 
 
 If for all four sections - - 39,300,000 
 
 Peeoentage. — 5% on first million after $5,000,000 of gross re- 
 ceipts, and 2^% for each added million thereafter 
 up to a maximum of 15%. 
 
 Equipment. — Estimated at $6,000,000 
 
 After a full investigation of the comparative merits of these two 
 bids, which differed considerably in their character, the Board on 
 January 16, all the Commissioners being present, unanimously 
 voted that it would be for the best interest of the City of New York 
 to_ accept the proposal of Mr. John B. McDonald ; and the Board 
 further, on the same date, directed that the President should in 
 due form, in the name and on behalf of the Board, exercise the 
 option reserved to the City by the contract for the construction and 
 operation of Sections 2, 3 and 4, as well as Section 1. In accord- 
 ance with this decision, the contract for the whole line was signed 
 and executed on February 21, 1900. 
 
 An estimate of quantities was made covering the whole of the 
 work and submitted to the contractors who were considering bidding, 
 without however incurring any responsibility on the part of the 
 Commission. These quantities are shown on page 198 ; the sections 
 to which they refer having the same geographical limits as the four 
 Contract Sections described above. Approximately, the whole of 
 Sections 1, 2 and 3 is underground, except the viaduct on Section 2, 
 West Side, over the Manhattan Viaduct; and, approximately, the 
 whole of Section 4, both east and west, is viaduct. 
 
 The actual construction of the railroad was begun, with suitable 
 public ceremony, in front of the City Hall on March 24, 1900, in 
 the presence of the Commissioners of the Rapid Transit Board 
 and the various City officials, by making an excavation, which sub- 
 sequently was covered with a bronze tablet commemorating the 
 

 OC0GQC00S!>G0T-(<MC0lOi-llOC0Tt<10 
 
 a> ^ oi ^ 
 
 CO 
 
 
 t-C-tOOOOl-^OOCiOOODOQOOOTOS 
 
 -^ -^ CS tH 
 
 CO 
 
 
 u:^ CM tM ?o £ 
 
 - tH T-t C5 1— 1 t- i. 
 
 •^ o^ ca_ co_^ CM t-_ 
 
 CD CO CO JC 
 
 c- 
 
 oT o" T-T ad th o" co" t- 
 
 - OS C5 L 
 
 -"" T-T 00 CO T-T lo" 
 
 CO" O CO iO" 
 
 os" 
 
 o 
 
 O O « ?0 (M W CM 
 
 GO 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 t- 
 
 
 t- CO -* 
 
 iO 
 
 H 
 
 -tH L- OS CO 
 
 
 
 
 '^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 t- 
 
 
 Ol 
 
 0^ 
 
 
 w- 
 
 (M 00 GO 
 
 o ^ o 
 
 ■ <M 
 
 
 ■ CO CD JO W CD 
 
 
 ■ o 
 
 ■ o 
 
 '^ 
 
 ■l^ 
 
 T-H T-H Oi 
 
 O -^ 00 
 
 ■ CO 
 
 
 ■ GO CO ^ 05 lO 
 
 
 • GO 
 
 ■ -^ 
 
 I- 
 
 O l-H iO 
 
 1— ( 
 
 lO 
 
 ■ T-t 
 
 
 
 
 00 CD (M 
 
 
 ■ t- 
 
 ' ^- 
 
 o 
 
 • 5w 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 t' 
 
 • L- 
 
 - CO 
 
 
 
 ■>-( 
 
 . CO 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 t-i 
 
 '. oi 
 
 co' 
 
 tH 
 
 
 
 
 
 T— 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 V 
 
 ^n - 
 
 O-i C2 
 
 
 
 • ■X' 
 
 Oi 
 
 
 
 
 • iO CD O 
 
 
 
 
 ■ o 
 
 CD 
 
 Is 
 
 a 
 
 -- rxj a-t o 
 
 
 
 ■ cc 
 
 •^ 
 
 
 
 
 • CO TJH O 
 
 
 
 
 
 to 
 
 O iO (M (.- 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 ■ iO ^ CQ 
 
 
 
 
 ■ GO 
 
 cv5 
 
 
 -:H" ^' 
 
 — 
 
 
 
 of 
 
 L-" 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ; t- 
 
 cm" 
 
 1—1 
 
 
 L~ 
 
 
 
 
 
 T-\ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 « 
 
 tn 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ! t'-" 
 
 CO t- ' CD CC 
 
 ~~^ 
 
 c 
 
 
 tr. 
 
 t- c 
 
 oc 
 
 
 - L- 
 
 
 
 « 
 
 o c- 
 
 ; ^ 
 
 
 
 ■Ss 
 
 CM CD -trfl O: 
 
 
 tc 
 
 
 ir: 
 
 (M K 
 
 cc 
 
 
 ■ o 
 
 
 t- 
 
 CO CO 
 
 • o 
 
 
 
 -^ CO -* ^ 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 o 
 
 00 c 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 ■ CO 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 'S^ 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 i- 
 
 ■ o ^ ^ 
 
 
 
 
 . cc 
 
 t-" ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 cm" 
 
 
 co' 
 
 »o" 
 
 
 
 
 O DO (M 
 CM 
 
 
 
 
 cc 
 
 -if 
 
 
 
 l" 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 tH 
 
 T— 1 
 
 
 
 CO CO ^ i.- 
 
 oc 
 
 1> 
 
 
 lO 
 
 cc 
 
 
 
 "* 
 
 
 lO 
 
 c- 
 
 
 
 ^ h 
 
 ^ OS CO (-- 
 
 cc 
 
 cc 
 
 
 cc 
 
 Oi 
 
 
 
 CD 
 
 
 ■ o 
 
 
 o: 
 
 
 os 
 
 
 
 o « 
 
 10_ L- 03 i.- 
 T-T rH Os" O 
 
 QC 
 
 cc 
 
 
 
 05 
 
 s 
 
 
 C7^ 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 ■T^" 
 
 
 (^ 
 
 
 co^ 
 
 
 
 w -^ 00 a: 
 
 
 
 
 
 T)< 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■^ 
 
 
 (M 
 
 
 
 of 
 
 ?^ 
 
 c: 
 
 cc 
 
 O 
 
 ~co 
 
 ca 
 
 
 o 
 
 <M (M 
 
 OO 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 tr- 
 
 
 CM 
 
 o 
 
 33 
 
 
 
 in 
 
 cc 
 
 c- 
 
 cs 
 
 2 
 
 
 lO 
 
 
 T— 1 
 
 00 lO 
 
 t- 
 
 
 t- 
 
 
 
 lO 
 
 
 
 cc 
 
 
 
 1- 
 
 CD 
 
 CO 
 
 CO 
 CO 
 
 
 1— 
 
 Oi 
 
 
 1— I 
 
 
 lO 
 
 
 CD 
 
 
 CD 
 
 
 CM 
 
 -■ ^ 
 
 co" 
 
 
 
 «' 
 
 32 
 
 CO CO 
 
 t- 
 
 
 cz 
 
 l> 
 
 CO in 
 
 t- 
 
 ir. 
 
 c- 
 
 cc 
 
 CD 
 
 t- 
 
 r> 
 
 OS 
 
 OS 
 
 lO 
 
 © 
 
 ^ t^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 00 cs 
 
 I- 
 
 
 c 
 
 t- 
 
 OO (ST 
 
 iC 
 
 
 IC 
 
 (M 
 
 00 
 
 CD 
 
 <M 
 
 l> 
 
 CO 
 
 
 CO 
 
 O w 
 
 CM 
 
 O Cd 
 
 OO" L- 
 
 CO T-i 
 
 CO -* 
 
 cc 
 
 " 'cc 
 
 « 
 
 co 
 
 CO ^ 
 
 to" « 
 
 o 
 
 a- 
 
 tM 
 
 a: 
 
 1— ' 
 
 
 CM 
 
 CO 
 
 o 
 
 00 
 
 T- 
 
 co 
 
 " § 
 
 OO 
 
 a 
 
 L^ 
 
 CO 
 
 2: 
 
 CO 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 
 CO 
 
 ^ ^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 CC 
 
 
 
 03 
 
 CO 
 
 CO 
 
 
 {^ 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 S 
 
 c: 
 
 cc 
 
 CO 
 
 CO 
 
 cc 
 
 
 03 
 
 « rH 
 
 CD 
 
 
 'id 
 
 
 
 C3 
 
 GO 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 CO 
 
 cc 
 
 <3i 
 
 cc 
 co 
 
 (M 
 
 CO 
 
 1- 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 »o 00 
 03 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 cd" 
 
 GO 
 CO 
 
 T- 
 
 CD 
 
 (M 
 
 "^ 
 CO 
 1—1 
 
 
 CO 
 
 cd" 
 
 o 
 
 1-H 
 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 t/ 
 
 d 
 c 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 cn 
 >> 
 
 
 
 
 d 
 
 
 P 
 
 ^ 
 
 c 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 C/3 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 y 
 
 
 
 
 (J 
 
 
 T 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 .2 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 C 
 
 
 
 u 
 
 
 t: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 to 
 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 h 
 
 X 
 
 1 
 
 d 
 a 
 X 
 
 w 
 
 : 
 
 -6 
 
 c 
 c 
 
 c 
 
 s 
 
 4 
 
 > 
 
 t 
 
 c 
 
 s 
 
 
 c 
 o 
 
 e 
 a 
 
 o 
 
 i 
 
 c 
 
 Cl 
 
 3 
 
 P 
 
 3 
 O 
 
 1, 
 
 ix 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 P 
 
 ) 
 
 
 OJ 
 tr 
 
 1 
 
 o 
 
 p 
 
 s 
 
 bo 
 
 C 
 
 OJ 
 
 > 
 
 1 
 
 
 b 
 
 -S 
 
 M 
 
 
 __ 
 
 
 
 
 b ^ 
 
 
 
 tu 
 
 1) 
 
 
 t- 
 
 J_, 
 
 - 
 
 ^ 
 
 1 
 
 
 C3 
 
 ;^ 
 
 u 
 
 
 <u 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 c u 
 
 
 
 
 C 
 
 "5 
 
 
 
 ■4-) 
 
 
 u 
 
 
 
 <u 
 
 rt 
 
 o 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 O "^ 
 
 
 
 c 
 
 c 
 
 n 
 
 nj 
 
 
 1/ 
 
 
 rt 
 
 
 I 
 
 H-1 
 
 w 
 
 (^ 
 
 
 X 
 
 
 
 O 
 
 ;i3 
 
 
 
 t: 
 
 y^ 
 
 > 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 > 
 
 1) 
 
 
 1-1 
 
 
 
 
 198 
 
Organization of Staff. 199 
 
 event. The inscription on this tablet, in raised letters, is shown on 
 the page opposite. 
 
 For convenience in superintending the construction, the Board 
 divided the work into' five divisions, each division being in charge 
 of a Division Engineer, and gave the Chief Engineer a general 
 assistant with the title of Deputy Chief Engineer. In addition 
 there were created the positions of General Inspector of Designs, the 
 holder thereof to have charge of the preparation of all detail de- 
 signs, and of General Inspector of Material, .who was to have charge 
 of inspecting all steel, cast-iron, cements, paints, asphalt and other 
 material required in the work. 
 
 Division ISTo. 1 included all the work on the railroad from»City 
 Hall to the centre of 41st Street and Park Avenue; Division ISTo. 
 3, from the centre of 41st Street and Park Avenue to the centre of 
 104th Street ; Division Fo. 3, from 104th Street to the portal of the 
 tunnel at Port George on' the West Side, and to the portal of the 
 tunnel at Westchester Avenue on the East Side; Division. No. 4, all 
 of the viaduct v/ork north of the last two mentioned points, and 
 also the viaduct over the Manhattan Valley between 125th and 
 135th Streets ; and the Sewer Division, all reconstruction of sewers 
 in streets off the route of the railway. 
 
 Each Division, and the Bureau of Inspection has had an office 
 separate from the general office, with an appropriate force of assis- 
 tant engineers and inspectors. The Bureau of Inspection has had 
 a head office in Pittsburg, a cement testing laboratory at Coplay, Pa., 
 and with subsidiary offices at Pencoyd and Warren, Pa. 
 
 The following table gives a list of all appointments, with rank 
 and duration of service: 
 
Chief Engineer's Office. 
 
 Name, 
 
 George S. Rice 
 
 St. John Clarke 
 
 M. J. Farrell 
 
 George Perrine 
 
 Sverre Dahm 
 
 Frederick C. Noble. . . 
 Peter C. Spence 
 
 Ralph Cranmer 
 
 Joshua Billion 
 
 Aaron I. Raisman. . . . 
 Tyrrell B. Shertzer. . . 
 Daniel L. Turner . . . . 
 Wm. *F. Stevenson. . . 
 
 James C. Meem 
 
 Frederick Wilcock. . . . 
 
 A. J. Malukoff 
 
 William A. Collins . . . 
 Charles Rodenburg. . . 
 
 David E. Baxter 
 
 Jasper T. Kane 
 
 William H. Hunt. . . . 
 Charles E. Conover. . . 
 Andrew Lindsay 
 
 John A. Gorman 
 
 Maurice J. Allen 
 
 Chas. S. McCarthy. . . 
 
 Edgar M. North 
 
 Charles J. Tilden 
 
 Homer A. Reid 
 
 Claiborne F. Gardner. 
 
 William J. Duncan. . . 
 William E. Guilfoyle. 
 Henry F. Schluenzen. 
 Matthew M. Feely. . . 
 
 Pierre, P. PuUis 
 
 William E. Dalton . . . 
 John E. Copeland . . . . 
 
 Deputy Chief Engineer 
 Gen. Insp. of Designs. 
 
 Private Secretary 
 
 Assistant Engineer. . . . 
 
 Assistant Engineer. . . . 
 Assistant Engineer .... 
 Assistant Engineer. . . . 
 
 Assistant Engineer, . . . 
 Assistant Engineer ..... 
 Assistant Engineer. . . . 
 Assistant Engineer .... 
 Assistant Engineer. . . , 
 Assistant Engineer, , , , 
 Assistant Engineer, , , , 
 Assistant Engineer, , . , 
 
 Draughtsman 
 
 Draughtsman 
 
 Draughtsman 
 
 Draughtsman 
 
 Draughtsman 
 
 Draughtsman 
 
 Draughtsman 
 
 Draughtsman 
 
 Draughtsman 
 
 Draughtsman 
 
 Draughtsman 
 
 Rodman 
 
 Inspector of Steel 
 
 Inspector of Steel 
 
 Inspector of Steel 
 
 Inspector of Steel 
 
 Stenographer 
 
 Stenographer 
 
 Stenographer 
 
 Photographer 
 
 Office Boy 
 
 OfBce Boy 
 
 Entered Service, 
 
 March 1, 1900 
 May 14, 
 March 1, 
 April 1, 
 
 June 30, 
 June 1, 
 June 1, 
 
 July 3, 
 
 May 1, 
 
 June 5, 
 
 Dec, 38, 
 
 Jan, 31, 1901 
 
 Oct. 34, " 
 
 April 9, 1900 
 
 March 35, 1901 
 
 May 1, 1900 
 
 May 33, 
 
 May 4, 
 
 June 5, 
 
 May 7, 
 
 Nov. 37, 
 
 Dec. 17, 
 
 Jan. 1, 1901 ResiEned, 
 
 Remarks. 
 
 ReEigned, 
 
 Aug. ]3, 1900. 
 
 Resigned, 
 
 June 30, 19C0. 
 
 Aug. ,"5, 
 Aug. 5, 
 Oct. 11, 
 July 39, 
 Feb. 31, 
 Feb. 35, 
 March 11, 
 
 Julv 8, " 
 
 May 1, 1900 
 Aug. 6, 
 Aug. 14, " 
 June 1, " 
 
 Feb. 18, 1901 
 July 15, ■■ 
 
 May 7, tqot. 
 
 Resigned, 
 
 July 21, igoi. 
 
 200 
 
First Division. 
 
 Name. 
 
 Title. 
 
 Entered Service. 
 
 Remarks. 
 
 Albert Carr 
 
 Division Engineer 
 
 Assistant Engineer 
 
 Assistant Engineer 
 
 Assistant Engineer 
 
 Assistant Engineer 
 
 Assistant Engineer 
 
 Mar 15 1900 
 
 
 George H. Clark 
 
 Mar. 14, " 
 May 1, " 
 May 1, " 
 May 14, ■■ 
 Oct. 1, " 
 
 
 Ralph N. Wheeler 
 
 Henry L. Oestreich, Jr. 
 Arthur D. Prince 
 
 
 Waldo C. Briggs 
 
 Assistant Engineer 
 
 Oct. 1, " 
 
 Resigned, Mar. 
 16, 1901. 
 
 Gustave C. Davin 
 
 Assistant Engineer 
 
 ,Sept. 1, " 
 
 
 Philip P. Farley 
 
 Jesse O. Shipman 
 
 Assistant Engineer 
 
 Assistant Engineer 
 
 Oct. 15, " 
 June 18, ■' 
 
 Promoted from 
 Transitman, 
 July 3, 1901. 
 
 Edwin H. Thomes. . . . 
 
 Assistant Engineer 
 
 May 1, " 
 
 Promoted from 
 Transitman, 
 Sept. 1, 1901. 
 
 Burdett Kipp 
 
 Assistant Engineer 
 
 Nov. 13, " 
 
 Promoted from 
 
 
 Transitman, 
 Oct. 1, 1901. 
 
 Charles A. Plunt 
 
 Assistant Engineer 
 
 Jan. 1, 1901 
 
 
 Jesse A. Martin. 
 
 Abraham Lodholz 
 
 Assistant Engineer 
 
 Assistant Engineer 
 
 Jan. 1, " 
 Feb. 1, " 
 
 Died May 7, 1901. 
 
 John W. Goodridge. . . . 
 Edmund P. Ramsey . . , 
 
 Charles U. Powell 
 
 Charles A. Sullivan 
 
 Richard B. Post 
 
 Assistant Engineer 
 
 Assistant Engineer 
 
 Assistant Engineer 
 
 Assistant Engineer 
 
 Topo'l Draughtsman . . .' 
 
 Mar. 11, " 
 April 4, " 
 April 8, " 
 June 1, " 
 Dec. 1, 1900 
 
 
 
 
 Sept. 10, ■■ 
 Oct. 1, " 
 
 
 Clarence F. Bell 
 
 Rodman 
 
 Resigned, May 7, 
 
 Alfred R. Loweth 
 
 Rodman 
 
 June 14, " 
 June 1, " 
 
 Louis A. Walsh 
 
 
 Transferred to 
 
 
 
 Sewer Dept., 
 Feb. 7, 1901. 
 
 Joseph McLoughlin . . , 
 
 
 Sept. 14, " 
 
 Transferred to 
 
 
 Dept. of Water 
 
 
 
 
 Supply, Mar. 13, 
 1901. 
 
 Cornelius J. Gaffney. . . 
 Drew Linard 
 
 
 Sept. 17, " 
 
 
 Rodman . . . 
 
 Jan. 35,1901 
 Feb. 5, " 
 Jan. 35, " 
 
 
 Henry Branfuehr 
 
 Egbert V. Lawrence . . . 
 
 
 
 Rodman 
 
 Promoted from 
 
 
 Axeman, Sept. 
 16,1901. 
 
 Henry L. Connell 
 
 Rodman 
 
 Mar. 1, " 
 
 Promoted from 
 
 
 Axeman, Aug. 
 7,1901. 
 
 Irving F. Putney 
 
 Rodman .... 
 
 Mar. 1, ■' 
 
 Promoted from 
 
 
 Axeman, Dec. 1, 
 1901. 
 
 Edward T. Ebert 
 
 
 Aug. 1, " - 
 Aug. 5, " 
 Aug, 19, " 
 Aug. 36, " 
 Dec. 16, " 
 
 .,' 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Bernard G Barton 
 
 Rodman . 
 
 
 Geo. J. Schwietzer. . . . 
 
 
 
 
 
 301 
 
First Division — Continued. 
 
 Name. 
 
 Title. 
 
 Enteied Service. 
 
 Remarks. 
 
 James W. ReiUy 
 
 Joseph Goldberg 
 
 Rodman 
 
 Dec. 1, 1901 
 
 
 
 May 5, 1900 
 
 Promoted from 
 
 
 
 Axeman, June 
 I, 1901. 
 
 Frank J. Perry 
 
 Rodman 
 
 
 Nov. 1, 1900 
 
 Promoted from 
 
 
 
 Axeman, Aug. 
 
 
 
 
 
 1. 1901. 
 
 
 
 
 Oct. 15, 1901 
 
 Jan. 11, " 
 Jan. 28, " 
 Feb. 1, " 
 Mar. 1, " 
 
 
 George S. Clarke 
 
 John G. Horgan 
 
 Peter A. Farrell 
 
 Axeman 
 
 Resigned, Feb, 
 
 
 H, J 901. 
 
 
 
 Godfrey Branfuehr, Jr. 
 John T. Dowd, 
 
 Frank C. Fox 
 
 Axeman 
 
 
 
 Mar. 4, ' ' 
 
 Resigned, Dec. 
 
 Axeman 
 
 Mar. 25, " 
 April 1, " 
 
 7, 1901. 
 
 Edward F. Fitzgerald. . 
 
 
 Transferred to 
 
 
 
 Dept. Water 
 
 
 
 
 
 Supply, Sept. 
 
 
 
 
 
 15, 1901. 
 
 William F. Mercer. . . . 
 
 Axeman . . . 
 
 
 April 1, " 
 
 
 Edward P. Kelly 
 
 Axeman 
 
 April 33, ■' 
 
 
 John A. Connell 
 
 
 April 34, " 
 
 Transferred to 
 
 
 
 Dept. Water 
 
 
 
 
 
 Supply, Sept. 
 15, 1901. 
 
 
 
 
 
 Richard J. CuUen 
 
 Axeman . , . 
 
 
 April 39, " 
 Oct. 10, 1900 
 
 
 Inspector ol 
 Inspector ol 
 
 Masonry. . 
 Masonry. . 
 
 
 Seymour P. Bradley. , . 
 
 Oct. 15, " 
 
 
 Arthur E. Gunn 
 
 Inspector of 
 
 Masonry . . 
 
 Nov. 1, " 
 
 
 John Miles 
 
 Inspector ol 
 Inspector of 
 
 Masonry. . 
 Masonry. . 
 
 Jan. 6, 1901 
 Jan. 30, " 
 
 
 Frank A. Miller 
 
 
 Joseph Ridgway 
 
 Inspector of 
 
 Masonry . . 
 
 Jan. 24, " 
 
 
 Theodore Belzner 
 
 Inspector of 
 
 Masonry. . 
 
 Jan. 24, " 
 
 
 Forbes Gerard". 
 
 Inspector of 
 
 Masonry. . 
 
 Jan. 34, " 
 
 
 Matthew J. Conley 
 
 Inspector of 
 
 Masonry. . 
 
 Feb. 11, " 
 
 
 Robert F. Higgins 
 
 Inspector of 
 
 Masonry. . 
 
 Mar. 1, ■' 
 
 
 Peter O'Flynn 
 
 Inspector of 
 
 Masonry. . 
 
 Mar. 2, " 
 
 
 Percy E. Lyon 
 
 Inspector of 
 
 Masonry. . 
 
 Mar. 6, " 
 
 
 Edward L. Gill, Jr. . . . 
 
 Inspector of 
 
 Masonry. 
 
 April 19, " 
 
 
 Michael R. Stack 
 
 Inspector of 
 
 Masonry. . 
 
 Oct. 4, 1900 
 
 
 Patrick J. Lovely 
 
 Inspector of 
 
 Masonry. , 
 
 May 8, 1901 
 
 
 Walter F. Smith 
 
 Inspector of 
 
 Masonry. . 
 
 June 19, " 
 
 
 Henry C. Smith 
 
 Inspector of 
 
 Masonry. . 
 
 June 26, " 
 
 
 Clarence P. Fish 
 
 Inspector of 
 
 Masonry . . 
 
 July 16, " 
 
 
 Thomas J. Murray. . . . 
 
 Inspector of 
 
 Masonry. . 
 
 July 22, " 
 
 
 Edward D. Vaughn . . . 
 
 Inspector of 
 
 Masonry. . 
 
 Aug. 4, ' ' 
 
 
 Daniel D. Sheehan 
 
 Inspector of 
 
 Masonry. . 
 
 Aug. 18, " 
 
 
 Richard J. McConnell. . 
 
 Inspector of 
 
 Masonry. . 
 
 Aug. 30, " 
 
 
 Thomas J. Fallon 
 
 Inspector of 
 
 Masonry. . 
 
 Aug. 30, " 
 
 
 James L. Dennison .... 
 
 Inspector of 
 
 Masonry. . 
 
 Oct. 3, " 
 
 Resigned, Nov. 
 
 George M. McCloskey. 
 
 Inspector of 
 
 Masonry. . 
 
 Oct. 3, '■ 
 
 11,1901. 
 
 Alfred Lennon 
 
 Inspector of 
 
 Masonry. . 
 
 Oct. 10, ■■ 
 
 
 John J. Lilley 
 
 Office Boy. 
 
 
 Oct. 5, " 
 
 
 
 
 
 202 
 
Second Division. 
 
 Name. 
 
 Title. 
 
 Entered Service. 
 
 Remarks. 
 
 Alfred Craven 
 
 Robert Ridgway 
 
 John H. Myers, Jr. . . . 
 
 A. A. Sproul, Jr 
 
 William E. Swift 
 
 Robert H. Jacobs 
 
 Lazarus White 
 
 Edmimd M. Blake 
 
 George S. Frost 
 
 Bayly Hipkins 
 
 Lawrence C. Brink . . . . 
 Alexander Thomson, Jr. 
 
 Louis P. deLuze 
 
 John H. Madden 
 
 Joseph R. Geoghan . . . 
 
 Arthur E. Wehige 
 
 George H. Lesley 
 
 Joseph F. Banks 
 
 Henry Sunkle 
 
 Richard W. McDonald, 
 
 Elisha T. Barrett 
 
 Charles U. Stepath . . . . 
 William P. Gay 
 
 Stephen E. Meagher, . 
 
 Roderick Ross. 
 
 William G. Foy. 
 
 Andrew Veitch, Jr. 
 
 Israel V. Werbin 
 
 George H. Knight, Jr. 
 Thomas T. Craven . . . 
 
 John J. Welch 
 
 Anthony E. Hoffman. 
 Frank C. Saward 
 
 Leo C. Clarke 
 
 Michael F. Corkery. . . 
 William J. Keogh. . . . 
 
 Robert Tighe 
 
 Frank McGuire 
 
 Division 
 
 Assistant 
 
 Assistant 
 
 Assistant 
 
 Assistant 
 
 Assistant 
 
 Assistant 
 
 Assistant 
 
 Assistant 
 
 Assistant 
 
 Engineer . 
 Engineer . 
 Engineer . 
 Engineer . 
 Engineer . 
 Engineer . 
 Engineer . 
 Engineer . 
 Engineer . 
 Engineer . 
 
 Assistant Engineer . . . 
 Assistant Engineer . . . 
 Assistant Engineer . . . 
 Assistant Engineer . . . 
 Assistant Engineer . . . 
 
 Transitman 
 
 Topo'l Draughtsman. 
 
 Rodman 
 
 Rodman 
 
 Rodman 
 
 Rodman 
 
 Rodman 
 
 Rodman 
 
 Rodman . 
 
 Rodman. 
 
 Rodman . 
 
 Rodman . 
 
 Rodman . 
 Rodman . 
 Rodman . 
 Axeman . 
 Axeman . 
 Axeman . 
 
 Axeman . 
 Axeman . 
 Axeman . 
 Axeman . 
 Axeman . 
 
 May 
 
 May 
 
 May 
 
 June 
 
 Aug. 
 
 May 
 
 Sept. 
 
 Oct. 
 
 Nov. 
 
 June 
 
 Jan. 
 
 April 
 
 April 
 
 June 
 
 June 
 
 July 
 Dec. 
 June 
 June 
 June 
 Oct. 
 Oct. 
 June 
 
 1, 1900 
 9, " 
 
 1, " 
 11, " 
 
 1, " 
 
 36, " 
 
 19, " 
 
 7, " 
 
 8, 1901 
 
 1, " 
 
 1, " 
 
 V, " 
 
 17, " 
 
 3, 1900 
 
 1 " 
 
 1, " 
 
 1, " 
 
 9, " 
 
 1, " 
 
 1, " 
 
 1, " 
 
 Aug. 1, 
 
 Promoted from 
 Transitman, 
 , Oct. 1, 1901. 
 
 Oct. 
 
 25, " 
 
 Nov. 
 
 1, " 
 
 Nov. 
 
 1, " 
 
 Aug. 
 
 7, 1901 
 
 Sept. 
 
 18, " 
 
 Nov. 
 
 4, " 
 
 Jan. 
 
 25, " 
 
 Jan. 
 
 26, " 
 
 Feb. 
 
 1, " 
 
 Feb. 
 
 1, " 
 
 April 
 
 19, ■• 
 
 April 
 
 24, " 
 
 June 
 
 37, " 
 
 June 
 
 38, " 
 
 Promoted from 
 Axeman, Sept. 
 8, 1900. 
 
 Promoted from 
 Axeman, Sept. 
 1, 1901. 
 
 Promoted from 
 Axeman, Sept. 
 1, 1901. 
 
 Promoted from 
 Axeman, Aug. 
 5, 1901. 
 
 Promoted from 
 Axeman, Aug. 
 5, 1901. 
 
 Transferred to 
 Dept. Highways, 
 Aug. 5, 1901. 
 
 203 
 
Second Division — Co 
 
 itintied. 
 
 Entered Service. 
 
 
 Name. 
 
 Title. 
 
 Remarks. 
 
 Charles N. Green 
 
 Inspector of Steel 
 
 Mar. 11, 1901 
 
 
 Frederick Jackson 
 
 Inspector of Masonry.. 
 
 Oct. 11, 1900 
 
 
 P. W. Corcoran 
 
 Inspector of Masonry. . 
 
 Dec. 17, " 
 
 
 Charles E. Richards.. . 
 
 Inspector of Masonry. . 
 
 April 1,1901 
 
 
 Donate Cuozzo 
 
 Inspector of Masonry . . 
 
 April 1, " 
 
 
 Patrick J. O'Toole 
 
 Inspector of Masonry. . 
 
 April 19, " 
 
 
 Andrew J. Sparrow. . . . 
 
 Inspector of Masonry.. 
 
 April 31, " 
 
 
 Wm. H. Hanrahan. . . . 
 
 Inspector of Masonry. . 
 
 ^^y ?' 1. 
 
 
 Benjamin F. Hannau. . 
 
 Inspector of Masonry., 
 
 Nov. 1, 1900 
 
 
 John J. McDermott. . . 
 
 Inspector of Masonry. . 
 
 May 16, 1901 
 
 
 William McElroy 
 
 Inspector of Masonry.. 
 
 June 19, " 
 
 
 Edward F. Adams 
 
 Inspector of Masonry.. 
 
 June 23, " 
 
 
 Thomas B. McGuire , . 
 
 Inspector of M asonry . . 
 
 July 18, ■' 
 
 
 William P. Jewett 
 
 Inspector of Masonry.. 
 
 July 33, " 
 
 
 Carl Schmidtke 
 
 Inspector of Masonry. . 
 
 Aug. 7, " 
 
 
 Michael Reilly 
 
 Inspector of Masonry. . 
 
 Sept. 3, ■• 
 
 
 Thomas H. McElroy. . 
 
 Inspector of Masonry.. 
 
 Sept. 15, " 
 
 
 Solon E. Nichols 
 
 Inspector of Masonry.. 
 
 Sept. 88, " 
 
 
 Third Division. 
 
 Name. 
 
 Title. 
 
 Entered Service. 
 
 Remarks. 
 
 Beverly R. Value 
 
 Division Engineer 
 
 June 
 
 1, 1900 
 
 
 F. W. Carpenter 
 
 Assistant Engineer 
 
 June 
 
 6, •■ 
 
 
 C. V. V. Powers 
 
 Assistant Engineer 
 
 June 
 
 1, " 
 
 
 Wilson F. Smith 
 
 Assistant Engineer 
 
 June 
 
 18, " 
 
 
 Julian Thornley 
 
 Assistant Engineer 
 
 June 
 
 1, " 
 
 Promoted from 
 Rodman, Aug. 
 1, 1900. 
 
 George A. Taber 
 
 Assistant Engineer 
 
 Aug. 
 
 1, " 
 
 
 Charles D. Searle 
 
 Assistant Engineer 
 
 Aug. 
 
 33, " 
 
 
 Stephen U. Hopkins. . . 
 
 Assistant Engineer 
 
 Oct. 
 
 1, " 
 
 
 William Hauck 
 
 Assistant Engineer 
 
 Oct. 
 
 1, " 
 
 
 Michael H. Ryan 
 
 Assistant Engineer ..... 
 
 Nov. 
 
 12, ■■ 
 
 
 James P. Locke 
 
 Assistant Engineer 
 
 Jan. 
 
 9, ISOl 
 
 
 George F. Simpson .... 
 
 Assistant Engineer 
 
 Feb. 
 
 7, " 
 
 
 Leicester Durham 
 
 Assistant Engineer 
 
 Apr. 
 
 1, " 
 
 
 Henry B. Machen 
 
 Assistant Engineer 
 
 Apr. 
 
 8, ■■ 
 
 
 William W. Mills 
 
 Assistant Engineer 
 
 May 
 
 32, •■ 
 
 
 Henry J. Alexander. . . 
 
 Assistant Engineer 
 
 June 
 
 10, " 
 
 
 James W. Carrier 
 
 Assistant Engineer 
 
 June 
 
 19, " 
 
 
 Walter L. Tremper. . . . 
 John Kelly 
 
 
 July 
 
 Aug. 
 June 
 Aug. 
 July 
 
 2, 1900 
 
 
 
 6, " 
 
 
 Stephen H. Dolan 
 
 George A. Hefter 
 
 John R. McGrath 
 
 
 23, " 
 
 1, ■• 
 
 
 Rodman 
 
 
 Rodman 
 
 23, " 
 
 
 
 
 Axeman, Oct. 
 
 
 
 
 
 1, 1900. 
 
 Wm. F. Steinmetz. . . . 
 
 Rodman 
 
 Jan 
 
 21, 1901 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Axeman, Oct. 
 
 
 
 
 
 10. 1901. 
 
 204 
 
Third Division — Continued. 
 
 Name. 
 
 Chauncey DeVoe 
 
 Durrell Lord 
 
 Harold T. Kinch 
 
 Thomas B. Dyer 
 
 Henry J. Lynch 
 
 Leonard H . Van Every 
 John J. Norris 
 
 George E. Morrison . . 
 
 John F. Mauser, Jr. . 
 Frederick Ward 
 
 Alfred T. Brown 
 
 Otto Bernhardt 
 
 Charles A. Wood 
 
 Enos W. Cory 
 
 George C. Dinsmore. . 
 Geo. C. Abernathy. . . 
 William F. Quinn .... 
 
 John Thornton 
 
 William D. Phelan . . . 
 
 Matthew Reilly 
 
 John Byrne 
 
 Eugene McLoughlin . . 
 
 George E. Heath 
 
 Richard Black 
 
 Joseph J. Gaffney. . . . 
 Patrick J. Crennan. . . 
 Stephen Harrington . . 
 Michael Hannigan . . . 
 Alexander Austin .... 
 Edward W. Lynch . . . 
 
 Title. 
 
 Rodman 
 
 Rodman 
 
 Rodman 
 
 Rodman 
 
 Rodman 
 
 Rodman 
 
 Rodman 
 
 Axeman 
 
 Axeman 
 
 Axeman 
 
 Axeman 
 
 Axeman 
 
 Axeman 
 
 Cement Tester 
 
 Inspector of Masonry 
 Inspector of Masonry 
 Inspector of Masonry 
 Inspector of Masonry 
 Inspector of Masonry 
 
 Inspector of Masonry 
 Inspector of Masonry 
 Inspector of Masonry 
 
 Inspector of Masonry 
 Inspector of Masonry 
 Inspector of Masonry 
 Inspector of Masonry 
 Inspector of Masonry 
 Inspector' of Masonry 
 Inspector' of Masonry 
 Inspector of Masonry 
 
 Entered Service. 
 
 1900 
 
 1901 
 
 190C 
 
 Sept. 35, 
 
 June 23, 
 
 July 2, 
 
 Oct. 17, 
 
 Aug. 1, 
 
 Oct. 15, 
 
 Oct. 27, 
 
 July 18, 
 
 Aug. 15, 
 
 Nov. 1, 
 
 Jan. 14, 1901 
 
 Mar. 25, " 
 Mar. 25, 
 Oct. 22, 
 Aug. 12, 
 Aug. 27, 
 Oct. 28, 
 Nov. 16, 
 Jan. 14, 
 
 Mar. 1, 
 Mar. 21, 
 Apr. 3, 
 
 Apr. 18, 
 
 May 1. 
 
 May 13, 
 
 Aug. 5, 
 
 Aug. 31, 
 Sept. 28, 
 
 June 11, 
 
 Aug. 5, 
 
 1900 
 
 1900 
 1901 
 
 Remarks. 
 
 1900 
 1901 
 
 Promoted from 
 
 Axeman, Feb. 
 
 1, 1901. 
 Promoted from 
 
 Axeman, June 
 
 1, 1901. 
 
 Promoted from 
 Axeman, Sept. 
 1, 1901. 
 
 Resigned, 
 
 Jan. 13, 1901. 
 
 Resigned, 
 
 Dec. 1, 1900. 
 Resigned, 
 
 May I, l90l. 
 
 Resigned, 
 
 June 27, 1901. 
 
 Resigned, 
 
 Ai.r. 81, 1901. 
 
 Fourth Division. 
 
 Eugene Klapp 
 
 Justin O. Reynolds. . . . 
 
 Horace J. Howe 
 
 Theodore W.C. Happel 
 Frederick R. Harris. . . 
 
 Guy W. Culgin 
 
 Charles A. Thomas. . . . 
 
 Title. 
 
 Division Engineer. 
 Assistant Engineer . 
 Assistant Engineer . 
 Assistant Engineer . 
 Assistant Engineer . 
 Assistant Engineer, 
 Rodman 
 
 Entered Service. 
 
 July 16, 1900 
 
 Aug. 1, " 
 
 Aug. 3, " 
 
 Aug. 1, " 
 
 Oct. 8, 1901 
 
 Dec. 1, " 
 
 Aug. 1, 1900 
 
 Remarks. 
 
 205 
 
Fourth Division — Continued. 
 
 Name. 
 
 Kntered Service. 
 
 Remarks, 
 
 Peter F. Daly 
 
 Walter P. Butler 
 
 Richard A. Berry .... 
 Orman T. Babcock . 
 P'rancis X, Martin . . . 
 
 Albert J. Mayell 
 
 Tryon P. Edwards . . 
 Whitford Bennett . . . 
 Michael M. Reynolds 
 Andrew McCarthy, . . 
 Daniel' P. O'Keefe. . . 
 
 Rodman 
 
 Rodman 
 
 Rodman 
 
 Rodman 
 
 Rodman 
 
 Rodman 
 
 Rodman 
 
 Rodman 
 
 Inspector of Masonry. 
 Inspector of Masonry. 
 Inspector of Masonry. 
 
 Aug. 1, ' 
 
 Sept. 17, ' 
 
 Oct. 1, ' 
 
 July 1, 1901 
 
 Oct. 11, ' 
 
 Oct. 15, ' 
 
 Oct. 18, ' 
 
 Dec. 1, ' 
 
 April 13, ' 
 
 Jan. 37, ' 
 
 Sept. 35, ' 
 
 Promoted from 
 Axeman, Au^. 1, 
 1901. 
 
 Sewer Division. 
 
 Name. 
 
 Title. 
 
 Entered Service. 
 
 Remarks. 
 
 Calvin W. Hendrick . . 
 Clarence D. Pollock.. 
 Clarence W. Marsh. . . 
 
 Ernest W. Clarke 
 
 Henry W. Durham. . . 
 Amos L. Schaefler. . . . 
 
 John D. Griffiths 
 
 Joseph F. Joyce 
 
 James E. Ray 
 
 William J. Dunsing. . . 
 Edward Herrmann . . . 
 
 Martin J. Lyons 
 
 Otto Claussner 
 
 Joseph L. Hunt 
 
 Cornelius Mulcahy. . . 
 Francis A. Dillon 
 
 James J. McGuire, Jr. , 
 
 William Phelan 
 
 David W. Dowling. . . . 
 
 John Glendinning 
 
 William J. Reilly 
 
 William E. Barton 
 
 Isaac L. Joralemon . . . . 
 Frederick P. Gaudineer, 
 
 John McMurray 
 
 Michael Dooley 
 
 Martin V. Dolan 
 
 Elmer S. Van Aken. . . . 
 
 John J. Griffin 
 
 Thomas McDermott . . . 
 Henry W. Doherty. . . . 
 
 Division Engineer . . . 
 Assistant Engineer . . . 
 Assistant Engineer . . . 
 Assistant Engineer. . . 
 Assistant Engineer . . . 
 Assistant Engineer . . . 
 
 Transitman 
 
 Leveler 
 
 Stenographer 
 
 Rodman 
 
 Rodman 
 
 Rodman 
 
 Rodman 
 
 Rodman 
 
 Rodman 
 
 Rodman 
 
 Rodman 
 
 Inspector of Masonry. 
 Inspector of Masonry 
 
 Inspector of Masonry. 
 Inspector of Masonry . 
 Inspector of Masonry. 
 Inspector of Masonry . 
 Inspector of Masonry. 
 Inspector of Masonry. 
 Inspector of Masonry . 
 Inspector of Masonry. 
 Inspector of Masonry . 
 Inspector of Masonry . 
 Inspector of Masonry . 
 Inspector of Masonry . 
 
 Mar. 15, 1900 
 
 May 31, " 
 
 Aug. 1, " 
 
 July 30, ■' 
 
 July 30, '■ 
 
 May 1, " 
 
 May 1, " 
 
 Aug. 6, 
 
 June 1, 
 
 June 14, 
 
 June 30, 
 
 May 4, 
 
 Sept. 4, 
 Sept. 17, 
 Aug. 1, 
 
 Aug. 1, 
 
 April 4, 
 May 11, 
 
 May 34, 
 June 36, 
 Aug. 13, 
 Aug. 13, 
 Aug. 34, 
 Aug. 39, 
 Sept. 11, 
 Sept. 16, 
 Sept. 30, 
 Sept. 30, 
 Oct. " 
 Nov. 
 
 Promoted from 
 Transitman, 
 Sept. 1, 1901. 
 
 Transferred to 
 Dept. Highways 
 Oct. 4, 1900. 
 
 Promoted from 
 Axeman, July 18, 
 1900. 
 
 Promoted from 
 
 Axeman, Sept. 1, 
 
 1901. 
 Promoted from 
 
 Axeman, Sept. 1, 
 
 1901. 
 
 Resigned, 
 
 Aug. 18, 1900. 
 
 31, 
 11, 
 
 •306 
 
Department of Inspection of Material. 
 
 NAME. 
 
 TITLE. 
 
 ENTERED 
 SERVICE. 
 
 REMARKS. 
 
 William A. Aiken 
 
 Robert J. Davis 
 
 James L. Davis 
 
 George L. Lucas 
 
 Lewis G. Wilcox 
 
 David B. Oviatt 
 
 Max Feldman 
 
 Gen. Insp. of Material. . 
 Inspector of Steel 
 
 Inspector of Steel 
 
 Inspector of Steel 
 
 Inspector of Steel 
 
 Inspector of Steel 
 
 Inspector of Steel 
 
 Inspector of Steel 
 
 Inspector of Steel 
 
 Inspector of Steel. . . . . . 
 
 Inspector of Steel 
 
 Inspector of Steel 
 
 Inspector of Steel 
 
 Inspector of Steel 
 
 Inspector of Steel 
 
 Inspector of Steel 
 
 Inspector of Steel 
 
 Inspector of Steel 
 
 Steel Chemist 
 
 June 1,1900 
 Sept. 19, " 
 
 Aug. 39, " 
 Sept. 34, " 
 Aug. 30, " 
 Aug. 30, " 
 Oct. 30, " 
 
 Nov. 36, " 
 Jan. 38,1901 
 Apr. 16, " 
 Apr. 18, " 
 June 31, " 
 
 July 29, " 
 
 Oct. 1, " 
 Oct. 1, " 
 Nov. 7, " 
 Nov. 15, " 
 Nov. 1, " 
 Dec. 5, 1900 
 Oct. 15, " 
 Nov. 5, " 
 
 Dec. 33, " 
 
 May 13, 1901 
 Sept. 16, " 
 Dec. 1, ■■ 
 
 Resigned Mar. 10, 
 
 mi. 
 
 Resigned Apr. 10, 
 
 George Peters 
 
 1901. 
 
 Charles H. Vansant. . . . 
 
 Frank A. Stees 
 
 George R. Miller 
 
 J. E. Newlands 
 
 Israel Aubey 
 
 Resigned Oct. 6, 
 
 1901. 
 Resigned Sep. 14, 
 
 Charles B. Thomas 
 
 Samuel P. Davis 
 
 Joseph A. Power 
 
 Henry T.Bradbury.... 
 Otto S. Marckworth... 
 R. L. Oberholser 
 
 1901. 
 
 R. Frank Walker 
 
 Cement Tester 
 
 
 Thomas M. McLeod. . . 
 
 Cement Tester 
 
 Resigned Apr. 10, 
 
 Samuel T. Adams 
 
 Cement Tester 
 
 1901. 
 Resigned Sep. 1, 
 1901. 
 
 Alberts. Woythaler... 
 Clarence B. Marriott. . . 
 
 Cement Tester 
 
 Cement Tester 
 
 
 Thaddeus A. Judson . . . 
 
 Cement Tester 
 
 
 
 
 All the above positions, except the exempt ones of Division En- 
 gineers, General Inspectors, Private Secretary and Photographer, 
 were filled after competitive examination by the Civil Service Com- 
 mission. As indicating the grade of men thus secured, it is of in- 
 terest to note the number of those who had received a collegiate 
 training and the institutions where educated, as shown on the fol- 
 lowing page. 
 
 207 
 
CO 
 
 U 
 
 < 
 
 O 
 I — I 
 
 ■< 
 O 
 
 Q 
 W 
 
 I 
 
 I— I 
 
 w 
 w 
 
 O 
 iz; 
 
 •JU=0 -"ad 
 
 100 
 100 
 71.4 
 
 85.3 
 
 ^ 
 
 ri 
 Qt 
 
 
 CO -;£ 
 
 to 
 
 
 •gSsnoD-uoN 1 ; ! "" " 1 - 
 
 01 
 
 
 s 
 
 s 
 
 =3=1100 1«"X 1 ^ ^ a S 1 S 
 
 g? = 
 
 s 
 
 
 'loD 'C.nw •"I'd 
 
 
 — - 
 
 — 
 
 
 
 
 
 _^__ 
 
 
 _r'- 
 
 - 
 
 ■/i\o^ uopuoT 
 
 
 '- 
 
 •SIPS ^1 =a 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 rt 
 
 
 
 - 
 
 ~l 
 
 •J3IABX ST3UBJ>f 5g 
 
 
 
 
 
 — ; 
 
 
 
 
 " 
 
 ■m^'s u,wi=s °w 
 
 
 
 
 
 - 
 
 
 - 
 
 
 
 (M 
 
 - 
 
 1 
 
 JSAiuQ aie^[S3/^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 - 
 
 XiisjaAiuf^ uMojg 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 " i 
 
 A M JO -Cj;:^ -103 
 
 
 
 -- 
 
 
 
 
 
 W rt 
 
 -N 
 
 ■OIUOJOJ, 
 
 
 w 
 
 .- 
 
 
 
 
 - 
 
 
 ^_ 
 
 ■I31S;)DJO^\ 
 
 
 
 
 " 
 
 - 
 
 
 
 : - 
 
 
 ■^in^iiBuj s,inBJd 
 
 
 
 
 w 
 
 .- 
 
 ^ 
 
 ■T{Diunj\[ 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 - 
 
 Z"l 
 
 T-l 1 
 
 Aiun ii=«i=na 
 
 
 
 — 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 ■- 
 
 
 z 
 
 "i 
 
 ■BtUlSjT^ JO 'AlUf^ 
 
 
 
 
 r^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 " 
 
 ■AlUf) upSiqoip\r 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 ~^ 
 
 
 
 -. 
 
 AlUfl 31EJS ojqo 
 JO Aiun'-'AVN 
 
 
 '- 
 
 
 
 
 '~' 
 
 
 
 « 
 
 
 
 _^ „ 
 
 rH 
 
 - 
 
 •3 'a '•'i!on 103 
 
 
 
 - 
 
 
 r-. 
 
 ■TOw'^!uniiio=w 
 
 
 
 '— 
 
 " 
 
 ..^ 
 
 
 - 
 
 -- 
 
 •3U1EJ\] [O *AlUfl 
 
 
 rH 
 
 
 
 
 
 - 
 
 •lof) mnoiniJuQ 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 TH 
 
 
 
 ._. 
 
 
 
 - 
 
 •3jn}ijsu| uoisog 
 
 
 
 
 1-1 
 
 7-< 
 
 CO 
 
 .1 
 
 uojaouu^ 
 
 
 
 
 - 
 
 rt 
 
 rn 
 
 ■3SUI SU3A3ig 
 
 
 — 
 
 
 T-( 
 
 ^ 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 ■UTJijequupii 
 
 
 
 r- 
 
 ^ 
 
 10 T- 
 
 
 t- 
 
 •jCIOJ uX()iooja 
 
 
 
 
 .- 
 
 ^ 
 
 W 1- 
 
 -* 
 
 •ptDv lEAEN s -n 
 
 
 
 - 
 
 « 
 
 -— 
 
 
 
 -: 
 
 : 
 
 r^ 
 
 ■1U0UU3jY .Jl^ 'AIU/l* 
 
 
 
 
 (M 
 
 (N 
 
 OJ 
 
 ■Aiun 93T 3? -HSEAV 
 
 
 
 
 (M 
 
 (;3 
 
 
 
 
 - 
 
 w 
 
 ■[03 3H3.CEJU1 
 
 
 
 
 (M 
 
 (N 
 
 
 
 02 
 
 •AlUfl VA *=N 
 
 
 
 
 W 
 
 « 
 
 CO 
 
 cc 
 
 
 10 
 
 ■3|EA 
 
 
 
 rH M 
 
 KJ 
 
 & 
 
 
 « 
 
 w 
 
 /tlisjaAiufi uSiqaq 
 
 
 -- 
 
 — 
 
 ■^ 
 tH 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■rP 
 
 ■uoiu^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -of 
 
 ■M==.l 'SSEW 
 
 
 
 
 ■^ 
 
 ■* 
 
 
 
 
 
 T}* 
 
 ■X(0(J J3B[95SU3^ 
 
 
 
 rt .* 
 
 »r 
 
 - 
 
 
 
 
 
 )0 
 
 •sjninsai j3doo3 
 
 
 
 
 10 
 
 IT 
 
 J 
 
 1 00 
 
 cn 
 
 ^ 
 
 •ipujoo 
 
 
 
 
 Oi 
 
 GS 
 
 
 
 
 cn 
 
 •pil3AJ3H 
 
 
 " 
 
 oa 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■Biquinpo 
 
 " : « S 
 
 s 
 
 !H 
 
 
 w 
 
 s 
 
 ■jraqnin^ 1 " ^ c SIS 
 
 « s 1 s 
 
 CO 
 OS 
 
 
 S 
 
 w 
 > 
 
 (J n 
 
 S .S 
 
 5 
 
 s 
 
 .£ 
 "5 
 
 s 
 
 t 
 
 > 
 
 : 
 
 Q 
 
 u 
 
 q 
 
 I 
 
 •H 
 - g 
 
 5 
 
 Q 
 
 c 
 
 < 
 
 1 
 
 3 
 W 
 
 L 
 2 
 
 <; 
 
 (- 
 c 
 h 
 
 
 c 
 
 E 
 ■a 
 
 
 c 
 E 
 
 -a; 
 
 
 IS 
 
 fc 
 >< 
 
 < 
 
 < 
 
 c 
 c 
 0: 
 
 < 
 
 E- 
 
 
 < 
 t- 
 c 
 
 c 
 < 
 
 CK 
 
 C 
 
 
 208 
 
Sub-Contracts. 
 
 209 
 
 The Contractor immediately after the signing of the contract 
 organized his staff by appointing Mr. S. L. F. Deyo as his Chief 
 Engineer, and Mr. E. P. Bryan as General Manager to lay out a 
 scheme for the operation of the road and the acquisition of the neces- 
 sary equipment. Subsequently he added Mr. L. B. Stillwell as 
 Electrical Director, Mr. J. Van Vleck as Mechanical Engineer, and 
 Mr. George Gibbs as Car Designer, all engineers particularly emi- 
 nent in their several specialties. The Contractor then divided the 
 railway into fifteen sections — the beginning and ending of these 
 several sections being fixed by local conditions necessitating varia- 
 tions in the construction. Contractor's sections 1, 2, 3 and 4 con- 
 stitute Board Division No. 1; Sections 5a, 5b, 6a and 6b, Board 
 Division No. 3 ; Sections 7, 8, 9a, 9b, 11, 13 and 14, Board Division 
 No. 3 ; and Sections 10, 13 and 15, Board Division No. 4. 
 
 The subjoined table gives the various sections, the limits of each, 
 the names of the sub-contractors, the bonds given by each one, and 
 the dates when work was begun. A list of the contracts for steel 
 and other material used in construction is also annexed. The 
 sub-contractors' bonds have been assigned to the City as additional 
 security for the completion of the general contract. 
 
 CONTRACTS FOR CONSTRUCTION. 
 
 Sec- 
 tion 
 No. 
 
 1 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 5-A 
 
 5-B 
 
 Sub-section Limits. 
 
 Post Office Loop to centre 
 Chambers St 
 
 Centre Chambers St. to centre 
 Great Jones St 
 
 Centre Great JOnes St. to 
 centre 33d St., plus 100 ft 
 
 Centre 33d St., plus 100 ft., 
 to centre 41st St 
 
 Centre 41st St., Park Ave. to 
 43d St., to Broadway, to 
 centre 47th St 
 
 Centre 47th St. to centre 
 60th St 
 
 Name of Sub- 
 Contractor. 
 
 Degnon-McLean 
 Contracting Co. 
 
 Degnon-McLean 
 Contracting Co. 
 
 Holbrook, Cabot 
 & Daly Con- 
 tracting Co. 
 
 Ira A. Shaler 
 
 Degnon-McLean 
 Contracting Co. 
 
 Naughton & Co. 
 
 Amount of 
 Bonds, 
 
 1300,000 
 300,000 
 
 500,000 
 150,000 
 
 300,000 
 100,000 
 
 Date of Com- 
 mencing Work. 
 
 March 34, 1900 
 July 10, 1900 
 
 Sept. 13, 1900 
 Sept. 13, 1900 
 
 Feb. 35, 1901 
 Sept. 19, 1900 
 
CONTRACTS FOR CONSTRUCTION— C^i^/fe««^/. 
 
 Sec- 
 tion 
 No. 
 
 6-A 
 6-B 
 
 Sub-section Limits. 
 
 Centre 60th St. to centre] 
 83d St 
 
 Centre 83d St. to centre f 
 104th St 
 
 7 Portal of Tunnel at 103d St. 
 to centre 110th St. (Lenox 
 Ave.) 
 
 9-A 
 
 9-B 
 
 10 
 
 11 
 
 12 
 
 Centre 110th St. to centre 
 135th St., plus 100 ft 
 
 From point north of centre 
 of 135th St. and Lenox 
 Ave. to East Building Line 
 of Gerard Ave. on East 
 149th St 
 
 From East Building Line of 
 Gerard Ave. on 149th St. to 
 point beyond Third Ave. 
 where Steel Viaduct begins . 
 
 East Side Viaduct. From 
 West Side Brook Avenue 
 (Building Line) to Bronx 
 Park and 183d St 
 
 Centre 104th St. to South 
 Side of 125th St., plus 10 
 ft. on Broadway 
 
 Manhattan Valley Viaduct. 
 South Side (Building Line) 
 135th St., plus 10 ft. to 
 North Side (Building Line) 
 133d St 
 
 Name of Sub- 
 Contractor. 
 
 William Bradley 
 
 Farrell & Hopper 
 
 Farrell & Hopper 
 
 McMuUen & 
 McBean 
 
 J. C. Rodgers 
 
 Terry & Tench 
 
 Construction Co. 
 
 (also for Sections 
 
 13 and 15) 
 
 E. P. Roberts 
 (for Viaduct 
 Foundations) 
 
 John Shields 
 
 Terry & Tench 
 
 Construction Co. 
 
 (also for Sections 
 
 10 and 15) 
 
 E. P. Roberts 
 (for Viaduct Foun- 
 dations & Stone 
 Piers) 
 
 Amount of Date of Corn- 
 Bonds, mencing Work. 
 
 $350,000 
 
 130,000 
 
 170,000 
 
 200,000 
 
 100,000 
 
 50,000 
 
 (for all 
 three ton- 
 tracts) 
 
 10,000 
 
 175,000 
 
 50,000 
 
 (for all 
 three con- 
 tracts) 
 
 See Sec. 
 15 
 
 Aug. 32, 1900 
 
 Oct. 3, 1900 
 
 Aug. 30, 1900 
 
 Sept. 10, 1901 
 
 June 18, 1901 
 Not begun 
 
 Aug. 19, 1901 
 
 June 18, 1900 
 
 Not begun 
 
 
 June, 1, 1901 
 
 MO 
 
CONTRACTS FOR CONSTRUCTION— C<7«//««^^. 
 
 Sec- 
 tion 
 
 No. 
 
 13 
 
 14 
 
 15 
 
 Sub-section Limits. 
 
 North Side 133d St. to centre 
 183d St., plus 100 ft 
 
 Centre 183d St., plus 100 ft., 
 to Hillside Ave 
 
 West Side Viaduct. Hillside 
 Ave. to the Terminus near 
 Bailey Ave 
 
 Name of Sub- 
 Contractor, 
 
 L. B. McCabe & 
 Brother 
 
 L. B. McCabe & 
 Brother 
 
 Terry & Tench 
 
 Construction Co. 
 
 (also for Sections 
 
 10 and 13) 
 
 E. P. Roberts 
 (for Viaduct Foun- 
 dations) 
 
 Amount of 
 Bonds. 
 
 400,000 
 
 $50,000 
 (for all 
 three con- 
 tracts) 
 
 10,000 
 
 Dale of Com- 
 mencing Work. 
 
 May 14, 1900 
 
 March 37, 1901 
 Not begun 
 
 Not begun 
 
 CONTRACTS FOR MATERIAL. 
 
 Contract for 
 
 Steel 
 
 Cast Iron 
 
 Cement 
 
 Asphalt, Waterproof- 
 ing and Felt ...;.. 
 
 Name of Sub-Contractor. 
 
 American Bridge Company . . . 
 
 John Fox & Company 
 
 United Building Material Co. 
 
 Sicilian Asphalt Paving Co . . 
 
 Amount of 
 Bonds. 
 
 $450,000 
 
 200,666 
 
 125,000 
 
 As the construction of the railway involves a reconstruction of 
 the sewers encountered along the route, including some important 
 outfalls, and as it was imperative that the service of these sewers 
 should be continuous and uninterrupted by the railway work, the 
 Contractor separated the construction of the most important of the 
 outfall sewers from the construction of the railway, let them by 
 special contract, and began work on them while the contractors 
 for the railway were organizing their plant and staff. 
 
 The following tables show the location of the various sewer con- 
 structions both lateral and longitudinal; the length and character 
 of each separate sewer; the date when each piece of work was 
 begun; the amount of the same completed; the names of the sub- 
 contractors, and other details: 
 
 211 
 
SB 
 c o 
 
 u u bj] 
 = " G 
 
 .H .y ^ ^ 
 'G 'u^ CO 
 
 lb -^ C5 CO 
 
 IJJJ 
 
 o lb o o 
 
 lO CO lO QO 
 
 -^ -M 'i- 
 ■".^ -^ 
 ^■^^ 
 
 ^ CO CQ 
 
 I I ! 
 
 o ib o 
 
 O lO 1-1 
 C-t CO 5D 
 
 CO ■ 
 
 00 = 
 
 I J 
 
 t- CO 
 
 C5 O"! 
 
 O 1-1 
 
 t- CO 
 
 CO •*# 
 
 C35-i-< CO t- 
 
 oo QO ira th 
 
 T-1 CQ 1-1 I> 
 
 'i-f CO lO o 
 lO CO CO CO 
 1-1 00 O OS 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 OS 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 i:Q 
 
 
 u 
 
 Oi 
 
 
 
 rt 
 
 
 fl 
 
 in 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 c^ 
 
 2 
 
 S 
 
 
 
 C- 
 
 E i 
 
 
 :^iV 
 
 a jv; 
 
 
 
 p 
 
 1=1 
 
 
 u 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 § ° 
 
 §6 
 
 Su 
 
 
 ^^ 
 
 ^^ 
 
 r>; -z: 
 
 ^■^ 
 
 
 
 G rt 
 
 
 
 
 r§ 
 
 ™ o 
 
 p^ 
 
 0^ 
 
 c . 
 
 fl ■ 
 
 ca o 
 
 rt O 
 
 -u 
 
 .u 
 
 u M 
 
 a bi 
 
 s-s 
 
 s-S 
 
 o £ 
 
 §^ 
 
 
 
 bflfl 
 
 !m g 
 
 au Qu 
 
 
 J 
 
 c 
 
 213 
 
E 
 Pi 
 
 Una 
 
 
 CD GO 
 
 11 
 
 o ib 
 
 CD <» 
 
 lO CO 
 
 X 
 
 XI 
 
 1 
 
 oa t-00 1 CO 
 
 <©<M T-l I o 
 lO CO i-H ' o 
 
 T-i COCO 
 l-H CO 
 
 coco UD 
 03 iH 
 
 t- cot- 
 OS T-I 1-1 
 
 213 
 

 
 
 ^^ 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 t 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 CJ O 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 O 0) fU 
 
 
 > 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 « 
 
 
 
 
 
 fin 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ > ^ 
 
 
 h 
 
 
 
 ^co 
 
 
 
 
 00 
 
 
 
 00 = * 
 
 
 
 
 
 o^ 
 
 
 
 
 CQ 
 
 
 
 r^ooio 
 
 
 ui 
 
 
 
 1 1 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 1 1 1 
 
 
 M3 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 C) o 
 OS o 
 tH OS 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 1 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 ib o ib 
 
 T-( O L— 
 
 -^co-^ 
 
 O 
 1-1 
 
 ^i 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 fe^ 
 
 
 
 t- ^ 
 
 
 
 00 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 00 
 
 « o 
 
 « 
 
 cb'Oi 
 
 
 
 ir- CO 
 
 
 
 
 « 
 
 
 C3 
 
 ^ SG 
 
 CO 
 
 .si 
 
 
 
 1-i GO 
 
 
 
 
 U5 
 
 
 CO 
 
 0« 'X' 
 
 Oi 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 tH 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 JO 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 <U (U 
 
 -^ 
 
 OJ 
 
 o 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 c 
 
 o, a 
 
 o 
 
 & 
 
 
 
 _^ 
 
 
 OJ 
 
 
 
 'i 
 
 ■ftpH 
 
 
 ■& 
 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 
 (0 
 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 '5, 
 
 'a 'd-^ ~ . 
 
 
 .1 
 
 ^ 
 
 hH HH 
 
 .ds 
 
 1— i 
 
 lO 
 
 
 5* 
 
 
 
 ^ w_i CO , 
 
 
 Cfi 
 
 X 
 
 dO 
 
 
 u 
 
 X 
 
 
 M 
 
 
 '> 
 
 ->'> xJ^U 
 
 
 
 00 
 
 
 5d'5 
 
 
 CO 
 
 
 00 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 = := 1+J C0 = 
 
 
 
 
 ^ CD 
 
 
 CD 
 
 
 
 
 
 ib 
 
 
 
 OiC^lt-f 
 
 CD OCO CO 
 
 
 « 
 
 
 r-( 
 
 T-f tH C2 C3 CO 
 
 
 !3„-S 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 "US 
 
 
 ^ t- 00 t- 'X) 
 
 
 w 
 
 
 QO 
 
 O UD ib t-oo 
 
 io 
 
 
 'i:*! t- -* -i-H O 
 
 ^ 
 
 « 
 
 
 CRi 
 
 CD O 1-1 lO C« 
 
 
 a^s 
 
 
 rH-^ 
 
 (?3 tH 00 1-i CO 
 
 lO 
 
 
 CO 
 
 CQ CO CD CO T-i 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 tH 
 
 
 
 
 T-i 
 
 « 
 
 
 .^ 
 
 
 tH 
 
 O 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 <3 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 O 
 
 
 
 d 
 
 03 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Oi 
 
 OS 
 
 
 s, 
 
 tH 
 
 
 
 
 
 l-H 
 
 
 tH 
 
 ■t— 1 
 
 
 (j7 
 
 C30 
 
 
 T-i" 
 
 
 
 
 m 
 
 
 co" 
 
 o" 
 
 
 « 
 
 (M 
 
 
 GQ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^~' 
 
 
 15 
 
 Q 
 
 
 1 — 1 
 
 
 
 
 u 
 O 
 
 
 Q 
 
 a. 
 
 
 
 c 
 
 
 c 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 =a 
 
 
 6 
 
 
 g 
 
 bi 
 
 bio 
 
 
 
 
 E 
 
 
 U 
 
 'B 
 
 
 -si 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 bcE 
 
 ■« 
 
 c 
 
 >-l 
 
 
 
 E 
 S 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 c 
 '5 
 
 c 
 a 
 
 * 
 
 14 
 
 o 
 
 s 
 
 
 3 
 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ;>. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 jj 
 
 rt 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 73 
 
 S: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 i-< 
 
 •a 
 
 
 
 _^ 
 
 
 4-1 
 
 
 
 
 ■^ 
 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 4. 
 
 5 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 4 
 
 
 •a 
 a 
 
 <u 
 
 s 
 
 B 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 ic 
 
 
 55 
 
 U? 
 
 
 
 u 
 
 
 1) 
 
 
 
 
 1/ 
 
 (L 
 
 
 M 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 fs 
 
 
 & 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 CD 
 
 
 314 
 
J3 
 
 C/} 
 
 
 
 f^'O' 
 
 ^ 
 
 li 
 
 CD 
 05 
 
 rt ■^!j< 
 
 
 P CO 
 
 dj 
 
 215 
 

 
 Ji -M 
 
 
 
 ^ M 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 tJ 
 
 ^ 
 
 ■z 
 
 
 
 
 
 = 9- 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 s 
 
 CD 
 
 J3 
 
 
 
 io^ 
 
 
 CO -a 
 
 
 CO 
 
 *a 
 
 
 i 
 1^ 
 
 5*00 
 
 
 
 co?i( 
 
 X X 
 
 
 CO ■ 
 
 
 CO 
 
 X 
 
 "> 
 
 X3 
 
 
 >i 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 . lO 
 
 
 
 SI 
 
 
 
 4) 
 
 1 1 
 
 
 
 «« 
 
 
 11 
 
 
 CQ -rH 
 1 1 
 
 Trfi 
 
 
 -a 
 
 0& 
 
 
 o 
 
 1 1 
 
 oo 
 
 o 
 
 1 1 
 
 o 
 
 1 1 
 
 ^ 00 
 
 £2 9k 
 
 
 O 
 
 CO c=> 
 
 
 CO 
 
 O OS 
 
 lO 
 
 CO tH 
 
 lO 
 
 lOOO 
 
 Tjl CO 
 
 
 
 tH 
 
 
 
 OCQ 
 
 CO 
 
 nc>i 
 
 lO 
 
 
 t- 
 
 OS i-* 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 w-o 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 « 5 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 50 ibib CO 
 
 Od 
 
 coco 
 
 ^ 
 
 A CO 
 
 So 
 
 t- 
 
 
 ss 
 
 00 
 
 rtu 
 
 StIICQOO 
 
 
 5Dm 
 
 05 
 
 -^c2 
 
 £; 
 
 2 
 
 
 CO CO 
 
 CO 
 
 
 tH t-i 
 
 
 tH 
 
 
 -i^iH 
 
 CD 
 
 lO 
 
 la 
 
 c: 
 
 
 T— 1 
 
 iH 
 
 tH 
 
 
 
 ■i-H 
 
 TH 
 
 tH 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 au 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^.y 
 
 •3 
 
 OJ 
 
 
 J4 
 
 
 OJ.g 
 
 
 .i; 
 
 
 CU 
 
 
 _s 
 
 CD 
 
 .iJco 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 
 ""^ CO 
 
 
 CO 
 CO 
 
 
 ■a-g 
 
 
 t/3 
 
 " X 
 
 X 
 
 (J 
 
 
 
 
 u,« 
 
 
 X 
 
 
 t-j.^ 
 
 
 
 So^QO 
 
 - 
 
 
 0-* 
 
 
 = ^ 
 
 
 ?* 
 
 
 t O 
 
 
 
 
 
 f» 
 
 
 
 
 o^ 
 
 
 
 
 00 ~ 
 
 
 
 Sowoa-* 
 
 
 lOTtI 
 
 
 CO -CQ 
 
 
 it 
 
 
 -*'* 
 
 
 a •■£ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 SSgi 
 
 CO io »o CO 
 
 Oi 
 
 QOCO 
 
 
 OS 5= 
 
 la 
 
 o 
 
 
 ca ^ 
 
 00 
 
 tH'^ W QO 
 
 <:d 
 
 CO lO 
 
 « 
 
 ^(M 
 
 tr- 
 
 (S 
 
 
 COCO 
 
 CO 
 
 a^j 
 
 WtH 
 
 
 iH 
 
 -^ 
 
 ^1-1 
 
 to 
 
 la 
 
 io 
 
 w 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 T-t 
 
 r^ ■ 
 
 
 
 1—1 
 
 T-H 
 
 '"' 
 
 
 
 ^^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 T-H 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 13 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 B 
 
 05 
 
 
 
 
 § 
 
 
 OS 
 
 
 OS 
 
 
 OS 
 
 
 9 
 
 tH 
 
 
 
 
 -iH 
 
 
 tH 
 
 
 tH 
 
 
 tH 
 
 
 o" 
 
 
 
 
 - 
 
 
 OS- 
 
 
 CO 
 
 
 co" 
 
 
 
 1-H 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 es 
 
 
 C>5 
 
 
 T"* 
 
 
 a 
 
 "a 
 1 — . 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 1— > 
 
 
 "3 
 1 — i 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 V 
 
 
 
 
 ■JS 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 o 
 
 & . 
 
 1-1 
 
 
 
 
 bo £ 
 
 
 
 
 S 
 
 -^ C3 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 §14 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 tn 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 s 
 
 
 m 
 
 rt 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 1— > 
 
 
 c 
 
 
 
 
 fe 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 4- 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 t 
 
 
 
 
 
 w 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 g 
 
 > 
 
 < 
 
 
 co 
 J3 
 
 
 (J- 
 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 lO 
 
 
 -$ 
 
 
 
 
 
 T-H 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 OQ 
 
 
 
 
 
 tH 
 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 
 1— 1 
 
 
 
 
 1—1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ?? 
 
 
 
 
 g 
 
 
 tn 
 
 
 t 
 
 
 Ul 
 
 
 
 <u 
 
 
 
 
 
 u 
 
 
 a 
 
 
 4) 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 1— 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 216 
 
1 
 
 ^3 
 S 
 
 « o a» lo 
 
 CO 1-1 
 
 -r-f 
 
 O 
 
 c5 
 
 w 
 
 <i 
 
 W 
 f-i 
 
 <J 
 
 O 
 in 
 
 < 
 
 W 
 Q 
 
 3" C 
 
 • i=r.!:r' u 
 • • ^ 
 
 . .o 
 
 UCJ'-' 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 
 a^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 •"• 
 
 XI 
 
 rl^ 
 
 
 r •) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 u 
 
 
 X 
 
 71 
 
 
 T) 
 
 
 TjI'itlWC* 
 
 Pi 
 
 
 o ' 
 
 H 
 
 O 
 
 ai7 
 
s 
 
 J; "a 
 
 V B 
 
 C O 
 
 "M 00 
 CO C^i 
 
 
 CO 
 
 > > 
 
 C^ T-H tH 
 
 I I I 
 
 O 03 O 
 O 1-1 CO 
 
 ^CCCOCOC305C3C4iHt-^ 
 
 M U IJJJJJ 
 
 ooibooc-ibiboio 
 
 COC00500COCOQOCQ»0(M 
 «D CO CO ?D tH lO 1-H T-H 
 
 COOSOOOCQ-^t-Oi-Hi-IO 
 T-H 1-1 r-1 ^ CO 
 
 CO OOCO 1-H O « CO t- '^ 
 
 OS C> lO -- 1-1 CO CO OS 
 
 t- tH CM T-H lO CO 
 
 03 (M 
 
 
 XI ;. p ^ ^ . "7 . a a a a 
 
 ^co 
 
 ■J CO 
 
 CO 
 
 
 « a .^ :.^ ^ "-^ ^' ^ '-^ '^ '^ '^ '^ 
 
 ^ "* ^ O^ ODCO O^ 00 ilD OO 
 .^CO<Mi— IT— I 03i-<i— t 
 
 ^07 
 
 CT ' 
 
 M •r' <D lu V 
 
 o y I-, •" -S -p; •;=; cl sn, 
 
 ii^^ CO - ^GQCOCOOOIO 
 
 T^ oa 05 "^ ■^ ■^ '"' ■^ 
 
 O iO "^ OS ■5:t^ CO L- OS t- O Oi OJ i— 
 
 coco (.- ooir)iocoo5i;--<^OQO 
 (.■^■^ CO i,— coiCi— I oioo 
 
 -rH CO 
 
 0OtMCDCSlJ3CQO51OT-i 
 CO-q<ioO-^T-<t--T-iCD 
 1-1 ^ (M 00 Cvi CO 1-1 
 
 IS 
 
 rt O 
 
 el n! 
 
 u 
 
 o c 
 J3 o 
 
 ^f1 
 
 
 n 
 
 fl) 
 
 
 <11 
 
 
 
 
 
 o :/^ 
 
 C-. 
 
 tf) 
 
 J , 
 
 C 
 
 
 
 (1) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 rrj 
 
 nl 
 
 
 OJ 
 
 an 
 
 
 
 fxJ 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 QJ c o 
 
 t! (U uj 
 &^> t3 
 
 218 
 

 
 
 
 M a 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 V (U 
 
 
 
 ,0 
 
 <U <D 
 
 
 
 
 <u <u 
 
 
 ■d 
 
 J4 Q.a 
 
 
 
 ■^' " 
 
 CLQ, 
 
 
 
 
 aa 
 
 
 % 
 
 •°-a-B, 
 
 
 
 ^ CO s: 
 
 'aa 
 
 
 
 
 aa 
 
 
 o 
 B 
 
 ^ *J 4.: 
 
 
 
 t^« 
 
 j_j ^ 
 
 
 
 
 J-J J-i 
 
 
 
 .«•>•> 
 
 
 
 >^ M LJ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 & 
 
 
 
 " "^ X 
 
 > > 
 
 
 
 
 > >■ 
 
 
 
 00 = = 
 
 
 
 00^£, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 % 
 
 r^.iocM 
 
 
 
 
 icfw 
 
 
 
 
 00 lb i 
 
 
 m 
 
 
 
 IIT 
 
 T— 1 TH 
 1 1 
 
 
 
 
 ^1 ■ 
 
 
 i/i 
 
 1 1 1 
 
 
 
 1 1 1 
 
 ^1 _^l 
 
 
 
 
 Mi 
 
 
 ■a 
 
 oSdSct 
 
 
 5o 
 
 05 us U5 
 
 
 
 « 
 
 00 , 
 
 
 
 03t- M 
 
 
 00 
 
 m m CQ CO CO 
 
 
 
 01 
 
 COQO j 
 
 -^ 
 
 5 
 
 «5CS-* 
 
 
 CO 
 
 1-1 r-l « m 10 
 
 
 
 50 
 
 
 TH 
 
 
 
 
 tH 
 
 
 tH 
 
 
 
 « 
 
 
 
 St 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 £s 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 
 . jj 
 
 CO 
 
 CO 
 
 ca c- 10 1-, JO 
 
 ^ 
 
 0000 
 
 
 
 o3. 
 
 CO ^ 
 
 10 
 
 « 
 
 lO CO lO CO CO c- 
 
 '^ 
 
 
 
 S B 
 
 T-t 
 
 <s 
 
 ■* 
 
 tHCOC- 
 
 -TH 
 
 ^^ 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 5 ° 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 « 
 
 
 
 30 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 -1^ 
 
 
 
 
 -„ ____ 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ •:-; oj <u (U 
 
 
 
 (L> 0) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o^ q,Q,a 
 
 4J u 
 
 
 
 ftPn 
 
 <u 
 
 (U 
 
 
 ri (U 1) CJ 
 r^ 0.0, ft 
 
 
 
 ;gj^uu-a 
 
 D.Q. 
 
 
 'Ph'Oh 
 
 a cu 
 
 
 
 V 
 
 B.'B. 
 
 
 
 Bh'E. 
 
 
 w 'aa'p. 
 
 
 N 
 
 ^ CO '-!'-'■'-'' 
 
 ■M J-J 
 
 
 ^coco 
 
 1— I h- i 
 
 
 _^ 
 
 
 CO ^ _^- ^' 
 
 
 
 _x _« d u 
 
 ■> ■? 
 
 
 >^ x X 
 
 dcJ 
 
 > 
 
 '? 
 
 
 _^x ■> ■>: ■> 
 
 
 
 00!#e « •, 
 
 a a 
 
 
 OO-^. Tf 
 
 - H 
 
 
 a 
 
 
 TjJ a 5 5 
 
 
 
 - . » ^ c» >o 
 
 
 
 00 CD 00 10 
 
 
 , 00 IOCS 
 
 
 
 CQ « CO rH W i-( ^ 
 
 
 « CCl C« tH T-f 
 
 T— 1 
 
 rH 
 
 
 « -r-l W W 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Jo ^•■^' 
 
 CD^ CD t- 00 
 
 GO 
 
 03 £00 t- CO 
 
 it- 
 
 lb ib ib cQ 
 
 t- 
 
 isa 
 
 CD OS 00 00 tH <M Cvi 
 
 00 
 
 10 CO 05 CO CO (>< 
 
 OS 
 
 0^ i-HCB 
 
 10 
 
 CD L- 'ijt t:! CO CO <S 
 
 M 
 
 i-lCOOO^ 
 
 ■^ 
 
 tH 
 
 CO 
 
 tH 1-H W 
 
 lO 
 
 ■^^s 
 
 
 05 
 
 JO 
 
 r-i 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 10 
 
 tH 
 
 TH 
 
 
 tH 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 c 
 
 - 
 05 
 
 
 
 § 
 
 
 
 
 
 c 
 
 3 
 
 ius 
 
 
 a 
 
 tH 
 
 
 
 tH 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 (U 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 lU 
 
 J3 
 
 
 V 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 4-1 
 
 cd 
 
 to 
 
 
 
 CJ 
 
 
 
 
 
 .0 
 
 
 p •/, 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 <u 
 
 
 
 
 
 :5? 
 
 
 f- <! 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 go 
 
 
 
 B 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 S^ ^ 
 
 
 
 
 ■si 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 „ ij 
 
 S-S 
 
 
 
 c £^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 M 
 
 
 |g 
 
 e ^ 
 
 
 
 S 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 ^^ 
 
 S 
 
 
 
 ■5 P- 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 c -t; 
 
 
 
 bn 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ? 
 
 b/) C3 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 W 
 
 OJ D 
 
 
 
 «1 
 
 
 
 
 
 '^ 
 
 
 
 QO 
 
 
 
 ^i 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^^ 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 rt -t-* 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 4-> 
 
 
 
 1^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■* 
 
 
 
 
 
 '°, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 t-l -u 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 pq 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 S 
 
 
 
 
 M 
 
 
 
 
 
 ,g 
 
 
 1 
 
 01 ^ . 
 
 
 
 1. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 >> . 
 
 
 
 
 
 >, ■ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 "3 S £ 
 
 
 
 "S " 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■§ " 
 
 
 
 ,, g&S 
 
 
 
 Ctl Xj 
 
 
 
 
 
 nt 4-> 
 
 
 
 
 
 Oc/3 
 
 pq 
 
 
 
 
 
 Oc/5 
 W 
 
 
 219 - 
 

 J" 
 
 cue 
 
 -* to 
 
 ^ CO 
 
 (MM 
 
 I I 
 
 M ^ to 
 
 !<i « M 
 OSOOtH 
 
 I -I I 
 
 'S. 
 
 
 (MtSi-i 
 
 3" brie 
 brick 
 6" brie 
 
 ^^co 
 
 X K K 
 
 CSOOrJl 
 
 CM ca (M 
 
 OS t- ib 
 
 C-50 10 
 
 
 
 > > > 
 00 »b 05 
 
 o *o o 
 
 0<N IS 
 
 T-l CO 
 
 a 
 
 
 o 
 
 "Sg 
 
 2 
 
 ui 
 
 <u 
 
 gg 
 
 j3 
 
 '>:9 
 
 en 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 1 — . 
 
 B 
 
 o. 
 
 en 
 
 
 
 
 :-< 
 
 o 
 W d 
 
 
 Si 
 
 ■a 
 
 U 
 
 
 o 
 
 T5<*i 
 
 « 
 
 P4 
 
 o- 
 
 tM 
 
 
 o 
 
 & «j 
 
 <iie: 
 
 
 O i3 
 1-1 
 
 •a 
 o 
 
 c« 
 
 O 
 
 W 
 
 ^30 
 
Sewer Diversions. 221 
 
 it will thus be seen that, of the lateral sewers, out of a total of 
 26,796.1 feet, 20,114.6 feet were completed at the close of the year 
 ISlOl; and of the longitudinal sewers, out of a total of 38,526 feet, 
 10,495 feet were completed. The current year will see practically 
 the whole of the above work finished. Fifteen steam outfits were 
 installed on the work. 
 
 Of these sewers three, the Canal Street diversion, the 45th Street 
 and 110th Street sewers, are quite large, being 6 feet 6 inches in 
 diameter. The construction of all these sewers, but especially the 
 large ones, has involved the ordinary difiiculties of reconstructing 
 existing sewers in a large city and a maintenance of the flow at the 
 same time. This has been successfully accomplished in all cases. 
 
 The Canal Street diversion, on account of its size and its depth 
 at Chatham Square, where it pierces the ridge, involved some 
 special problems. At Chatham Square it crossed under not only 
 a junction of busy streets, but also the electric tracks of the Third 
 Avenue Street Railroad Company, and the elevated structure of 
 the Second and Third Avenue divisions of the Manhattan Elevated 
 li&ilroad Company. The soil at this point Avas a fiiie, sand carry- 
 ing water at the lower levels. It was decided by the sub-contractor 
 that it woiild be advisable to tunnel this portion of the route for a 
 distance of 321 feet. Plans for driving this tunnel were carefully 
 worked out under the direction of the Engineer of the Sewer Di- 
 vision, Mr. Hendriek, aided by the engineers of the sub-contractor, 
 Mr. Pilkington. On April 2, 1901, the flow of sewage was diverted 
 into this sewer, thus completing its construction without disturbing 
 the surface of the street at Chatham Square, and without causing 
 any settlement. A plan showing the method of procedure is hereto ■ 
 appended. 
 
 Another field of difficult construction completed by the Sewer 
 Division was the Junction at Fifth Avenue and 110th Street, of 
 the new 6 ft. 6 in. circular sewer on 110th Street, with the ex- 
 isting sewer on -Fifth Avenue, whose width was 12 feet, and which 
 at the point of junction was on a curve. An arch (20 feet 3 
 inches span), with a warped surface, was designed to cover the two 
 sewers and the one from Fifth Avenue, on the south, and was suc- 
 cessfully constructed. The situation was considerably complicated 
 
222 Contractor' s Plant. 
 
 by the presence of several large gas and water pipes and by the 
 large amount of sewage to be handled. 
 
 lu all cases it has been possible to arrange for the permanent 
 flow of sewage without pumping, and in all cases but one with- 
 out resorting to siphons. This exception is in The Bronx where 
 the large outfall sewer along Kailroad Avenue had to be lowered 
 beneath tide level compelling the construction of a siphon. As 
 this sewer drains a large territory the consequent great flow through 
 it will probably render it self -cleansing, but as it has been con- 
 structed in two branches, one at a time can be readily shut ofE for 
 cleaning. 
 
 In the reconstruction so far completed no accidents have oc- 
 curred, no back-flooding has taken place, and the flow of all house 
 connections, catch basins and other sewers has at all times been 
 uninterrupted. 
 
 The actual work of beginning the railroad was dependent, first, 
 upon the letting of the sub-contracts ; secondly, on a study by each 
 sub-contractor of the details of his respective problem ; thirdly, on 
 the organization of his own force and the procuring of the nec- 
 essary plant; and, fourthly, on the construction and the delivery 
 on the ground of the materials of construction, such as steel, etc. 
 These several steps in a work of such magnitude as this necessarily 
 occupied considerable time. 
 
 In order to avoid the necessity of a multiplicity of power plants 
 at each separate point of excavation, or the losses of transmitting 
 steam to a considerable distance, the sub-contractors, in all cases 
 but one, decided on the erection of central-station compressed-air 
 installations. These plants whose construction was begun imme- 
 diately after the letting of the sub-contracts supplied power for 
 the hoisting engines, drills, pumps, concrete mixers, riveters and 
 other machines. 
 
 Following is a description of these plants installed on the various 
 sub-sections : 
 
 OoMPEBSsoE Plant, Sections 1 and 3. 
 
 Building. — One building, 52'x65'. 
 
 BoiLEES.— Two 100 H.P. boilers of Edward Burnhorn make. 
 Two 130 H.P. boilers of Penn. Iron Co. make 
 
Contractor s Plant. 223 
 
 AiB CoMPRESSOits. — Two Ingersoll compressors, 350^ H.P. each, 
 cylinders, 24"x30". 
 
 " Aiu Pipe Laid.— 95' of 8". 
 
 760' of 6". 
 
 2,100' of 5". 
 
 3,900' of 4". 
 
 410' of 3". 
 
 565' of 1.5". 
 
 150' of 1". 
 
 CoMPKEsaoR Plant, Section 3. 
 
 Building.— One building, 36'6"x8r6"x30'3". 
 BoiLEBS. — Five 100 H.P. boilers (tubular). 
 Am CoMPUESSOKS. — Three Ingersoll compressors, each 24"x30". 
 AiK Pipe Laid.— 4,000' of 5" 
 4,000' of 4". 
 500' of 3". 
 
 450 couplings (Estimated). 
 25 air cocks (Estimated). 
 
 CoMPKESsou Plant, Sections 4 and 5-4. 
 
 Buildings. — Engine and compressor room, 63'x30'4"; boiler 
 room connected, 42' 4"x28'3". 
 
 BoiLEES. — Two 200 H.P. boilers (Water tube). 
 Air Compressors. — One Eand-Corliss compressor, class B-B-3, 
 rated at 700 H.P. 22"x40"x48" 
 Air Pipe Laid.— 3,277' of, 10". 
 2,900' of. 8". 
 2,000' of 6". 
 3,070' of 3". 
 
 Compressor Plant, Section 5. 
 
 Building. — One building, 40'x76'. 
 Boilers.: — Two 125 H. P. boilers (tubular). 
 Two 100 " 
 
334 Contractor'' s Plant. 
 
 AiE Compressors. — Two straight line piston inlet, Class A, In- 
 gersoU Single compressors; each rated at 192 H.P., furnishing 960 
 eu. ft. of free air per minute, 22"x22i"x24". Also one Ingersoll 
 compressor, rated at 245 H.P., furnishing 1,225 cu. ft. of free air 
 per minute, 24"xS4-i"x30". 
 
 Air Pipe Laid.— 1,500' of 5". 
 2,500' of 4". 
 
 CoMPRissoK Plant, Sections 6-A and 6-5. 
 
 Building. — Wooden building, 88'x45', located west of 76th 
 Street on the dock lands between New York Central tracks and 
 Hudson Eiver. 
 Boilers. — Five boilers of locomotive type. . 
 AiK Compressors. — Three Eand Clas,s "C" straight line com- 
 pressors, steam and air cylinders 24 inches diameter by 30 inches 
 stroke, running at 90 revolutions per minute, having a combined 
 capacity of 4,225 cu. ft. of free air per minute, which compressed to 
 90 lbs. requires 750 H.P. 
 AiK Pipe Laid.— 3,895' of 8". 
 2,088' of 6". 
 528' of 5". 
 327' of 3". 
 450' of 2.5". 
 
 Compressor Plant, Sections 7 and 8. 
 
 Building. — Corrugated iron building on 111th Street and St. 
 Nicholas Avenue; size 106x30x18 ft. Additional building for 
 storage of coal, tools, etc., size 20x71 ft. 
 
 Boilers.— Pour 125 H.P. boilers, each made by the Gem City 
 Boiler Co., Dayton, Ohio. 
 
 Air Compressors. — Two Ingersoll compressors, each 24"x30". 
 Air Pipe Laid.— 387' of 8". 
 3,547' of 6". 
 
 492' of 4". 
 
 370' of 3". 
 
Contractor' s Plant. 235 
 
 CoMPEBSsoE Plant, Section 9-5. 
 
 Building. — Frame building corner Gerard Avenne and East 
 149th Street; size 26x50x16 ft. 
 Boilers. — Two boilers, 100 and 125 H.P. respectively. 
 Air Compeessors. — One IngersoU compressor, 18"x24". 
 AiE Pipe Laid.— 180' of 4". 
 100' of 3". 
 
 CoMPEESsoE Plant, Section 11. 
 
 Building. — Frame building, 22'x50'xl3'. 
 Boilees. — One 150 H.P. locomotive boiler. 
 AiE CoMPREssoES. — One Eand compressor, class "C," 24"x30" 
 AiE Pipe Laid.— 450' of 2". 
 80' of 2.5". 
 1,200' of 3". 
 615' of 4". 
 107' of 5". 
 60' of 6". 
 104' of 7". 
 
 CoMPREssoE Plant, Sections 13 and 14. 
 
 Building. — Corrugated iron building, situated between 162d 
 and 163d Streets, North Eiver ; size 70x40x18 ft. 
 
 Boilers. — Two 125 H.P. boilers, each made by the Gem City 
 Boiler Co., Dayton, 0. 
 
 Two 125 H.P. boilers, each made by the Erie Boiler Co. 
 One 170 H.P. N. Y. Central E. E. loco, boiler. 
 AiE Compeessors. — Three compressors, Eand Drill Co., Steam 
 Cylinders, 24" diam. 30" stroke, air cylinders' 24" diam. 30" stroke, 
 air capacity 1,335 cu. ft. at 85 revolutions per minute. 
 Air Pipe Laid.— 2,512' of 8". 
 3,281' of 6". 
 2,714' of 5". 
 600' of 4". 
 2,054' of 3.5". 
 5,705' of 2.5". 
 
226 Work on Section No. I. 
 
 In order that the work should be completed within the contract 
 time, arrangements were made to carry it on at as many points 
 as possible, with due provision for the maintaining of an uninter- 
 rupted service of the surface railways, and the reducing of inter- 
 ference with the regular street traffic to the smallest limit. The 
 details of such arrangements, heing dependent upon local conditions, 
 varied with each sub-contract, and are described below as each sec- 
 tion is separately considered. 
 
 Section" No. 1. — City Hall Loop, Park Row and Centre Street to 
 centre of Chambers Street. Degnon-McLean Contracting Co., Sub- 
 Contractors. 
 
 No -work was done on this sub-contract during the year 1900. 
 At the suggestion of the General Manager of the Construction Com- 
 pany studies were made looking to a change in the construction 
 of tlie loop at City Hall. It was finally decided to shorten and 
 simplify the construction at this point by having the loop turn 
 north instead of south of the Post Office, and so arranged that local 
 trains could all be turned around the single track loop thus laid 
 out, passing under the express lines under Park Eow without cross- 
 ing at grade, or they could rum along Park Eow to connect with 
 an extension south under Broadway should one be laid out. The 
 express tracks under Park Eow were planned to permit express 
 trains to continue along a possible Broadway extension or be 
 switched back through a "tail track." A station on the local loop 
 line was located in the City Hall Park so as to be conveniently 
 reached from all points and relieve the pressure that is sure to 
 be felt at the Brooklyn Bridge station. Actual construction was 
 begun March 24, 1901, and at the close of the year excavation for 
 the loop beneath the Park had been completed, and the concrete 
 walls and arched roof, with the exception of the station portion, 
 had been put in place and partly back filled. On Park Eow a 
 trench was dug on either side of the four surface tracks (electric 
 conduit) and carried down to grade. Cross drifts were then tun- 
 neled beneath the tracks connecting the trenches, and in these drifts 
 timber supports erected beneath the surface tracks. Then the 
 intervening pillars of unexcavated sand were removed and their 
 place similarly taken. by timber props. At the close of the year the 
 
Work on Section No. 2. 337 
 
 bottom concrete had been put in place and steel delivered ready for 
 erection. The street traffic has been concentrated in the space talien 
 by the four surface tracks. This traffic is always heavy, especially 
 during the early forenoon and late afternoon hours, when by actual 
 count 300'tram cars and 400 other vehicles of various descriptions 
 are carried per hour. 
 
 Section No. 3. — Centre of Chambers Street along Elm Street to 
 centre of Great Jones Street. Degnon-McLean Contracting Co., 
 Sub-Contractors. 
 
 With the exception of the block on Centre Street from Chambers 
 to Eeade Streets this section covered Elm Street, which, previous to 
 the beginning of the Eapid Transit work, had been widened and cut 
 through from Centre and Duane Streets to Lafayette Place so as to 
 make a continuous thoroughfare. The new street had never been 
 paved, and had never been opened for traffic ; consequently the sub- 
 contractor availed himself of the permission to take the whole width 
 of the street so as to excavate for the entire structure. The most 
 difficult portion of this section between Leonard and Howard 
 Streets, where the excavation would necessarily be below tide level, 
 had not been begun at the close of the year 1901. Work on the 
 balance of the section was well advanced ; one 30-inch gas main and 
 one 36-inch water main were met with, which had to be moved to a 
 new location at the side of the subway, the water main going to the 
 East and the gas main to the West. 
 
 Section No. 3. — Lafayette Place from Great Jones Street to 
 Astor Place, and Fourth Avenue from Astor Place to 100 feet 
 north of the centre line of 33d Street. Holbrook, Cabot & Daly, 
 Sub-Contractors. 
 
 This section, owing to the existence of rock and the presence 
 of a double-track electric railway, and of heavy vehicular traffic 
 on Fourth Avenue, has been one of considerable difficulty to ex- 
 cavate. Eock was first encountered at 10th Street, rising slowly 
 to 15th Street, where it came directly beneath the yokes of the 
 electric railway, and so continued to 18th Street. From 18th 
 Street north to 33d Street it undulated considerably, but was 
 
^38 Work on Section No. 3. 
 
 rarely absent entirely. In the early part of the operations the 
 sub-oontractors undertook to construct half of the railway at a 
 time, diverting the street traffic to the other half of the street 
 which was left entirely undisturbed. As the work progressed it 
 was found that the inconyenience resulting from the excavation 
 on one side of the street was felt with almost equal force upon 
 the other, and that the building of the railway half at a time pro- 
 duced almost as much interference with street traffic as would 
 the building of two railways. The sub-contractors were then per- 
 mitted to excavate for the full width of the four tracks, carrying 
 the surface tracks over the excavation, concentrating the vehicular 
 traffic on this same space, and cutting off for the time being the 
 direct access to the abutting houses for each block. Arrange- 
 ments were made to bridge over the excavation at important 
 buildings or to truck merchandise by hand north or south to the 
 nearest cross street. In order to support the surface railway they 
 placed, on the outside of the track and immediately at the side of 
 the excavation, a pair of 34-inch rolled beams 40 feet long, and a 
 similar pair in a trench excavated between the surface railway 
 tracks, this latter trench afterwards being roofed over with planks. 
 The ends of the beajns were supported on wooden trestles. As 
 the excavation progressed, timber needles or cross beams were in- 
 serted transversely beneath the surface tracks and held by rods 
 from the longitudinal steel beams. By the aid of this arrange- 
 ment it was possible to remove all the soil from beneath the sur- 
 face railway and thus leave the whole space from the curb to a 
 point beyond the centre line of the street free for the construction 
 of the subway. The width thus secured was sufficient to put in 
 place the centre row of columns. Water mains, gas pipes and 
 electric subways encountered in the excavation were supported by 
 chains from cross timbers. To remove the material of excavation 
 an overhead cableway on towers was erected longitudinally with 
 the excavation at each opening, or, where rock was found in quan- 
 tities, a derrick was set up. Buckets on the cableway carried the 
 spoil forward to the end of the excavation and there dumped it into 
 carts. The means necessary for the elevation and dumping of the 
 material thus took up no more space than the vridth of the excava- 
 tion itself. 
 
Work on Section No. j. 239 
 
 At Union Square where, as stated above, the surface road was 
 laid directly upon rock, in order to avoid the possibility of crip- 
 pling the surface road when blasting, it was decided to move the 
 surface tracks to a new location nearer the easterly curb between 
 14th Street and 17th Street. After these tracks were moved the 
 sub-contractors blasted out rock sufficient for the south-bound local 
 and express tracks, and for the intermediate side track which is to 
 "oe constructed at this point. At the close of the year this trench 
 had- been excavated and most of the steel structure had been 
 erected, and it is hoped to have the surface tracks restored to their 
 previous condition early in the coming Spring, when the excava- 
 tion will be extended to the eastward sufficient to construct the 
 north-bound express and local tracks. The local difficulties on 
 this section in connection with the mains and sewers were eon- 
 fciderable and variable. The problems that have so far arisen have 
 been solved satisfactorily, which indicates that the remaining prob- 
 lems can be solved when they are reached. The ducts of the street 
 railway company, which had to be maintained in service in connec- 
 tion with the tracks themselves, contain not only the ordinary tow- 
 tension feeders, but also high-tension cables, having a pressure of 
 6,500 volts each. Although in many cases the rock had to be 
 blasted in direct contact with these ducts, it is gratifying to state 
 that in no case have the cables been broken or the service of the 
 road interrupted. 
 
 On other parts of Section 3 the surface railway tracks were sup- 
 ported in their existing location. At the outset, in conformity 
 with the requirements of the specifications, the sub-contractors ex- 
 cavated from one curb to a point just beyond the centre line of the 
 street, or sufficient to erect the structure for two tracks, the street 
 traffic being meanwhile diverted to the space occupied by the surface 
 railway, and to the undisturbed surface of the 'street on the opposite 
 side where excavation was not in progress. It was afterwards sug- 
 gested to 'permit the excavation to be made on both sides of the 
 street simultaneously so that the whole four-track structure could be 
 erected at one setting ; the argument being that it would take but a 
 little longer to complete the four tracks than it would to build two 
 or one-half of the subway, and that the space occupied by the surface 
 tracks would suffice temporarily for the vehicular traffic as well as 
 for the cars. That is to say, that although the burden of interfer- 
 
230 Work on Section No. 4. 
 
 ence on each block would be greater during the progress of exca- 
 vation, nevertheless the time occupied by making one large excava- 
 tion -would be much less than the combined time occupied by making 
 the two smaller ones, and it is of greater importance to restrict the 
 duration of the interference rather than the amount. Experiments 
 were tried on one block which seemed to bear out this statement, and 
 permission was thereupon given the sub-contractor to proceed with 
 the excavation for the full width of the structure. 
 
 In order to support the surface railway the sub-contractors placed 
 on the outside of the surface track and immediately at the side of the 
 excavation, a pair of 34-inch rolled beams 40 feet long, and a similar 
 pair in a trench excavated between the surface railway tracks, this 
 latter trench afterwards being roofed over with planks. The ends 
 of the beams were supported on wooden trestles. As the excavation 
 progressed, timber needles or cross beams were inserted trans- 
 versely beneath the surface tracks and held by rods from the longi- 
 tudinal steel beams. By the aid of this arrangement it was possible 
 to remove all the soil from beneath the surface railway and thus 
 leave the whole space from curb to curb free for the construction of 
 the subway. Water mains, gas pipes and electric subways en- 
 countered in the excavation were supported by chains from cross 
 timbers. To remove the material of excavation an overhead cable- 
 way on towers was erected longitudinally with the excavation at 
 each opening, or, where rock was found in quantities, a derrick was 
 set up. Buckets on the cableway carried the spoil forward to the 
 end of the excavation and there dumped it into carts. The means 
 necessary for the disposal of the material thus took up no more 
 space than the width of the excavation itself. 
 
 Section JiTo. 4. — Extending under Park Avenue from a point 100 
 feet north of the centre line of 33d Street to the centre line of 41st 
 Street. Ira A. Shaler, Sub-Contractor. 
 
 This section, except fox a small distance at the south end, was 
 wholly in tunnel under Murray Hill. Between 34th Street and 
 41st Street there existed the old surface tunnel of the Harlem 
 Railway through which the cars of the Metropolitan Street Eail- 
 way Company now pass. It was impossible to keep the four tracks 
 of the Eapid Transit Subway in one tunnel, for if this had been 
 

 
 
Work on Section No. 4. 331 
 
 tried the rise of. the arched roof would have destroyed the surface 
 ttinnel. It was, therefore, decided to divide the four tracks into 
 two two-track tunnels, and to begin the separation of these tunnels 
 at, the south end of_ Section 4, so that by the time 34th Street was 
 reached there would be a core of rock between the two tunnels and 
 immediately beneath the surface tunnel above. This intervening 
 core varied from a minimum of 6 ft. to a maximum of 40 ft., and 
 the shell of rock between the extrados of the subway and the 
 foundations of the Metropolitan tunnel above from 3 ft. 9 in. to 
 14 ft. The two Rapid Transit tunnels are therefore below, but at 
 the side of the Metropolitan Street Eailway tunnel. In order that 
 these tunnels should be kept as far away from the upper tunnel as 
 possible, the section of the roof was designed as a three-centered 
 arch. Work was b^gun on this section by sinking two shafts on 
 the south side of 34th Street; the easterly shaft being begun on 
 September 17, 1900, and the westerly shaft on October 15, 1900, 
 each shaft being 30 ft. long by 20 ft. wide. The east shaft reached 
 subgrade on December 32, 1900, and the west shaft on February 16, 
 1901, the depth in each case being 24 ft. The east tunnel was 
 begun on December 12 with a bottom heading, and the west tunnel 
 on December 11 with a top heading. On December 22, 1900, a 
 shaft was begun just south of 41st Street and Park Avenue on the 
 west side, and on the east side on March 22, 1901, and the re- 
 spective headings were begun south from these shafts on February 
 12 and April 16', 1901. The latter shafts were, respectively, 38 and 
 37.5 feet deep. It will be seen that the sub-contractor did not em- 
 ploy the same method of driving in the parallel headings. After an 
 experience of a few months it was found that in good ground it was 
 very much more economical and much more rapid to proceed with 
 the bottom than .with the top heading method.- The sub-contractor 
 therefore stopped the top heading work in the west heading from 
 34th Street until the bench had been removed, and then resumed 
 progress with a bottom heading. At 41st Street the condition of 
 affairs was found to be somewhat different. Although the rock in 
 both cases is the normal New York rock, namely, micaceous gneiss, 
 at 34th Street it was hard, compact and self-supporting, but at 
 41st Street it was found to be very soft and decomposed, and in the 
 westerly tunnel this decomposition had proceeded so far as to reduce 
 
333 Work on Section No. 4. 
 
 the rock to the conditions of earth. The sub-contractor was therefore 
 compelled to timber heavily; this timbering extending in the west 
 heading for a distance of 115 ft. south and 42 ft. north, and in the 
 east heading for a distance of 134 ft. south and 38 ft. north. In 
 order to put this timbering in place the sub-contractor proceeded in 
 the usual manner with a top heading. When, however, the rock was 
 apparently strong enough to be self-supporting, permission was 
 given to the sub-contractor to change from top to bottom heading; 
 which permission he availed of in the west heading, but continued 
 with a top heading on the east side. 
 
 At the commencement of the work considerable damage was done 
 to windows of buildings surrounding the shafts at 34th Street. 
 Aj though the holes were made very shallow and the charges used 
 were very light, the rush of air out of the shaft was so great that 
 windows were constantly broken. The Chief Engineer made a sug- 
 gestion to the sub-contractor to cover the shaft mouth with heavy 
 timbers with the hope that the air waves would be reflected back into 
 the heading. The experiment was tried and the force of each con- 
 cussion was found to be much reduced. It was then suggested to 
 increase the depth of the hole and increase the amount of dyna- 
 mite used, with the idea that the energy of the dynamite would be 
 largely expended in the rock and not in the air. This also was 
 found to be practicable, and later the heading work assumed more 
 rapid progress with diminished damage and annoyance. 
 
 The progress of the four headings has been as follows : 
 
MONTHLY PROGRESS OF HEADINGS. 
 Murray Hill Tunnels. 
 
 December, 1900. 
 January, 1901.. . 
 
 February 
 
 March 
 
 April 
 
 May 
 
 June 
 
 J«iy 
 
 August 
 
 September 
 
 October 
 
 November 
 
 December 
 
 Totals 
 
 Advance North'ly. 
 
 Advance Southerly. 
 
 E. Head. 
 34th St. 
 
 W. Head. 
 34th St. 
 
 Ft. 
 14 
 
 93 
 77 
 40 
 68 
 79 
 63 
 83 
 98 
 99 
 111 
 
 954 
 
 Ft. 
 34 
 57 
 69 
 73 
 51 
 36 
 74 
 53 
 93 
 69 
 107 
 97 
 90 
 
 893 
 
 E. Head. 
 41st St. 
 
 Ft. 
 
 30 
 
 17 
 
 43 
 
 59 
 
 91 
 
 66 
 
 93 
 
 95- 
 
 56 
 
 550 
 
 W. Head. 
 
 41st St. 
 
 Ft. 
 
 13 
 17 
 18 
 33 
 68 
 70 
 70 
 
 57 
 136 
 
 461 
 
 Advance North'ly. 
 
 E. Head. 
 4l5t St. 
 
 Ft. 
 
 18 
 
 18 
 
 W. Head. 
 41st St. 
 
 Ft. 
 
 5 
 18 
 
 33 
 
 Total distance between shafts, East tunnel, 1,771 feet. 
 Total distance between shafts. West tunnel, 1,834 feet. 
 
 233 
 
334 Work 011 Section No. 5-A. 
 
 Section No. 5-A. — From the centre of 41st Street and Park 
 Avenne to the centre of 4?th Street and Broadway. Degnon-Mc- 
 Lean Contracting Company, Sub-Contractors. 
 
 There was considerable delay in beginning work on this section 
 owing to negotiations with the New York Central & Hudson Eiver 
 Railroad Company, looking to the building of a joint station at 43d 
 Street so as to permit the running of New York Central trains 
 through the subway. The negotiations finally resulted in a decli- 
 nation on the part of the Railroad Company to co-operate. 
 
 The general Contractor on February 11, 1901, let the contract 
 for 42d Street to the Degnon-McLean Contracting Company, who 
 began work on February 35. 
 
 From Madison Avenue to Broadway on 43nd Street the local 
 conditions presented some unusual features. The profile of 43nd 
 Street shows a ridge at Fifth Avenue, with a rapid descent both east 
 and west. In order that the subway might have reasonable gra- 
 dients it was decided to run on an unbroken gradient from Madison 
 Avenue to Broadway, which brought the base of rail 37.5 ft. below 
 the surface of 42nd Street and Fifth Avenue. The travel on 43nd 
 Street is at all times -heavy. In order that this travel might be 
 interfered with as little as possible, the sub-contractors decided to 
 concentrate their operations to the south side of the street, availing 
 themselves of the fact that between Fifth and Sixth Avenues, Bryant 
 Park is on the south side. Along the south side of the street, 
 therefore, a trench was excavated for a width of about 15 feet, and 
 in the trench so excavated the steel work was erected for the south- 
 bound local track. A drift was then excavated at the level of the 
 roof northerly for a distance of about 30 feet, and needle beams, 
 consisting of 24-in. 100-lb. steel beams were placed in it, one end 
 of the beams resting on the completed roof, the other on the un- 
 excavated rock. On these beams the soil and street surface above 
 were supported by blocking. Beneath the beams the rock was then 
 excavated and the south-bound express track constructed. The side 
 drift was then carried for another space forward, the needle beams 
 advanced and the operation repeated. There will be found at the 
 end of the report the plans for this ingenious method of construc- 
 bon. By this means the surface of the street was kept intact and 
 traffic allowed to pass over the pavement. It has not been done. 
 
Work on Section No. 5—B. 335 
 
 however, withoiit settlement, but the settlement is not serious for 
 the moment, as it is gradual and will be easily adjusted by repaying 
 the street and resurfacing. the surface railway when the subway con- 
 struction is completed. 
 
 Before the beginning of construction a large 48-inch water main 
 existed along 43nd Street. This main was over thirty years old 
 and liable to break easily. To provide against this catastrophe, 
 which had it occurred would have been attended with serious re- 
 sults, the Contractor laid a new main in 40th Street, the expense 
 of the laying being divided between the Eapid Transit Board 
 and the Contractor; that is to say, one-half was paid as an extra by 
 the Board and capitalized against the contract price, the other 
 half being provided by the General Contractoi*- himself. From 
 43nd Street northerly on Broadway the work presented no extra- 
 ordinary features. 
 
 Section No. 5-B. — Prom the centre of 47th Street and Broad- 
 way to the north end of Columbus Circle at 60th Street and Broad- 
 way. Naughton & Company, Sub-Contractors. 
 
 This section was one almost wholly in rock. The sub-contractors 
 elected to carry on their work by installing cableways, such as have 
 been described for Fourth Avenue, and restricting the excavation to 
 the space between the curb and the nearest rail of the surface rail- 
 way, subsequently drifting laterally beneath the- latter to a point Just 
 beyond the middle of the street, in which space were erected the 
 side, quarter and centre columns and the roof beams for one-half the 
 subway structure, according to the method suggested by the specifi- 
 cations. ' When the concrete arches had been put in place and the 
 pavement restored, the sub-contractors then completed the opera- 
 tions by excavating and constructing under the remaining half of 
 the street. In carrying oiit this work they elected not to support the 
 tracks of the surface railway by trusses, but to carry them upon posts 
 moved from time to time as occasion required. ' This particular con- 
 tract covered no extraordinary features, except the liecessity for very 
 careful blasting around the water and gas mains, which had been 
 originally laid directly upon the rock (in fact, in some cases trenches 
 had been blasted for them), and except the underpinning of the 
 Columbus Statue at Columbus Circle at the Junction of Broadway, 
 
236 Work on Sections Nos. 6- A and 6-B. 
 
 Eighth Ayernie and 59th Street. At this point there is erected a 
 shaft monument to Christopher Columbus with a height of 75 
 feet, and ■ a masonry base stepped out in the customary manner in 
 the centre of a small grass plot. The westerly line of the subway 
 excavation passed beneath this base, but just to the east of the 
 centre line of the shaft itself! The sub-contractors decided to leave 
 the, shaft and its base in their position and to support them by 
 underpinning. In order to do this the first step was the driving of 
 a' tunnel beneath the centre of the shaft and to the west of the sub- 
 way wall. This tunnel was filled with masonry. The next step 
 was to place a large girder beneath the east edge of the base, the 
 girder being supported on timber "horses," or timber bents, north 
 and south of the monument. The material beneath the base was 
 then excavated, the subway structure built in place, and on top of 
 the subway roof new foundations for the monument were carried up. 
 When this ha,"d been done the girder was removed. The work was 
 done with such care and skill that not even the pointing of the 
 masonry joints in the base was disturbed. 
 
 Sections Nos. 6-A and 6-B. — From 60th Street and Broadway 
 to 82nd Street and Broadway ; and from 82nd Street and Broadway 
 to 104th Street. William Bradley, Sub-Contractor. 
 
 The local conditions on these sections differed from any of the 
 sub-contracts previously described. Broadway between these points 
 is 150 ft. in width, with two sidewalks of 34 -ft. each, leaving a road- 
 way 102 ft. wide between curbs. In the centre of this roadway 
 there exists a line of parkways 22 ft. wide, on the outside of which 
 there is a conduit electric surface railway. The method of sup- 
 porting the surface railway adopted by the sub-contractors on Sec- 
 tion 3 was also adopted in principle on this section, but with dif- 
 ferent details. Instead of using the steel girders as on Section 3, 
 the sub-contractor on Sections 6-A and 6-B constructed wooden 
 through trusses, the trusses being set one on each side of each surface 
 track. Needle beams beneath the surface railway were suspended 
 from the trusses'. The work was attacked through the parkways in 
 open cut and then the excavation was carried laterally beneath the 
 supporting trusses without ' endangering the railway. Along this 
 part of the route the sewers and most of the gas mains were laid be- 
 
H 
 
Work on Section No. 7. 337 
 
 neath the sidewalks, so that the amount of extra work of this char- 
 acter was but slight, the principal exception being a 30-inch water 
 main which was found along the whole length of the work through 
 the centre of the parkways. Instead of atte-mpting to support this 
 water main, the sub-contractor decided to lay a new one near the 
 curb and then to remove the old one. 
 
 Section No. 7. — Prom a junction with the main line on Broad- 
 way easterly under private property to 104th Street, Central Park, 
 to the centre of 110th Street. Parrell & Hopper, Sub-Contractors. 
 
 This section is the beginning of the east side branch, and was 
 designed for two tracks only, and was almost wholly in deep tunnel 
 beneath 104th Street and Central Park, except for a short distance 
 aL the northerly end where it passed beneath the driveway leading to 
 Lenox Avenue. At the conclusion of 1901 all of the open excava- 
 tion work under the park and 110th Street had been completed, and 
 the surface entirely restored. For the tunnel portion a heading 
 had been obtained just west of the main driveway in Central Park 
 near Lenox Avenue, from which a heading was begun on May 14, 
 1901. A shaft 10 ft. by 20 ft. was begun on December 31, 1900, 
 in Central Park, on the east side of the street known as Central 
 Park West, at the foot of 104th Street. This shaft, whose depth was 
 60.5 ft. reached subgrade on June 15, 1901, and top headings were 
 started easterly and westerly on February 38, 1901. A second shaft 
 was started on private property, a house having been torn down for 
 this purpose on 104th Street, 110 ft. east of Broadway on October 
 30, 1901. This latter shaft had an area of 13 ft. by 33 ft., and a 
 depth of 45.8 ft., reaching a depth of 30 ft. at the end of 1901. All 
 of the above work was done in heading only, except from the Central 
 Park portal where bench work was kept up immediately behind the 
 heading, the idea of the sub-contractor being to push the headings 
 through and then to remove the bench rock from the north end. 
 The rock for the most part was strong and sound. Good progress 
 was made in all the headings, the rate being shown in the following 
 table : 
 
MONTHLY PROGRESS OF HEADINGS. 
 
 Central Park Tunnel. 
 
 Month. 
 
 Central Park. 
 Shaft W. 
 
 Central Park. 
 Shaft E. 
 
 Central Park. 
 Portal W. 
 
 March, 1901 
 
 Ft. 
 
 46 
 
 68 
 
 96 
 
 46 
 
 74 
 
 170 
 
 149 
 
 160 
 
 117 
 
 165 
 
 Ft. 
 
 53 
 
 63 
 
 24 
 
 
 
 73 
 
 123 
 
 119 
 
 160 
 
 137 
 
 136 
 
 Ft. 
 
 April 
 
 
 May 
 
 27 
 
 
 63 
 
 Tulv 
 
 21 
 
 
 84 
 
 
 60 
 
 October .... 
 
 73 
 
 November 
 
 63 
 
 December 
 
 68 
 
 
 
 Totals 
 
 1,091 
 
 888 
 
 404 
 
 
 
 Distance between 104th Street shaft and Central Park shaft, 2,162 feet. 
 Distance between Central Park shaft and Central Park portal, 1,735 feet. 
 
 In each of the Central Park headings two shifts of eight hours 
 were employed, and from the portal one shift, except during Sep- 
 tember when two were used. 
 
 238 
 
Work on Sections Nos. 8 and g- A. 339 
 
 Section No. 8. — From the centre of 110th Street and Lenox Ave- 
 nue to 100 ft. north of the centre of 135th Street and Lenox Ave- 
 nue; Farrell & Hopper, Sub-Contractors, who, however, subse- 
 quently re-let the major portion of this work to John C. Bodgers. 
 
 This portion of the railway was located between the surface rail- 
 way and the curb so as to avoid disturbance or support of the latter. 
 As on Broadway most of the pipes and sewers were laid beneath the 
 sidewalk, and as the material along the whole of this route was good 
 sand, the impediments to rapid construction were here reduced prob- 
 ably to the minimum to be found anywhere along the whole of the 
 route, the only feature to which the sub-contractor had to give 
 ' special attention being the presence of ground water, as the surf ace 
 of the street was but about 20 feet above tide level. The surface of ■ 
 the ground water was usually from two to three feet above the bot- 
 tom of the excavation, but was readily kept down by pumping. At 
 the end of the year 1901 all of the excavation on this contract had 
 been completed except for the stations at 116th, 135th and 135 l.h 
 Streets. 
 
 Section- No. 9-A. — Prom a point 100 ft. north of the centre of 
 135th Street and Lenox Avenue to the centre of Gerard Avenue 
 ia the Borough of The Bronx. McMuUen & McBean, Sub-Con- 
 tractors. 
 
 Owing to a possibility of a change of route ia The Bronx the 
 Contractor did not let the contract for this section until May 
 28, 1901, so that the beginning of work was somewhat behind 
 that of. the adjacent sections. This contract involves the building 
 of the subway beneath the Harlem Eiver, the requirements of the 
 United States Government being that the top of the subway shall 
 be at least 20 ft. below low water mark. As this was work requir- 
 ing considerable plant, the sub-contractors decided that the work 
 would be more rapidly advanced if they equipped themselves fully 
 before beginning operations. At the conclusion of 1901^ the only 
 work done on this section was in excavation and the preparation of 
 the plant for the Harlem River section. The work, however, is being 
 actively pushed, is well in hand, and there is no reason to believe 
 that this section will not be completed in ample time. 
 
240 Work on Sections Nos. g-B and lo. 
 
 Seotiok No. 9-B. — From the centre of Gerard Avenue to the 
 west building line of Brook Avenue and Westchester Avenue. John 
 C. Eodgers, Sub-Contractor. 
 
 This work was held back on account of the possible change of 
 route referred to in The Bronx, and therefore the sub-contract was 
 not sub-let until June 4, 1901. Immediately after the letting of the 
 contract the sub-contractor began the work, and at the end of the 
 year 1901 the work was well advanced. The character of the work 
 is very varied, part of it being cut and cover with standard flat 
 roof steel structure ; part of it being in rock tunnel, and part of it 
 being cut and cover work with concrete arched roof. 
 
 Section No. 10. — ^Viaduct on Westchester Avenue, Southern 
 Boulevard and Boston Eoad, from Brook Avenue to Bronx Park. 
 The sub-contract for the erecting of the steel work was given to the 
 Terry & Tench Construction Company, and for the foundations to 
 E. P. Eoberts. 
 
 At the conclusion of the year 1901, 332 foundations had been 
 put in place. A large portion of the designs for the viaduct struc- 
 ture has been delivered to the Bridge Company, and it is ex- 
 pected that the erection of the viaduct will commence some time 
 during the latter part of 1902, and as this work will proceed very 
 rapidly when it is begun, this section can be completed as soon as 
 any of the others. 
 
 Section No. 11. — Prom the centre of 104th Street and Broadway 
 to 10 ft. north of the south side of 12oth Street on Broadway. John 
 Shields, Sub- Contractor. 
 
 This section is the initial section of the West Side line and was 
 designed for two tracks only. Work was commenced on that basis, 
 and part of the structure put in place. The Contractor then sug- 
 gested that a portion of the terminal space, which under the Con- 
 tract he had the right to select the location for, had better be 
 situated under Broadway immediately adjacent to the main line 
 between 135th and 145th Streets, and that a third track be laid out 
 to extend south from this yard to connect with the four-track 
 system at 104th Street, thus enabling express trains to run in the 
 direction of the burden of traffic. To permit this, a request was 
 made to the Eapid Transit Board to order the third track as extra 
 
Work on Sections Nos. ii and 12. 341 
 
 work, the Contractor undertaking, at his own expense, to shoulder 
 as a loss the cost of undoing such portion of the work as already had 
 been done on Section 11. This request was granted by the Board 
 and constitutes the most radical change that has been made in the 
 plans, but is a change that would have had to be made at some 
 time, and, of course, can best be made now. The original plans for 
 Section 11 called for standard steel construction from 104th Street 
 to the north end of the station at 116th Street, and from that point 
 north, on account of the depth of the cut, for a two-track, concrete 
 arch section. On the addition of the third track the two-track 
 concrete arch, which had already been largely completed, had to be 
 removed. It was so solid, however, that blasting had to be re- 
 sorted to. In order to span the three tracks, a three-centered arch 
 of concrete, with a span of 37.5 feet, was designed, the construction 
 of which at the end of the year 1901 was in .successful progress. 
 
 Section Fo. 13. — Manhattan Valley Viaduct, from 125th Streei 
 to the north building line of 133d Street on Broadway. The sub- 
 contractor for the erection of the steel work was the Terry & Tench 
 Construction Company, and for the foundations, E. P. Eoberts. 
 
 When the design for this structure was undertaken it was found 
 that to carry out the contract drawings literally, which drawings 
 called for a construction of steel towers with intervening plate-gir- 
 der spans with a length 60 feet, involved a great and expensive read- 
 justing of the junction of the surface lines on Broadway and Man- 
 hattan Street. To avoid this there was substituted for the section 
 over Manhattan Street, a two-hinged steel arch with a span of 180 
 feet, plans for which were nearly completed at the conclusion of the 
 year 1901. The foundations for the arch were then in progress, 
 and the foundations for the towers north and south of the arch had 
 been completed. It is expected that the erection of thig viaduct 
 will begin during the year 1903. 
 
 Sbotiohts l^os. 13 AND 14.' — From the north side of 133d Street 
 to Hillside Avenue at Fort George. L. B. McCabe & Bro., Sub- 
 Contractors. 
 
 On Section 13 the storage yard referred to above was located. 
 The plans as finally agreed upon with the Contractor called for six 
 tracks, in addition to the two regular tracks already contracted for, 
 
342 Work on Sections Nos. ij and 14. 
 
 and they are located between the north end of the station at 137th 
 Street' and the south end of the station at 145th Street. These 
 tracks are to be used normally for storage purposes, but, of course, 
 during the rush hours, at least one of them can be used as an addi- 
 tional running track for express service. The amount of stor- 
 age space thus obtained will be sufficient to accommodate 150 cars. 
 At the south end of Section 13 some of the structure had been com- 
 pleted previous to the decision to add the third track south from 
 the yard to 104th Street. As in the case of Section 11, the Con- 
 tractor in his agreement with the Board undertakes to assume all 
 the expeiise of undoing what had been done. 
 
 Prom 133d Street to 150th Street, Section 13 presents no extra- 
 ordinary features. The material to be excavated consists chiefly of 
 sand andioam with some rock. At 150th Street the surface of the 
 street rises abruptly to .form the hill on the top of which is located 
 Trinity Cemetery, with a similar sharp descent on the north side to 
 Audubon Park. Beneath this hill the sub-contractor decided to 
 drive a tunnel as was contemplated in the contract plans. A portal 
 was obtained 28 ft. south of the sou.th side of 151st Street, and a 
 corresponding portal was obtained 55 ft. south of the north side of 
 155th Street, from which latter point heading work was begun on 
 July 12, 1901. The distance between these two portals. is 1,113 ft., 
 of whicli, at the conclusion of the year 1901, 232 ft. of heading and 
 100 ft. of bench had been. completed. At 155th- Street it was neces- 
 sary to timber the heading, the rock there being entirely decomposed. 
 Prom 155.th Street (0 158th Street the work was done in open cut. 
 At 9.5 feet north of the north side of 158th Street a portal was ob- 
 tained for the P'ort Washington Tunnel to extend northerly fron: 
 there to Port George, a distance between the two portals of 10",366.53 
 ft., or nearly two miles. H was decided to attack this tunnel from 
 the portals at 158th Street and Port George, and from two main 
 shafts at 168th and 181st Streets, at both of the latter stations hav- 
 ing been located. 
 
 The route as covered by the contract north from Port George con- 
 sisted of a long curve to the west from Eleventh Avenue to Kings- 
 bridge Road, then northerly along Kingsbridge Road. It was 
 deemed best to alter this route by continuing northeasterly from 
 Port George along Dykman Street to Amsterdam Avenue and then 
 
]Vo7-k on Sections JVos. ij and 14. 343 
 
 along Amsterdam Avenue to intersect Kingsbridge Eoad at 218th 
 Street. It was not, however, until near the close of the year 1901 
 that this change of route was effected, so that the only work that 
 liad been done at the north end was the beginning of a cut prepara- 
 tory to the securing of a portal. 
 
 The heading at 158th Street was started north on September 
 27, 1900. The shafts at 168th Street and 181st Street were started 
 on July 2 and July 21:, respectively, and were given dimensions 
 of 15 feet by 32 feet in the clear, in order to accommodate two 
 passenger elevators and a stairway. At 168th Street solid rock 
 was found close to the surface, timber framing being required for 
 16 feet only in order to hold securely the top ground. At 181st 
 Street rock was met at a depth of 12 feet, and timber framing 
 was put in for 27 feet. Both shafts were excavated for full di- 
 mensions, except that at 168th Street the first 25 feet in depth 
 were taken out to dimensions of 15 feet by 20 feet. Subgrade 
 at 168th Street was reached on November 7, at a depth of 103 
 feet, in 101 working days of two 8-hour shifts; and at 181st Street 
 on December 15, at a depth of 126 feet, in 131 days. The cross 
 drifts from the bottom of the shafts to the tunnel proper were laid 
 out with a height of 25 feet and a width of 29 feet. These drifts 
 reached the centre line of the tunnel on November 3 and December 
 8, respectively, whence headings north and south were at once 
 turned. As the cross drifts were driven with top headings, they 
 advanced simultaneously with the sinking of the shafts after the 
 latter reached the roof grade of the heading. 
 
 All of this work was done on the top-heading plan and the rock 
 was found, with the exception of a length of 214 feet near 
 16'0th Street, sufficiently strong to be self-supporting without tim- 
 bering. In fact, at both 168th and 181st Streets the excavation 
 was made with a width of 51 feet in order to accommodate a large 
 ai'ch to be hereafter constructed to cover the station, including the 
 two tracks and the side platforms. 
 
 This work of tunnel construction was progressed up to August, 
 1901, with three shifts of eight hours each working continuously 
 from Sunday midnight to Saturday midnight, and after that date 
 with two shifts. The following table gives the distances between 
 portal and shafts, and the progress of each heading: 
 
MONTHLY PROGRESS OF HEADINGS. 
 
 Fort Washington Tunnel. 
 
 Month. 
 
 158th St., 
 N. 
 
 168th St., 
 S. 
 
 168th St., 
 N. 
 
 181st St., 
 S. 
 
 181st St., 
 N. 
 
 October, 19C 
 November, " 
 December, ' ' 
 January, 191 
 February, ' 
 March, ' 
 April, 
 May, 
 June, 
 July, 
 
 August, ' 
 September, ' 
 October, ' 
 November, ' 
 December, ' 
 
 
 
 )1 
 
 Ft. 
 121. 
 
 150. . 
 134. 
 
 5.5 
 
 0. 
 
 0. 
 
 0. 
 
 0. 
 
 0. 
 11. 
 33. 
 61. 
 
 5. 
 
 7. 
 25. 
 
 Ft. 
 0. 
 
 48. 
 0. 
 
 30. 
 
 46. 
 
 39. 
 100. 
 113. 
 118. 
 119. 
 
 68. 
 
 83. 
 
 76. 
 
 78. 
 9. 
 
 Ft. 
 
 0. 
 33. 
 
 0. 
 41. 
 38, 
 39. 
 
 89. 
 113. 
 133. 
 
 94. 
 
 69. 
 
 87. 
 
 83. 
 
 72. 
 
 81. 
 
 Ft. 
 
 0. 
 
 0. 
 38. 
 
 6. 
 41. 
 53, 
 45. 
 98. 
 134.5 
 96. 
 73. 
 84.5 
 84. 
 89, 
 67.. 
 
 Ft. 
 0. 
 0. 
 
 35. 
 
 33. 
 
 41. 
 
 48. 
 
 50. 
 107, 
 133, 
 
 86. 
 
 65. 
 111. 
 
 89. 
 
 93. 
 
 75. 
 
 Totals 
 
 541.5 
 
 916. 
 
 961. 
 
 898. 
 
 935. 
 
 Distance from portal 158th Street to shaft 168th Street, 3,493.47 feet. 
 Distance from shaft 168th Street to shaft 181st Street, 3,536.06 feet. 
 Distance from shaft 181st Street to portal Fort George, 4,338.00 feet. 
 
 Total, 10,366.53 feet. 
 
 Ui 
 
r<,\> 
 
Work oil Section No. i^. 245 
 
 The bench work was kept up to the headings as close as possible, 
 the amount of complete bench removed being, at the respective 
 points, as follows : 
 
 158th Street, N 494.5 feet 
 
 168th Street, S 889.0 " 
 
 168th Street, N 943.0 " 
 
 181st Street, S 877. " 
 
 181st Street, N 911.0 " 
 
 Total 4,114,5 feet 
 
 The concrete lining was begun on June 11, 1901, from 158th Street. 
 
 Section No. 15. — From Fort George northerly to The Bronx at 
 Kingsbridge. 
 
 This section is wholly elevated ; on which no work has yet been 
 done except to let the sub-contracts for the erection to the Terry & 
 Tench Construction Company, and for the foundations to E. P. 
 Roberts. 
 
 The work done by each of the above-mentioned sub-contractors 
 is shown in detail in the tables on pages 246, 247 and 248. The first 
 of these tables gives the amount of work done from the signing oE 
 the contract to the close of the year 1900, and the second gives th-3 
 total amount of work done from the signing of the contract to the 
 end of the year 1901. The tables on pages 213 to 320 give the 
 amount of work done by the sub-contractors on the sewer,s, whicii 
 ([uantities are in addition to the quantities shown in the tables on 
 pages 246, 347 and 248. 
 
 The force employed by the sub-contractors reached a maximum 
 in October, 1901, when 7,770 men were working in the streets of 
 New York, exclusive of the force employed at the bridge shops and 
 elsewhere outside of the city. The stafE of the Chief Engineer 
 reached its maximum number' in December, 1901, amounting, to 
 272, consisting of 114 engineers, 76 rodmen and axemen, 72 
 masonry inspectors, and a clerical force of 10. 
 
 It is very gratifying to be able to report that, in the prosecution 
 of the work, it has not been found necessary to make any radical 
 departure from the plans originally designed, nor have any unfore- 
 seen or unexpected contingenees arisen nor any conditions that were 
 
o 
 H 
 
 135485. 
 18463. 
 4893. 
 6705. 
 
 511. 
 
 1619. 
 1189. 
 7981.037 
 
 34.157 
 
 85.9 
 
 90.8 
 
 40. 
 
 47.15 
 
 7. 
 
 70. 
 
 7334. 
 
 481. 
 
 70. 
 
 160. 
 
 436. 
 
 260. 
 
 240. 
 592. 
 8132.8 
 
 8233 
 
 so'- 
 
 ooiocoeo 
 
 t- 1=4 COCO 
 
 
 III 
 
 JESSS 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 iss ■* 
 
 ^2" 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■;:^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 tog 
 So 
 
 
 
 
 « 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 'i 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 g 
 
 CO 
 
 o 
 
 |g 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 g 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 s 
 
 
 oi 
 
 
 di 
 
 
 lO 
 
 g 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 g 
 
 S8 
 
 !■ 
 
 C/3 
 
 is 
 
 
 i 
 
 O 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 ig §5 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 si 
 
 ii 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 § 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 S g §§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 u 
 CO 
 
 » 
 
 
 181 
 
 
 
 
 
 i> o eg t;| 
 
 ^ CO CO 
 
 an 
 
 S s 
 
 d 
 
 m^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 fe 
 
 
 tH 
 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 OS 
 
 00 
 
 ■* 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 il 
 
 oi 
 
 6 
 
 in 
 
 
 
 
 
 q6 
 
 CO 
 
 5 
 
 
 
 OS 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 iiu 1 ^11 1 ii^ e; «; s; e; e; ^ £ « ££| 
 
 3 3 3 3 (a m3 3E-i E-H3 3 3 ■-' -^ -S .S .5 .S .S .5 .5.5 D 
 
 V 
 
 B 
 
 u 
 
 1 
 
 < 
 
 . 
 
 t— « 
 
 c 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 C 
 
 bJ 
 
 :§ 
 1 
 a 
 
 a 
 
 o 
 
 ■a 
 
 $ 
 
 I 
 
 ■^ ■ 
 
 g ; 
 
 n 
 
 IZi 
 
 ii 
 S 
 
 o 
 
 U 
 
 f 
 
 u 
 
 CI 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 J 
 
 c 
 
 c3 
 I 
 
 B 
 1 
 
 a 
 Q 
 c 
 
 
 
 1 
 1 
 
 Ci 
 
 o 
 
 1 
 
 > 
 
 T3 
 
 !i 
 
 u 
 
 w 
 
 •3 
 
 § 
 g 
 E 
 c 
 
 1 
 
 c 
 o 
 
 1! 
 
 1 
 
 <*- 
 
 1 
 
 s 
 
 ■c 
 
 n 
 
 i 
 1 
 
 s 
 1 
 
 ■a 
 
 2 ■ 
 o 
 
 Ii 
 
 i 
 
 u 
 
 m 
 h 
 
 si 
 
 £ ■ 
 
 2 
 
 t-t c 
 
 a- 
 s . 
 
 £ '. 
 
 § 
 
 'cm 
 
 h 
 
 
 E 
 
 O 
 
 is 
 
 bot- 
 
 ■ft 
 1" 
 
 ■I 
 
 ■s 
 
 c 
 
 
 bi 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 246 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 «Ci 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 (V 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 « 
 
 I8S 
 
 fe 
 
 w 
 
 < 
 
 O 
 
 Plllllppigsi 1 
 
 
 coco'irJodoJob^Gd 
 
 H 
 
 g§2 3°"^ «= ^ « 
 
 CO 
 
 s ""I 
 
 CO'"' 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ffO • 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ggjg^ooc: ■ 
 
 t-o 
 
 T|HM 
 
 •XI 
 
 
 w 
 
 
 
 
 •^ 
 
 ■ 
 
 CO 
 
 
 ajco" 
 
 IftTjl 
 
 cot- 
 
 ■rl 
 
 
 XI 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 w 
 
 
 o^SmSS^ 
 
 .H 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 00 
 
 
 W"* 
 
 
 
 oz 
 
 
 r-( 
 
 
 
 
 i> 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 a5^ : ■ 
 
 to in 
 
 
 
 
 
 mod 
 
 CC 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 U<N 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■^T-f 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Cfi'"' 
 
 e«^ ■ • 
 
 r-oo 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 TH 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 irjoi • 
 
 ■^ 
 
 U3 
 
 g 
 
 
 i> 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 CD 
 
 4)^ 
 
 
 
 W 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 g 
 
 CD 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 f^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ID U3 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 CD 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Ot 01 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 iiin 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 T-H 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 W^ 
 
 "* : 
 
 « 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ea '^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 OP5 
 
 coco • 
 
 00 
 
 l> 
 
 o 
 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 
 H 
 
 
 
 
 OS 
 
 
 
 
 
 iaa^ . 
 
 s 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 0? 
 
 
 
 
 la 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Eflci 
 
 |S : 
 
 
 ■^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 
 s 
 
 
 
 
 
 Si"^' 
 
 ss ; 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 a> 1 
 
 ooeo ■ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 wdi 
 
 iS" : 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 oei ■ 
 
 ^ 
 
 ~o6 
 
 Tf 
 
 Meo 
 
 
 t^ 
 
 
 ~^ 
 
 s 
 
 
 Tt< 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -^-Tf ■ 
 
 
 t- 
 
 Mm 
 
 
 I 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^.^ 
 
 ■* : 
 
 CD 
 
 s 
 
 cc 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 s 
 
 
 
 
 
 o '• 
 
 1-1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■cP 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 iriiaiwcjiQ 
 
 03 
 
 s 
 
 
 I> 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 oic« 
 
 
 
 
 id 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 CDfHiHO^ 
 
 CD 
 
 
 T-t 
 
 
 5 
 
 GOOD 
 
 
 
 
 t- 
 
 
 
 
 4)C- 
 
 OOt-i MCQlO 
 
 T-C 
 
 rH 
 
 
 
 
 
 iDiH 
 
 
 
 
 s 
 
 
 
 yH 
 
 W 
 
 QDT(<OS^'^S< 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -* 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 •CO 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 tN 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 OS 
 
 
 
 
 ^'pa 
 
 o w ■ 
 
 OZ 
 
 CD 
 
 oi 
 
 
 lO 
 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 d in 1003 
 
 CO 
 
 ^ 
 
 c^2 
 
 
 o 
 
 in 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 
 
 tt th i-3; 
 
 CD 
 
 
 i2>S • 
 
 
 CO 
 
 -tti 
 
 
 ■T-* 
 
 
 
 
 
 s ■^■* 
 
 
 
 
 
 » 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ S 
 
 1-1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 tH m 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 si< 
 
 OS'S - 
 
 • 
 
 ^ 
 
 ~q6~ 
 
 
 OS 
 
 
 
 
 "ni" 
 
 s; 1 
 
 ex 
 
 J^ 
 
 oi 
 
 coo» . 
 
 
 30 
 
 
 
 OS 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ,?i 1 
 
 GOOD ■ 
 
 
 U3 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Oiab 
 
 OICO ■ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 TO 
 
 
 
 
 •XI CO ■ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 "*C33 
 
 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 
 
 or OS 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 OS 
 
 
 
 
 _Tj;5D 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 "^ 
 
 
 ^!=° 
 
 »-^ ' 
 
 T-^oico»noJ 
 
 :!SS 
 
 
 ;: 
 
 
 00 
 
 g ;^ jgS 
 
 i-^ c-^ txj 
 
 aj 1 
 
 C«CD ■ 
 
 s^g-^s 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 in CD 
 
 c/)in 
 
 
 
 
 
 s 
 
 
 CO CO 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 OS Oieo 
 
 
 
 
 tH ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 tH M 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -*:7.^3;- 
 
 -■^ • 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 la 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 u<i 
 
 ooi - 
 
 ca 
 
 iri 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 00 
 
 
 
 
 
 J-H 
 
 ■u 1 
 
 gS : 
 
 O 
 
 
 
 
 t- 
 
 
 
 
 ^I 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 C/30 
 
 QO 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 U3 
 
 
 
 
 g S -^ 
 
 CM 
 
 
 gg : 
 
 m 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■N 
 
 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 eoasoJ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Ji^ 
 
 «='55| 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 coco ■ 
 
 ifi 
 
 <>cd(fi 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 -» ,- 
 
 
 CO 
 
 ifi 
 
 
 CO 
 
 CQ 
 
 
 
 
 loeo ■' 
 
 CQ 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 S S 
 
 
 
 00 
 
 
 
 la 
 
 ■* 
 
 <^" 
 
 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 
 s 
 
 ■ ai 
 
 
 
 « r- 
 
 
 CD 
 
 
 
 ?s 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 o 
 
 C-cion 
 
 
 00 
 
 
 
 
 r^ 
 
 t^ 
 
 
 !D 
 
 Q 
 
 fe 
 
 
 
 
 
 — OTOa 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 m 
 
 
 OS 
 
 
 (UOT 
 
 o 
 
 
 CD 
 
 § =° 
 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 TO 
 
 
 
 »n 
 
 
 tH 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 u* . 
 
 § 
 
 
 lO 
 
 oi 
 
 OS 
 
 
 'ii 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 OS 
 
 
 
 
 
 w'^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -H 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 s^ 
 
 «■ tfl W W W «• M M M -il' w J a 
 
 • « 
 
 
 
 'd'Oxi'O'0'au:uii3'cn3'O'T3£ T 
 
 'O m 
 
 w «; wT'l^&^l^^ 
 
 1 
 
 , O O c 
 
 3 P a 3 a SEhH 3 3 3 3 =1"1 c 
 
 UUUUUD oouuoJ c/ 
 
 
 eS S S^ -s ..s .5- 4 
 
 c 
 
 OT 
 
 
 c/ 
 
 )-H |_1 M l-l 
 
 
 -■■■U ^...flj 
 
 0) . . 
 
 3 "O -"a 
 
 .* 
 
 
 
 
 
 f V 
 
 • O -^ ■ 
 
 ■ O 
 
 
 3 • V 
 
 0) ■ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 4) *j 
 
 ■ 3 ■ <U ■ 
 
 P^ Rl 
 
 
 ^ • iIh 
 
 
 u 
 
 V 
 
 V 
 
 U 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 u V 
 
 ■ OT";: ■ 
 
 U**- 
 
 l« -^ 
 
 - V 
 
 
 p< 
 
 a 
 
 Pt 
 
 Qi 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■ ■ 3 ^^ • 
 
 • ' 2 G g ■ 
 
 SS 
 
 1- . a 
 
 3 . 
 
 ■a ■ > 
 
 V .-3 
 
 _> : 
 
 p^ 
 
 P^ 
 
 :is 
 
 '£ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 . . O rt 3 . &• 
 
 m :fl 
 
 1 : 
 
 M 
 
 h 
 
 
 Ih 
 
 
 1 
 
 ■2.2 : 1 ? S 
 
 .T3 C 
 ■ (0 ^ 
 
 ill 
 
 J**-! a 
 
 
 
 Ill 
 
 
 ^3 
 
 ■ u 
 
 ft 
 
 fl1 
 
 IN 
 [si 
 
 
 3SS 
 
 1 
 
 
 t 
 
 4» 
 
 111 
 
 iJ 
 
 3 < 
 
 
 Is 
 
 5c 
 
 
 3b 
 
 'A 
 
 
 
 5; 
 
 i 2"^ 
 
 3 Ot; 
 
 Its 
 
 
 
 ih 
 
 J 
 's 
 
 la^ 
 
 
 ^3= 
 
 ^3= 
 
 
 
 347 
 
c3 
 
 > 
 
 P 
 ►J 
 
 o 
 
 W 
 
 PQ 
 
 g 
 
 w 
 u 
 w 
 Q 
 
 (ii 
 O 
 
 <; 
 
 H 
 
 o 
 U 
 
 M 
 t_> 
 <! 
 W 
 
 > 
 H 
 
 W 
 
 g; 
 o 
 fi 
 
 o 
 
 H 
 
 g; 
 o 
 
 < 
 
 <: 
 o 
 
 Totals. 
 
 12. 
 
 4480. 
 4426. 
 
 117. 
 1452. 
 
 400. 
 1989. 
 
 135. 
 
 351. 
 
 sere. 
 
 5089. 
 3586. 
 1936. 
 5844. 
 B028. 
 5966. 
 2529. 
 571. 
 3312. 
 3888. 
 7928. 
 22159. 
 
 1086. 
 988. 
 
 4145. 
 
 1295. 
 
 1820500. 
 
 6607. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ;] 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 88 
 
 Is 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 rp 
 
 
 g 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 
 - 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 - 
 
 
 
 
 — 
 
 
 ci^ggj* 
 
 § 
 
 
 
 sis 
 
 en 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ends 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 OS 
 
 c3 
 
 Wei 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 Sod 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ss 
 
 
 ill 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 i - 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 S 
 ■* 
 
 
 
 
 
 □6 
 
 OS 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 i i 
 
 
 
 2 S 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 1 
 
 
 
 i ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 spii 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 i 
 
 uP3 
 
 C0U3 
 
 
 8S. 
 
 
 to 
 
 00 
 
 1 
 
 
 iiil 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■— 
 
 
 1 1 
 
 « 
 
 CO IB 
 
 13 
 
 s e 1 i 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 SS8 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 c^--i 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 1- 
 
 
 ?8 S 
 
 gg^g 
 
 §iii^ill 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 s,'^ 
 
 
 i i 
 
 1 
 
 
 S 
 
 |S| 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^^s 
 
 -w^ 
 
 
 
 
 CQ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 g 
 
 .1 
 
 ^ u *J 4J w *: J ^ *j «• w ^ 4J *i «■ w ««■«•*:*!*: *: «■ «■ ^ *j ■ 
 c d R c d c d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d a g c c c '. 
 
 M 
 
 o 
 
 a 
 S 
 
 ..c 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 o 
 
 & 
 
 S 
 
 i 
 
 C 
 
 „ a 
 
 1 
 
 ! 
 
 c 
 
 1 
 
 S 
 
 li 
 
 1.1 
 il 
 
 j: 
 t 
 
 1 1 
 
 Is 
 
 2 
 'j 
 
 t 
 i 
 
 'i 
 
 Hi 
 
 5C. 
 
 i-1 
 
 'a 
 3C 
 
 ;;: 
 
 " a 
 
 is 
 
 •1 
 
 "i 
 
 1 u 
 
 1 c 
 
 - 
 
 H 
 
 Ti 
 
 H 
 
 1 
 
 'i 
 
 \ 1 
 
 c 
 
 ft 
 
 T 
 
 i 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 c 
 
 J. 
 
 "J 
 
 J 
 
 : 
 
 w 
 
 " 1 
 
 1 
 
 q 
 
 ■ 
 -J 
 
 ?.£ 
 
 S=r 
 
 :': 
 
 it 
 
 t 
 ;_c 
 
 a 
 
 u 
 
 'it- 
 
 X 
 
 t 
 
 , 1 
 
 P 
 ii 
 
 i 
 
 ■ i 
 
 il 
 
 1 
 
 m 
 
 i.s1 
 
 : Set 
 
 • 1 
 if 
 
 :| 
 
 i." 
 
 [3 
 
 Is 
 «; 
 
 if 
 
 i 1 
 i 1. 
 
 h 
 
 l\ 
 
 u 
 
 .1 
 
 !i 
 
 4) ■ 
 
 e : 
 : 
 
 U ' 
 
 u ■ 
 
 :e : 
 
 Sgo, 
 
 248 
 
Changes in Plans. 349 
 
 not foreseen and provided for. In the matter of design the only 
 change that has been made has been to omit the .foundation stones 
 beneath the side-wall columns and to lengthen these columns six 
 inches in order that their feet may be thoroughly imbedded in the 
 bottom concrete so as to hold them securely in position to withstand 
 the thrust of the soil behind, and thus develop the full strength of 
 these columns as vertical beams. In order that the approaches to 
 the Harlem Kiver Tunnel should be thoroughly waterproofed, it was 
 finally decided to use both methods of waterproofing as described in 
 the specifications, namely, the alternate layers of asphalt and felt, 
 and bricks laid in asphalt. A cross-section of the approach is ap- 
 pended to the report showing the bricks in asphalt laid against felt 
 with asphalt and backed on both sides with concrete. At the close 
 of the year 83, feet of such invert had been turned on which con- 
 siderable side-wall had been erected. 
 
 The important general changes in plans have been the changing, 
 of the terminal loop from its original location around the Post Office 
 at the south end to one wholly within the limits of City Hall Park 
 and Mail Street, and the making of the loop with a single track for 
 local trains only instead of a double track as originally planned, ar- 
 rangements being provided for the switching back of the express 
 trains on a central tail-switching track under Park Row ; the loca- 
 tion of the yard on Broadway between 137th and 145th Streets; and 
 the third track on the west side from 104th to 137th Streets, as 
 described above. Other and minor changes have been the addition 
 of an extra siding south of the Spring Street station ; the lengthen- 
 ing of express station platforms to 350 feet in order to accommodate 
 longer trains; and the laying in 40th Street from Seventh Avenue 
 to Park Avenue, of a new 48-inch water main to' take the place of 
 the old 48-inch water main on 42d Street. 
 
 Subsequent to the letting of the contract the Board directed the 
 Contractor to construct pipe galleries along Elm Street for such 
 additional matins and pipes that might be laid in the future. After 
 this work had been begun objection was made by the Departments 
 of Sewers and Water Supply against the construction of this gal- 
 lery, whereupon the Board rescinded the above-mentioned order. 
 Work to the extent of the estimated cost of $38,000 had been done 
 on these galleries, part of which was represented by additional ex- 
 
250 l)?'awi/i,i(s Completed. 
 
 cavation and concrete, which expens^e the Contractor voluntarily a^^- 
 srinied, and part by extra steel work which had been manufactured 
 and delivered. This steel, however, has been already used to a large 
 extent in other parts of the structure and so not lost. 
 
 Although the Contract gave to the Contractor the option of mak- 
 ing the working drawings himself, subject to the approval of the 
 Board, or permitting the drawings to be worked out in detail under 
 tho direction of the Board's Chief Engineer, it was decided as being 
 generally more desirable that the latter course should be pursued, 
 even to the designing. of the details of the stations. All details 
 hiive, tJicrefore, beeji worked out by the draTighting department, 
 under the supervision of iir. St. John Clarke. Drawings when 
 thus completed have been forwarded to the Contractor, who, in 
 turn, has sent tliem to the sub-contraetor for steel, accompanied by 
 the Contractor's orders. The sub-contractor for steel then prepared 
 the requisite shop drawings, sending the same to the Contractor, 
 Avho forwarded them to the office of the Chief Engineer for exami- 
 nation and apjiroval. In this way e\-er\' drawing has had a double 
 check. 
 
 At the close of the year 1901 drawings for the following amount 
 of structure, as expressed in linear feet, had been officially approved : 
 
Q 
 
 > 
 O 
 P^ 
 
 FM 
 P-, 
 < 
 
 W 
 M 
 P5 
 
 W 
 K 
 
 CO 
 
 O 
 
 :z; 
 
 Pi 
 
 Q 
 U 
 
 p4 
 o 
 
 u 
 
 Pi 
 
 Mi 
 
 f^ 
 O 
 
 (-1 
 
 w 
 
 w 
 
 Pi 
 < 
 
 z; 
 
 ll 
 
 ^ 
 
 o 
 
 IC 
 
 05 
 
 
 00 
 
 
 CO 
 
 i 
 
 i 
 
 OS 
 
 o: 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 'Tl 
 
 o 
 
 ! H 
 
 TO 
 
 1 
 
 ^ 
 
 lO 
 
 
 >rj 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 rr 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 r- 
 
 lO 
 
 
 to 
 
 CO 
 
 ir 
 
 '^ 
 
 
 
 1-H 
 
 c: 
 
 1-H 
 
 1. 
 
 
 CO 
 
 _co 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 JO 
 
 
 cs 
 
 zo 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 t- 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 lO 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 OT 
 
 
 0"i 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 a: 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 cc 
 
 ^ ■ 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 « 
 
 C30 
 ^ CO 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 f^ 
 
 
 .a 
 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 »^ 
 
 1-f 
 
 T-H 
 
 OS 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 n 
 
 
 
 
 
 9^ 
 
 
 
 JO 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 2i 
 
 
 JO 
 
 lO 
 
 
 O 
 
 00 
 
 CO 
 
 en 
 
 CO 
 
 U 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 co 
 
 
 o 
 
 C-) 
 
 o 
 
 r^ 
 
 CT 
 
 oo 
 
 ^ 
 
 m 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 D 
 v3 
 
 ja 
 
 s 
 
 
 g 
 
 
 Oi 
 
 cn 
 
 
 
 
 C5 
 
 ^ 
 
 JO 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 v2 
 
 -* 
 
 M^ 
 
 -<* 
 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 
 
 CD 
 
 z.r> 
 
 
 ..a 
 
 o 
 
 in 
 
 JO 
 
 
 o 
 
 w 
 
 
 
 Ul 
 
 1—1 
 
 CO 
 
 CD 
 
 
 
 T-^ 
 
 CO 
 
 CO 
 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 >o 
 
 c- 
 
 lO 
 
 CD 
 
 
 
 T-H 
 
 GVi 
 
 CO 
 
 
 ■^ 
 
 : : : 1 
 
 
 lO 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 -^ i 
 
 
 
 CS 
 
 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 t- 
 
 L- 
 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 TO 
 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 JO 
 
 
 
 
 JO 
 
 ITS 
 
 JO 
 
 
 JO 
 
 o 
 
 JO 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 C5 
 
 ^ 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 c 
 
 CJ 
 
 oj 
 
 
 o 
 
 :- 
 
 OJ 
 
 o 
 
 
 w 
 
 tfl 
 
 be 
 
 Iz 
 
 
 1-1 .2 
 
 
 T3 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 C ) 
 
 PQ 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 p 
 
 
 « 
 
 
 
 r/1 
 
 
 
 
 H 
 
 ■H 
 
 4J 
 
 s 
 
 
 
 P!i 
 
 p^ 
 
 <I^ 
 
 ' Of 
 
 -9 o 
 cols 
 
 ^'% 
 
 1 « 
 
 
 
 
 1E'° 
 O o 
 
 0(2! 
 
 
 S Ml! 
 g c 
 
 ous. 
 
 
 'SStllMBJQ 
 
 'Uimo3 
 
 
 6410 
 
 450 
 
 1175 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 o 
 CO 
 
 o 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 05 
 
 JO 
 
 t- 
 
 
 
 
 2190 
 450 
 
 
 
 — 
 
 — -: 
 
 
 __ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 - . 
 
 --: 
 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 g 
 
 L- 
 
 
 
 
 MASONRY. 
 Arch Tunnel 
 
 <u 
 a 
 
 H 
 "3 
 
 .£3 
 
 •g' 
 
 o 
 
 p, 
 a 
 < 
 
 u 
 3 
 
 •a 
 > 
 
 
 251 
 
252 Steel Manufactured. 
 
 In addition to the above drawings officially approved, a still 
 greater amount of work had been done by the draughting depart- 
 ment in the making of studies ; in the preparation of designs not yet 
 officially approved, and in the drawing of maps, profiles and other 
 similar work. 
 
 The Department of Inspection of Material was organized by ap- 
 pointing Mr. W. A. Aiken as General Inspector, who established his 
 headquarters at Pittsburg, on August 5, 1900. The work of this 
 department has been the inspection and testing of all materials 
 entering into the work. A laboratory has been fitted up at the 
 Homestead Mills of the Came'gie Steel Company in charge of Mr. 
 E. L. Oberholser, where complete check determinations on every 
 melt of steel, and analyses of all cements, as weU as shop and field 
 paints, and asphalts, are made. 
 
 Steel was rolled at the various points indicated below, and manu-. 
 factured at the shops of the American Bridge Company, at Key- 
 stone, Pencoyd, Athens and Trenton. The total weight of steel 
 accepted at the various mills during the years 1900 and 1901, re- 
 spectively, was as follows: 
 
 1900. 1901. 
 
 Carnegie Steel Co 39,403,709 lbs. 28,586,848 lbs. 
 
 Pencoyd Iron Co 3,314,910 lbs. 14,613,865 lbs. 
 
 Oliver Iron & Steel Co 209,987 lbs. 280,412 lbs. 
 
 Park Steel Co , 94,850 lbs. 54,739 lbs. 
 
 Lukens Iron & Steel Co 96,710 lbs. 
 
 Bethlehem Steel Co 36,125 lbs. 
 
 Cambria Iron & Steel Co 3,140 lbs. 
 
 Totals 33,023,456 lbs. 43,671,839 lbs. 
 
 Total steel rolled to date 76,695,395 lbs. 
 
 The specifications state that the steel should be manufactured 
 by the open hearth process and meet the following requirements : 
 
 XTLTIMATE ELASTIC ELONGA- REDUCTION 
 
 STRENGTH, LIMIT, TION, OP AKEA, 
 
 LBS. LBS. PERCENT. PERCENT. 
 
 Medium steel.. 58,000 to 66,000 33,000 20 44 
 
 Eivet steel 50,000 to 58,000 28,000 27 54 
 
 Phosphorus not to exceed .04%. 
 
Tests of Steel. 353 
 
 In order to ascertain that the steel, as rolled, complied with the 
 specifications, 2,621 specimens of steel, representing 1,269 different 
 heats, were tested during the year 1900. The results of all ac- 
 cepted tests show — 
 
 38% or 731 tests, giving an average minimum ulti- 
 mate strength per squaxe inch between 
 58,000 and 60,500 lbs 59,750 lbs. 
 
 12% or 302 tests, giving an average maximum ulti- 
 mate strength per square inch between 
 63,500 and 66,000 lbs 64,490 lbs. 
 
 60% or 1,523 tests, giving average ultimate strength 
 per square inch approximating average 
 of specifications (63,000) 61,720 lbs. 
 
 The average elastic limit of all the above tests showed 38,630 lbs. 
 per square inch, as against the specification requirement of 33,000 
 lbs. In only one instance did the material fail in this respect. 
 
 The average elongation of all the above tests showed 28.9%, as 
 against 20% of the specifications. 
 
 The average reduction of area of all the above tests showed 
 55.7%, as against 44% of the specifications. 
 
 Forty-nine heats were retested, having originally partially failed. 
 Of these 32 were finally accepted and 17 rejected. 
 
 During the year 1901, 6,355 specimens of steel were tested, repre- 
 senting 3,033 different heats. The results show : 
 
 36% or 2,133 tests, giving an average minimum ulti- 
 mate strength per square inch between 
 58,000 and 60,500 lbs 59,570 lbs. 
 
 10% or 586 tests giving an average maximum ulti- 
 mate strength per square inch between 
 63,500 and 66,'000 lbs 64,780 lbs. 
 
 54% or 3,178 tests giving average ultimate strength 
 per square inch approximating average 
 of specification (62,000) ~ 61,660 lbs. 
 
 The average elastic limit of all tests, both accepted and rejected 
 material, showed 38,130 lbs. per square inch as compared with 
 specification requirement of 33,000 lbs. minimum. 
 
254 Cast-iron Manufactured. 
 
 The average elongation of all the above tests showed 28.23% as 
 compared with specification requirement of 20% minimum. 
 
 Tlu' average ynlnciioii of ami of all the above tests showed 53Afo 
 as compared with the specification requirement of 44'% minimum. 
 
 Nincty-nijuj , heats were retested, havi.ng originally partially 
 failed. Of' these, 87 were finally accepted and 12 finally rejected. 
 
 Finished ^-ork was manufactured at the- various branches of the 
 American Bridge Company, as shown below, and there were shipped 
 during the year 1900 and 1901, respectively, the following amounts: 
 
 1900. 1901. 
 
 Keystone Branch 19,896,138 lbs. 18,324,396 lbs. 
 
 Pencoyd Branch 3,71,476 lbs. 10,270,438 lbs. 
 
 Atliens Branch 10,763,341 lbs. 
 
 ^rrenton Branch 5,793,040 lbs. 
 
 Totals 20,627,614 lbs. 45,151,215 lbs. 
 
 Total steel manufactured to date 65,418,829 lbs. 
 
 The specifications of the Board required that the weight of fin- 
 ished material must not fall below the estimated weights, as com- 
 puted from tlie drawings, by more than 2.5 per cent., and the Con- 
 tractor in his contract with the American Bridge Company imposed 
 a similar restriction as to the excess of weight. Up to the close of 
 the yeai' 1901, the weights of material on all drawings on which 
 the work as called for had been finished m the shops show shipped 
 weights amounting to 35,769,001 lbs., estimated weights 35,780,514 
 lbs., or an average deficiency of only .03 of 1%. 
 
 The total weight of cast-iron for pipes and station columns, in- 
 s])ected and passed at the various foundries during the years 1900 
 and 1901, respectively, amounted to: 
 
 1900. 1901. 
 
 ^\'arren Foundry & Machine Co., 
 
 pipe ; 1,325,301 lbs. 4,540,511 lbs. 
 
 Reading Foundry Co., pipe 200,021 lbs. 1,754,093 lbs. 
 
 Donaldson Iron Co., pipe 174,281 lbs. 
 
 Foran Foundry & ]\Ifg. Co., struc- 
 tural material 68,314 lbs. 988,305 lbs. 
 
 Totals 1,593,636 lbs. 7,547,190 lbs. 
 
 Total cast-iron inspected to date 9,050,826 lbs. 
 
Cement Specifications. 355 
 
 In addition to the above, during the year 1900, there were in- 
 spected and rejected 391,011 lbs. of cast material, and 1,205,596 
 lbs. inspected and rejected during 1901. 
 
 There were made on cast material 181 tension tests showing an 
 average of 35,951 lbs. ultimate strength as compared with the 
 speciiication requirement, "material to stand from 18,000 to 34,000 
 lbs. per square inch." 180 transverse tests, on pieces one inch square 
 and 36 inches long between supports, showed ability of test piece to 
 bear an average load of 878 lbs. as against 750 lbs. called for by 
 the specifications. There was no rejection of cast-iron material 
 through failure to comply with the specifications' physical require- 
 ments. 
 
 The Contractor having placed a sub-contract for all of the cement 
 with the American Cement Company, whose works are located at 
 Egypt, Pa., the Board established there a testing laboratory under 
 the direction of the General Inspector of Material, who placed Mr. 
 E. Frank Walker in charge. The laboratory was equipped witl' 
 two cement testing machines, boiling and steaming apparatus, and 
 all other appliances necessary to determine the strength, sound- 
 ness and suitability of the cement offered by the manufacture. 
 The specifications required that the cement shall not fall below th 
 following standard: 
 
 POBTLAND Cement. 
 Fvneness. 
 
 98 per cent, shall pass a No. 50 sieve, and 90 per cent, a No. 100 
 sieve. 
 Tensile Strength. 
 
 Neat. — At the end of one day in water after hard set, 150 pounds. 
 At the end of seven days, one day in air, 6 days in water, 400 pounds. 
 At the end of 28 days, one day in air, 27 days in water,. 500 pounds. 
 When mixed 2 to 1 with quartz sand, at the end of seven days, one day 
 in air, six days in water, 200 pounds; at the end of 28 days, one day. 
 in air, 27 days in water, 300 pounds. 
 
 Natural Cement. 
 Fineness. 
 
 95 per cent, shall pass a No. 50 sieve, and 85 per cent, a No. 100 
 sieve. 
 Tensile Strength. 
 
 At the end of seven days, one day in air, six days in water, 125 
 pounds. At the end of 28 days, one day in air, 27 days in water, 200 
 
"356 Cement Specifications. 
 
 pounds. When mixed 1 to 1 with quartz sand, at the end of seven days 
 100 pounds; at the end of 28 days, one day in air, 27 days in water, 150 
 pounds. 
 
 UUEMTCAL ANA.r,YSBS AND SOUNDNESS. 
 
 Chemical analyses will be made from time to time, and cement fur- 
 nished must show a reasonably uniform composition. 
 Tests for soundness will be made as follows: 
 
 Portland Cement. 
 
 Tests for checking and cracking and for color will be made by mould- 
 ing on plates of glass cakes of neat cement about 3 inches in diameter, 
 one-half inch thick in the centre, and with very thin edges. One of 
 these cakes when set perfectly hard shall be put in water and examined 
 for distortion or cracks, and one shall be kept in air and examined 
 for color, distortion and cracks. Another cake shall be allowed to set 
 in steam for twenty-four hours and then put in boiling water for 
 twenty-four iiours. Another cake shall be allowed to set hard in dry 
 air for twenty-four hours and then put in boiling water for twenty- 
 four hours. Such cakes should at the end of the tests still adhere to the 
 glass and show neither cracks nor distortion. 
 
 A briquette, in like manner, should be allowed to set hard in dry air 
 for twenty-four hours, then boiled for twenty-four hours, be kept for five 
 days in water and show 350 pounds tensile strength. 
 
 Natural Cement. 
 
 Pats should be made on plates of glass, in the same manner as lor 
 Portland cement, and tested for cracking, distortion and color, except 
 that the boiling test will be omitted. Tests, for setting will be made 
 in accordance with requirements of the work as fast as slow-spttin<; 
 cement is needed. 
 
 In order to inspect the cement it was, as soon as manufactured, 
 placed in bins holding about 1,400 barrels each, whence samples 
 were taken and briquettes made. Until the briquettes were broken 
 for the 28-day period (unless the cement were sooner rejected), the 
 cement was held in these bins. After acceptance the cement Avas 
 packed in bags, each bag being closed with a lead seal, and thus 
 shipped to the work. During the year 1900, there were shipped 
 42,000 barrels of Portland, and 5,000 barrels of Natural cement, in- 
 volving the breaking of 3,102 briquettes; and during 1901, 148,420 
 barrels of Portland, and 10,920 barrels of Natural cement, involv- 
 ing the breaking of 27,909 briquettes, with the following results : 
 
Briquettes. 
 
 I'OUTI.AND CEMENT, NEAT. 
 
 PORTLAND CEMENT, SAND. 
 
 1900 
 1901 
 
 Broken. 
 
 1837 
 15606 
 
 Passed. 
 
 1733 
 15560 
 
 Failed. 
 
 94 
 46 
 
 Broken. 
 
 736 
 10671 
 
 698 
 10654 
 
 Failed. 
 
 28 
 17 
 
 NATURAL CEMENT, NEAT. 
 
 NATURAL CEMENT, SAND. 
 
 Year. 
 
 1900 
 1901 
 
 Broken. 
 
 411 
 750 
 
 Broken. 
 
 138 
 
 883 
 
 The average results obtained from these tests were: 
 Portland Cement. 
 
 Passed. 
 
 134 
 
 883 
 
 Year. 
 
 NEAT. 
 
 IDay. 
 
 239 lbs. 
 300 lbs. 
 150 lbs. 
 
 7 Days. 
 
 583 lbs. 
 645 lbs. 
 400 lbs. 
 
 28 Days. 
 
 1900 
 1901 
 
 Average Result 
 
 714 lbs. 
 763 lbs 
 
 
 Specification Requirement. . . 
 
 500 lbs. 
 
 
 
 
 7 Days. 
 
 376 lbs. 
 380 lbs. 
 200 lbs. 
 
 
 Yeai;. 
 
 SAND, 2 TO 1. 
 
 1 Day, 
 
 28 Days. 
 
 1900 
 
 484 lbs. 
 
 1901 
 
 
 
 535 lbs 
 
 
 
 
 300 lbs. 
 
 
 
 
 
 Natural Cement. 
 
 1900 
 1901 
 
 Average Result 
 
 Specification Requirement. 
 
 1 Day. 
 
 ' Days. 
 
 173 lbs. 
 315 lbs. 
 125 lbs. 
 
 28 Da 
 
 249 lbs. 
 333 lbs. 
 300 lbs. 
 
 Year. 
 
 1900 
 1901 
 
 SAND, 1 TO 1. 
 
 Average Result. 
 
 Specification Requirement. 
 
 1 Day. 
 
 7 Days. 
 
 118 lbs. 
 218 lbs. 
 100 lbs. 
 
 38 Da 
 
 215 lbs. 
 350 lbs. 
 150 lbs. 
 
 257 
 
358 Tests of Cement. 
 
 In the making of tests, in addition to the ordinary boiling tests, 
 the specifications called for briquettes to be allowed to set hard in 
 dry air twenty-four hours, then boiled for twenty-four hours, be 
 kept for five days in water, and show 350 lbs. tensile strength, as 
 against the requirement of 400 lbs. for briquettes not boiled. The 
 average results of such boiling .tests showed that the boiled bri- 
 quettes gave 670 lbs. as against an average of 645 lbs. for the bri- 
 quettes not boiled. The experiments to date seem to indicate that 
 briquettes boiled and then broken immediately after being cooled 
 in water show approximately the same good results as when boiled 
 and kept five days in cold water, which is the general custom pre- 
 scribed by the specification. 
 
 The work done by the Department of Inspection of Material in 
 testing cements has been exceedingly good. By locating the labora- 
 tory at the works and thus watching the manufacture of the ce- 
 ment from the quarry to the barrel, it has been possible to make 
 many suggestions to the manufacturers, that resulted in a better and 
 more regular product. In this inspection the manufacturer has 
 cheerfully co-operated, and has been so impressed with the success of 
 careful, scientific examination that he has supplemented our chem- 
 ical laboratory with an additional one of his own. Investigations re- 
 lating to the proper temperature in the burning of the cement have 
 now been undertalcen, and it is hoped will lead to still better re- 
 sults. The special quality of cement obtained was largely the re- 
 stilt of a ruling requiring a specific ratio of increase in tensile 
 strength from 7 to 28 days, and furthermore that cement showing 
 as high as 750 lbs. at the earlier stage should be generally refused as 
 unlikely to give good results in long-time tests. 
 
 The practical outcome of our close inspection has been the ob- 
 taining of a much higher grade of cement, as shown in the above 
 tables, where it will be seen that during the year 1900, out of 3,103 
 briquettes, 174 failed, while during 1901, out of 37,909 briquettes, 
 only 63 failed, with a decided increase in the average results at 
 every period of tests for both Portland and Natural cement, whether 
 neat or with sand. 
 
 During the year 1901 the Board appointed Messrs. Heins & La 
 Farge as Consulting Architects, and Messrs. Duncan and Hutchin- 
 
Eqiiipnicnt Contracts. 259 
 
 son as Consulting Electrical Engineers. Since tlieir appointment 
 the architects have been busily engaged preparing the designs for 
 the interior decoration of the stations, many of which designs it is 
 expected will be carried into execution during the current year. 
 The Electrical Engineers have reported to the Chief Engineer, who, 
 in turn, has reported to the Board that the general plans for the 
 equipment, as submitted by the Contractor, meet the require- 
 ments of the Contract. These plans, so far as decided on, in- 
 clude the erection of a power house on the block between 58th 
 and 59th Streets and Eleventh and Twelfth Avenues, in which there 
 are to be installed eight engines and eight generators having a 
 capacity of 5,000 kilowatts each under normal conditions, or 7,500 
 kilowatts under overload conditions ; the combined output ranging, 
 therefore, from 40,000 to 60,000 kilowatts, requiring from 60,000 
 to 90,000 indicated engine horse-power. 
 
 The sub-contracts for the engines have been let to the Allis- 
 Chalmers Company; for the generators and exciter outfits, to the 
 Westinghouse Electric & Manufacturing Company; and for the 
 boilers, to the Babcock & Wilcox Company. 
 
 Unfortunately it is inevitable that work of this magnitude should 
 be attended by accidents. During the years 1900 and 1901, the 
 most serious accident that occurred was a fall of rock in the south 
 heading of the shaft at 168th Street, resulting in the injury of two 
 and the death of five workmen. The Coroner's inquest that imme- 
 diately followed entirely exonerated the sub-contractor and the fore- 
 man in charge of all blame. 
 
 During the year 1900 the total of casualties was 35, of which 
 27 related to workmen and 8 to outsiders. During the year 1901, 
 on account of the larger number of men employed and the greater 
 extent of work open, the casualties increased to 176, of which 156 
 befell workmen, 3 the engineering staff, and 17 persons not con- 
 nected with the work. During the two years, 16 of the above acci- 
 dents were fatal, 15 being workmen, and one a bystander, the latter 
 accident being due entirely to personal carelessness. 
 
 The design for the railway contemplates a track structure without 
 ballast, the rail being fastened to a continuous wooden support, 
 the latter resting on the concrete composing the floor. In order that 
 
260 Special Track. 
 
 this idea — somewhat novel in railway construction — should be 
 thoroughly tested, William H. Baldwin, Esquire, President of the 
 Long Island Eailroad, courteously permitted the relaying of one- 
 quarter mile of the main line of the Long Island Eailroad, near 
 Jamaica, Long Island, on this principle, the expense of the ex- 
 periment being borne by the Contractor. Several types of track 
 have been laid and put into regular service. It is proposed to let 
 these types remain and test their durability practically. At the 
 close of the year sufficient time had not elapsed to express any 
 opinion as to the result of the test. 
 
 From the Auditor's report it will be seen that disbursements on 
 account of "construction," during the years 1900 and 1901, 
 amounted to $12,190,000 ; and that the disbursements on account 
 of "engineering," for the same period, amounted to $509,30-5.53. 
 This last figure covers the disbursements for salaries, rent, furniture 
 and supplies, and all other expenses in connection with the Engi- 
 neering Department, including the maintenance of the Department 
 of Tests at the Steel and Cement Works. The cost of supervising 
 the work to. date has, therefore, been about 4 per cent. 
 
 It is with great pleasure that the Chief Engineer avails him- 
 self of this opportunity to record the faithful and conscientious 
 work rendered by all members of the Engineering Department, and 
 also his personal appreciation of the services of the Division Engi- 
 neers and the General Inspectors and those members of the stafE 
 with whom he comes in personal contact. 
 
 Eespectfully submitted, 
 
 WM. BAECLAY PAESOISTS, 
 
 Chief Engineer. 
 
REPORT 
 
 OF THE 
 
 AUDITOR 
 
City of New York, 
 Board of Rapid Transit Railroad Commissioners. 
 
 Auditor's Office, January 1, 1902. 
 
 The Honorable Board of Rapid Transit Railroad Commissioners: 
 
 Gentlemen : — I have the honor to submit herewith a report of 
 the Auditor in relation to the finances of the Board of Rapid 
 Transit Railroad Commissioners, for the period June 18, 1894, 
 to December 31, 1901, giving in general and in detail a — 
 
 (Folios 365 and 266). Statement showing the requisitions 
 made upon the Board of Estimate and Apportionment for the 
 authorization for the issue of Revenue Bonds for the requirements 
 of the Board of Rapid Transit Railroad Commissioners, from 
 June 18, 189-4, to December 31, 1901. 
 
 (Folio 267). Statement showing the Appropriations made by 
 the Board of Estimate and Apportionment for the purposes of 
 the Board of Rapid Transit Railroad Commissioners, from June 
 18, 1894, to January 14, 1902. 
 
 Statements showing the Disbursements of the General Fund 
 made under the direction of the Rapid Transit Board, from June 
 18, 1894, to December 31, 1901, viz. : 
 
 (Folio 268). Administrative and General Office. 
 
 (Folio 269). Engineering. 
 
 (Folios 270 and 271). Legal, and a Summary of General 
 Fund Disbursements. 
 
 (Folios 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278 and 279.) A Tran- 
 script of general information relative to the Contract and Con- 
 struction. Bonds and Sureties. 
 
 (Folio 280). Statement showing the issues of Corporate Stock 
 of the City of New York from June 25, 1900, to December 31, 
 1901, the proceeds thereof to be applied to the construction of 
 the Rapid Transit Railroad. 
 
 263 
 
364 Auditor s Report. 
 
 (Folio 381). Statement showing the requisitions made upon 
 the Board of Rapid Transit Railroad Commissioners, and the 
 payments made under the direction of the said Rapid Transit 
 Board to John £. McDonald, Contractor, for work done and 
 materials furnished under contract dated February 31, 1900, for 
 the construction and operation of the Rapid Transit Railroad of 
 the City of New York from February 31, 1900, to December 
 31, 1901. 
 
 (Folio 383). Statement showing the requisitions made upon 
 the Board of Rapid Transit Railroad Commissioners, and the 
 payments made under the direction of the said Rapid Transit 
 Board to John B. McDonald, Contractor, for Extra Work done 
 and materials furnished under contract dated February 31, 1900, 
 for the construction and operation of the Rapid Transit Railroad 
 of the City of New York from May 3, 1901, to December 31, 
 1901, in accordance with the resolution of the Board adopted 
 May 3, 1901, providing for the construction of a third track 
 on the portion of the route extending along the Boulevard (now 
 Broadway) from 103d to 137th Streets in accordance with an 
 agreement between the Contractor and the City, and the sureties 
 to the said contract of February 31, 1900, dated May 3, 1901. 
 
 (Folio 383). Statement showing the payments made under 
 the direction of the City Comptroller for interest due on the 
 Corporate Stock issued by the City of New York for the con- 
 struction of the Rapid Transit Railroad, and a Summary of Con- 
 struction Fund Disbursements. 
 
 (Folios 384 and 385). Statements showing the Yearly Bal- 
 ances of the General Fund and the Construction Fund. 
 
 (Folios 386 and 387). Recapitulation. 
 Respectfully submitted, 
 
 H. A. D. HOLLMANN, 
 
 Auditor. 
 
General Fund — Requisitions. 
 
 265 
 
 GENERAL FUND. 
 
 REQUISITIONS. 
 
 Statement of requisitions made upon the Board of Estimate 
 and Apportionment, for the authorization for the issue of 
 Revenue Bonds, for the requirements of the Board of Rapid 
 Transit Railroad Commissioners, from June 18, 1894, to De- 
 cember 31, 1901. 
 
 June39,1894. Asstatedon 
 
 Jan. 8, 1895. 
 Apr. 11, " 
 May 7, " 
 Sept. 24, " 
 Dec. 17, ■' 
 Junel8,1896. 
 
 Nov. 19, " 
 Feb. 18,1897. 
 May 20, " 
 July 29, " 
 Nov. 18, " 
 April?, 1898. " 
 Dec. 22, " 
 April 6, 1899. 
 
 " 18, " 
 July 13, " 
 Nov. 3, " 
 Feb. 7, 1900. " 
 Mar. 29, " 
 July 13, " 
 Jan. 10. 1901. " 
 Mar. 38, " 
 April 4, " " 
 
 May 3, 
 
 " 33, " 
 Sept. 9, 
 
 o of the Minutes of the Rapid Ti-aiisit CommiBsion. 
 
 93 
 183 
 236 
 
 297 
 
 324 
 
 389 
 
 390 
 
 434 
 
 484 
 
 517 
 
 538 
 
 588 
 
 643 
 
 759 
 
 803 
 
 806 
 
 827 
 
 851 
 
 885 
 
 929 
 
 990 
 
 1115 
 
 1159 
 
 1178 
 
 1198 
 
 1208 
 
 1263 
 
 $ 5,000.00 
 
 21,793.42 
 
 5,000.00 
 
 17,751.19 
 
 14,773.52 
 
 30,118.63 
 
 40,799.60 
 
 9,602,50 
 
 16,545.83 
 
 16,950.04 
 
 18,784.87 
 
 18,578.55 
 
 45,218.75 
 
 34,115.31 
 
 8,838.16 
 
 10,610.00 
 
 1,806.70 
 
 6,113.33 
 
 9,095.30 
 
 61,219.90 
 
 55,500.00 
 
 129,673.38 
 
 379,500.00 
 
 80,000.00 
 
 8,131.60 
 
 500.00 
 
 5,000,00 
 
 400.0 
 
 $996,348.47 
 
 The Board of Rapid Transit Railroad Commissioners under date 
 of September 24, 1895, made requisition upon the Board of Esti- 
 timate and Apportionment, for the issue of Revenue Bonds to the 
 amount of $14,772.53 in addition to the unexpended balances of 
 previous appropriations made on June 4, 1895, and on June 25, 1895 ; 
 this unexpended balance to be rendered applicable vf ith the amount 
 of the said requisition, for the payment of expenses of the Com- 
 mission, (as stated on page 297 of the minutes of 1895 of the Rapid 
 Transit Board). Of this amount, $3,979.98 of the said unexpended 
 balance was duly reappropriated on October 24, 1895, (as stated on 
 page 504 of the minutes of 1895, of the Board of Estimate), and on 
 November 19, 1895, the issue of Revenue Bonds to the amount of 
 $9,353. 37, (as stated on page 805 of the minutes of 1895, of the Board 
 of Estimate), and on January 10, 1896, to the amount of $7,386.56, 
 (as stated on page 18 of the minutes of 1896 of the Board of Estimate), 
 were authorized by the said Board of Estimate, making a total issue of 
 Revenue Bonds amounting to $16,588.83 for the purposes of the 
 Rapid Transit Board; or the sum of $1,816.31 in excess of the 
 amount of the original requisition $1,816.31 
 
 Amount carried forward $998,164.78 
 
266 General Fund — Requisitions. 
 
 REQUISITIONS— a;«//«2^«(f. 
 
 Amount brought forward $998,164.78 
 The said Board of Rapid Transit Railroad Com- 
 missioners under date of November 18, 1897, made 
 requisition upon the Board of Estimate and Appor- 
 tionment for the issue of Revenue Bonds to the 
 amount of $45,218.75 for the payment of expenses of 
 the Commission, (as stated on page 538 of the minutes 
 of 1897, of the Rapid Transit Board). Of this amount 
 $14,478.(53 was appropriated on November 33, 1897, 
 $10,961.64 on February 38, 1898, and $5,345.45 on 
 June 7, 1898, by the said Board of Estimate, making- 
 a total of $30,785.71, and leaving a balance of 
 $14,433.04 of the original requisition unappropriated. 
 It appearing that an appropriation of $30,785.71 would 
 suflSce to satisfy the purposes of the said requisition, 
 (as stated on page 689 of the minutes of 1898, of the 
 Board of Estimate) $14,433.04 
 
 The said Rapid Transit Board under date of April 
 7, 1898, again made requisition upon the Board of 
 Estimate and Apportionment for the issue of Revenue 
 Bonds to the amount of $34,115.31 for the payment of 
 expenses of the Board, (as stated on page 643 of the 
 minutes of 1898, of the Rapid Transit Board). Of 
 this amount $38,345.66 was appropriated on July 1, 
 1898, leaving a balance of $5,869.55 of the original 
 requisition unappropriated. It appearing that an ap- 
 propriation of $38,345.66 would sufHce to satisfy the 
 purposes of the said requisition, (as stated on page 
 779 of the minutes of 1898, of the Board of Estimate). $5,869.55 
 
 $30,302.59 
 
 Total amount of Requisitions made upon the Board of Estimate f $977,863. 19 
 and Apportionment for the requirements of the Board of Rapid J =^ 
 
 Transit Railroad Commissioners, from June 18, 1894, to December 1 
 
 31, 1901 
 
< 
 o 
 
 X 
 
 
 0.7 
 
 wo 
 
 rr 
 
 35 
 
 ■r- 
 
 tH 
 
 a 
 
 Ttl 
 
 u 
 
 
 t^ 
 
 >- 
 
 
 <A 
 
 z 
 [-1 
 
 < 
 
 
 < 
 
 7i 
 
 
 o 
 
 n 
 
 
 
 H 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 O^ 
 
 P- 05 
 
 P. 00 
 
 <; 
 
 T-l 
 
 
 00 
 
 < 
 
 w 
 
 
 « 
 
 \^ 
 
 D 
 
 
 1 — 1 
 
 <; 
 
 s 
 
 
 
 H 
 
 n 
 
 
 
 W 
 
 " 
 
 [£< 
 
 
 O 
 
 W 
 
 
 Sr. 
 
 P 
 
 O 
 
 « 
 
 
 < 
 
 
 o 
 m 
 
 S 
 
 s 
 o 
 
 
 « 
 ft i^i 
 
 M 
 
 O 
 2 
 
 C/v 
 
 0«T-( o 
 
 8eg 8 
 
 «0 i> I/) 
 
 c»cc c 
 
 3 52®*" 
 
 jj- - - o 
 
 -lOt-CQTQOSOTOOOCSC 
 
 W CQ so 00 O t- '»_(N_(?J rH CO C- O "* OS, CO C 
 
 oTtvo'oi oi'co cT^jTofin T-i co ro'-^ o >ri a 
 
 QOtOMWOiOcOOO-T-iO 
 8rH0r-<®-i-l0r-QOG*0 
 
 ■5 O 00 tH * ^ ~ ■ — 
 
 (NlO«DOOTHiC3^TP»0 
 
 SQOOt-ICOOIthWOiOOQO 
 i-( <£iiiO(»t-cg 
 
 T-ICO 
 
 SosDOOOO 
 
 ooTH»oo^Tf<»n 
 jo'o'ocj lO ■*' 
 
 
 ooccin 
 
 tHOt-IOS 
 «D00-iHO 
 
 t-OOS^QOQO 
 eo m T-l CO c- £- 
 (M 1-1 oo t- lO TI< 
 
 CDCOTji m<fflC*QO 
 0?0 rHOTCOt- 
 CO CO_^X5 O i-^^ C«_ 
 
 <>"o' aid CO oi rh" 
 
 go oj o 1-1 <N 
 
 - - J Ol- - ^ - - Oi- - O- - - - o- - o- 
 
 -•-.-. 00 ■• - - - - 00- - oi -■ -■ - - Ci-" ' Of 
 
 
 co- 
 
 spa 
 
 
 !coO : 
 
 SS . ra- 
 ft . ft 
 
 5 « fi 
 
 « B 1) 
 
 gj000n*SDeDOT*i00OO"*'2?**3W0aOO»0«DC0eDt-(0C-O00Ci; 
 oi-<iHCocooopiE3<"^S!2^'~'^°OQOc»«(NSot-io)OOJosa 
 
 is""^ 
 
 , ;; 
 
 -. 1 
 
 
 
 
 C^^iO^ 
 
 U3 ■*' 
 
 OS'O" 
 
 W U 
 
 
 
 
 
 £ r 
 
 
 
 3 "a 
 
 ■ 5 
 
 iZi-, 
 
 : : = = ^ - S . , 
 
 - g . . S. 
 
 I 1-" r-i rH rH tH 
 
 I rH OJcOrtt-) tHo^oJ*- " g^ « oi cr; ,-( '^ ^COoJ' 
 
 . i_* t^*i . .; . J 1> ti > n" ri >i'J'r! ^ sT iJ-ri h'n ■ l: 
 
 1 n't: 2'^ 
 
 ,S AiXon^^ |izi(j;A4fl<! 42;S-?<!^S 
 
 oefy 
 
 
 
 ftco 
 
 =^ 2 
 
 3 3 
 
 is 
 
 267 
 
a, 
 
 O 
 
 V 
 
 o 
 W 
 
 0) 
 J3 
 
 a 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 05 
 
 JH CO 
 
 (3 
 
 o 
 
 fa 
 fa 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 Ui 
 
 <L> 
 
 ■< 
 
 Q 
 
 
 
 X3 
 
 a 
 
 <U 
 
 « 
 
 M 
 
 Z 
 
 cn 
 
 <D 
 
 <U 
 
 2 
 
 P 
 
 ^ 
 
 Clj 
 
 P 
 
 W 
 
 fe 
 
 w 
 
 a 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 < 
 
 
 1) 
 
 
 Q 
 2 
 
 
 p4 
 
 pq 
 I— t 
 Q 
 
 .2 
 
 T— 1 
 
 c 
 
 < 
 > 
 
 O 
 
 
 O 
 
 1 — . 
 
 
 
 
 4-> 
 
 o 
 
 Q^ 
 
 
 
 d 
 
 ^ 
 
 H 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 ^ 
 
 w 
 
 
 
 p 
 
 lh 
 
 HH 
 
 
 
 n! 
 
 <u 
 
 '4. 
 
 
 
 J3 
 
 _o 
 
 
 
 
 hn 
 
 en 
 
 Q 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 5 
 
 <: 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 jd 
 
 CJ 
 
 
 
 
 li 
 
 Tl 
 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 O 
 
 
 
 
 H 
 
 
 
 
 
 u 
 
 ca 
 
 
 03 00 00 CD W 
 
 ffl CO CO 
 
 l> I- iH 
 
 QO t- O 
 
 CO W CS 
 
 iH iH C-! 
 
 o: ■>* CO 
 
 ^ X CO 
 ir- i> CO 
 
 § I 
 
 o S 
 
 CI 
 
 a 
 
 ae3 <^ 
 
 268 
 
Ti< X t~ C( H 'M rH K3 
 
 I- 3: -t c; iH c; 7\ o 
 xi*?('f dxood 
 oormiHxcOiH 
 
 'ti -H -^ X H -+< « 01 
 
 OrHrH 
 
 LQ 
 
 01 m 01 
 
 00 CO CD 
 
 <r) »n ■* L-- in o CO 
 ■^_ 01 in oj 01 o o 
 
 rH CJ CO i-i i> iri CO 
 Oi to O Tt< '^ OK"- 
 0| W "3 !> O^^JH^ 
 
 cd" ofoftnrH 
 
 X i> X 01 r-i Tt< en CO 
 
 OI>05C-_-^tH-*C0 
 
 01 in ■* oj cd CO i--^ X 
 
 CO CO r-( X X 00 O H 
 ■!i<rHCD!> -^COOt 
 
 i>os"oico 
 
 Ol 
 
 i-. Ttl CD 
 
 CO lO CO 
 
 m L- CJ i> 
 
 :xcog: 
 
 . r^oi•- 
 •Tt^ol- 
 
 | O! iH to W O X 0> 
 
 ^^■>to;xccinc? 
 
 OJt--XXO!0 0( 
 
 I o_o:x^x__ o_ 
 
 j o'lo'-t'ff iH 
 
 ■* 00 05 
 
 I 
 in 
 
 w 
 w 
 
 m 
 en 
 
 O 
 
 z 
 
 I— I 
 
 w 
 o 
 
 W 
 
 ■ to ft 
 
 :ai a 
 •2-S 
 
 (DEC 
 
 ea d f^ ee 2 
 
 Tfl O l^ 
 
 tn CO i> 
 t-' c>i « 
 
 (O O^ r-l 
 
 
 3 „- 3 a S . 
 B S -3 
 
 to ; 
 
 <u ■ 
 
 t> to 
 
 05 (u 
 
 to M 
 
 ag 
 
 bog 
 
 369 
 
COO) CD 
 fNHOO 
 
 e&co»o 
 
 O X t- M Tfl « 
 i-iOiCDTHCDX 
 
 O Ifl 00 X t- 
 U3 CO -^ (M W 
 
 c>( CO ci iH 01 
 
 0) O S A 
 
 : -a -Hate 
 
 'H t> C 
 
 a « a) g ©Hp 
 
 +3 O *< E 
 
 f^n'0 V-) O aj (IJ 
 
 VS ? 2 P |S 
 
 aj 3?.j^,SiT-(^ 
 
 <D O d 
 
 •g^opqH 
 feco 5;:S O'C 
 
 O j3 t* tH o 
 
 W43.y Sm a 
 
 ^^ fl.SS '^ 
 
 o w ftOJi; o 
 
 
 OtHOOiH 
 OWCOt- 
 Ot-H 
 
 OCOi-ICO 
 
 oorocD 
 
 CCiH rHCDOm 
 mtOO^COr-i 
 XOIM'^CDX 
 
 CO in 05 05 O CD 
 
 coiowojinoi 
 
 W H W Ol CO CD 
 
 Or-I«t-(CD 
 O X W CM W 
 
 W3 cj to in >* 
 
 00 ■ 
 
 dj • 
 en ■ 
 
 §: 
 
 ft - 
 
 ^ in 
 
 ;^ ^ 
 _ Sill ■ 
 
 safe; 
 
 hH 
 
 370 
 
 >. 
 ^ 
 
 flj ft 
 
 |6|| 
 
 oS«S 
 
 5 or 
 d-M >i © 
 
 ■Spa 
 d ced es 
 
 d-d OAh^ 
 O 
 
 
H 
 
 o 
 
 '^' 
 
 a 
 
 < 
 CI 
 
 w 
 
 W lO CO o o 
 OtJI KOI 
 
 g ^1 
 
 -5, 
 
 >< 
 
 H 
 
 p 
 & 
 <i 
 
 H 
 
 M 
 
 H 
 O 
 g 
 H 
 
 CO 
 
 ■a 
 
 O 
 O 
 
 H o 
 
 coo. 
 
 n o w 
 
 O L, i^ 
 
 ills 
 
 C5 
 2; 
 
 M 
 EH 
 
 H 
 
 n 
 
 
 ■3 PI 
 
 S O S 
 
 ' c3 m 0-* 
 So ^9^ 
 
 G 
 
 W 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 >^ 
 < 
 
 % 
 
 CO 
 
 «dco 
 
 rHXO 
 
 oooos 
 
 w 
 
 H 
 
 W 
 % 
 
 w 
 
 D 
 PQ 
 
 < Q 
 
 Pi 
 
 4^ h 
 to (V> 
 
 271 
 
272 
 
 Contract and Construction. 
 
 CONTRACT AND CONSTRUCTION. 
 
 Being a transcript of general information relative to the 
 Contract and Construction. 
 
 Requisition. 
 
 On March 1, 1900, a letter dated February 27, 1900, ad- 
 dressed to the Honorable Robert A. Van Wyck, Mayor, Etc., 
 Chairman of the Board of Estimate and Apportionment of the 
 City of New York, by the Honorable Alexander E. Orr, Presi- 
 dent of the Board of Rapid Transit Railroad Commissioners, 
 and handing therewith a certified copy of a resolution of the said 
 Board of Rapid Transit Railroad Commissioners adopted Feb- 
 ruary 26, 190.0, (as stated on page 910 of the minutes of 1900, of 
 the Rapid Transit Board) making requisition upon the Board of 
 Estimate and Apportionment for the sum of thirty-six million 
 five hundred dollars, being the entire estimated cost for 
 Construction and for Real Estate, for Terminals, Etc., of the 
 proposed Rapid Transit Railroad, was presented by the Honor- 
 able Bird S. Coler, Comptroller, and pursuant to the same and 
 the provisions of chapter 4 of the Laws of 1891, and the acts 
 amendatory thereof, the said Board of Estimate and Apportion- 
 ment at the stated meeting held on March 1, 1900, authorized 
 the issue from time to time as may be required in the manner 
 provided by law. Corporate Stock of the City of New York to an 
 ampunt not exceeding the sum of $36,500,000.00 to be applied to 
 the purpose described in the said requisition of the Rapid Transit 
 Board (as stated on page 160 of the minutes of 1900, of the 
 Board of Estimate and Apportionment). 
 
 CONTRACT. 
 
 Proposals received and opened at 
 the meeting of tjie Board of Rapid 
 Transit Railroad Commissioners, 
 January 15, 1900, (as stated on page 
 863 of the minutes of 1900, of the 
 Rapid Transit Board). 
 
 City of New York. 
 
 Contract awarded to John B. 
 McDonald, Contractor, at the meet- 
 ing of the Board of Rapid Transit 
 Railroad Commissioners, January 16, 
 1900, (as stated on page 869 of the 
 minutes of 1900, of the Rapid Transit 
 Board). 
 
 Department of Finance. 
 
 Contract No. 3134. 
 Dated February 31, 1900. Filed March 36, 1900. 
 
 ( The Board of Rapid Transit 
 Department of \ Railroad Commissioners 
 ( of the City of New York. 
 Statement of Estimates and Account in the matter of the Contract for fully 
 constructing and equipping the Rapid Transit Railroad, and to put the same in 
 operation and thereafter to use, maintain and operate the same under a lease 
 thereof from the City of New York for the term of fifty years. 
 JOHN B. MCDONALD, Contractor. 
 
Estii7iate for Construction — Extra Work. 273 
 
 Expiration of Contract J ^, 
 
 for Sections I, II, III, IV. / */^ ^^^'^^• 
 
 Estimate. 
 
 Estimated cost for Construction, and for Real Estate, for 
 Terminals, etc. 
 
 For Section I $15,000,000.00 
 
 Terminals 1,000,000.00 
 
 Real Estate 170,000.00 
 
 For Sections I and II $26,000,000.00 
 
 Terminals 1,000,000.00 
 
 Real Estate 370,000.00 
 
 For Sections I, II and III $32,000,000.00 
 
 Terminals 1,000,000.00 
 
 Real Estate 460,000.00 
 
 For Sections I, II, III and IV $35,000,000.00 
 Terminals 1,000,000.00 
 
 Real Estate 500,000.00 
 
 Extra Work. 
 
 $16,170,000.00 
 
 $27,370,000.00 
 
 $33,460,000.00 
 
 $36,500,000.00 
 
 A resolution adopted by the Board of Rapid Transit Rail- 
 road Commissioners at a meeting of the said Board on May 2, 
 1901, providing for the construction of a third track on the 
 portion of the route extending along the Boulevard (now Broad- 
 way) from 103rd to 137th Streets, that the work of such con- 
 struction be done and paid for as Extra Work under contract for 
 the construction and operation of the Rapid Transit Railroad 
 dated February 21, 1900 (as stated on page 1193 of the minutes 
 of 1901, of the said Rapid Transit Board). 
 
374 Bonds and Sureties. 
 
 Security. 
 
 Amount in Cash. For Construction pursuant 
 to the Contract, deposited with the City- 
 Chamberlain February 24, 1900 $1,000,000.00 
 
 Bond for Construction and Equipment, 
 deposited with the City Comptroller at 
 the time of execution of the Contract 6,000,000.00 
 
 Bond (continuing) for Rental and also for 
 Construction, deposited with the City 
 Comptroller at the time of execution of 
 the Contract 1,000,000.00 
 
 Securities deposited with the City Comp- 
 troller at the time of execution of the 
 Contract. Additional security for the 
 performance of the provisions of the 
 Bond for Rental and Construction. 1,000,000.00 
 
 Securities deposited with the City Comp- 
 troller, January, 1901. Security for 
 Construction and Equipment 1,000,000.00 
 
 Sureties. 
 
 Names of the sureties for the $5,000,000.00 Construction 
 and Equipment Bond. 
 
 $4,000,000.00 $250,000.00 
 
 The Rapid Transit Subway The United States Fidelity - 
 
 Construction Company & Guaranty Company 
 
 of New York. of Maryland. 
 
 $250,000.00 
 
 The City Trust, Safe Deposit 
 
 and Surety Company 
 
 of Philadelphia, Pa. 
 
 $250,000.00 $250,000.00 
 
 The American Surety The National Surety 
 
 Company of New York. Company of New York. 
 
 Name of the surety for the $1,000,000.00 Continuing Bond 
 for Rental and also for Construction. 
 
 Perry Belmont, 
 New York. 
 
Securities. 275 
 
 SECURITIES. 
 
 Statement of Securities deposited with The Comptroller of the 
 City of New York by the Rapid Transit Subway Construction 
 Company as additional security for the performance of the pro- 
 visions of the Bond for Rental and Construction. 
 
 Bonds and Stock Registered in the Name of "The Comp- 
 troller OF THE City of New York, in Trust as 
 Security for John B. McDonald, Rapid 
 Transit Railroad Constructor." 
 
 $270,000 :yr Illinois Central Railroad Company, St. Louis Di- 
 vision and Terminal First Mortgage Gold Bonds, 
 (Nos. 80 to 99, inclusive, 1510 to 159G, inclusive, 2646, 
 2652 to 2057, inclusive, 3486 to 3536, inclusive, 3587 
 to 3618, inclusive, 3626 to 3681, inclusive, 4155, and 
 4318 to 4333, inclusive, for $1,000 each). 
 Principal payable July 1st, 1951. 
 Interest payable January 1st and July 1st. 
 100,000 3^; School House Bonds of the City of New York. 
 Principal payable November 1st, 1908. 
 Interest payable May 1st and November 1st. 
 100,000 3^*; Dock Bonds of the City of New York. 
 Principal payable November 1st, 1914. 
 Interest payable May 1st and November 1st. 
 200,000 Zio Dock Bonds of the City of New York. 
 Principal payable November 1st, 1924. 
 Interest payable May 1st and November 1st. 
 100,000 Zio Additional Water Stock of the City of New York. 
 Principal payable October 1st, 1907. 
 Interest payable .April 1st and October 1st. 
 250,000 'iy^i Corporate Stock of the City of New York for the 
 new Aqueduct. 
 
 Princijral payable October 1st, 1919. 
 Interest payable April 1st and October 1st. 
 
 L, 020,000 
 
276 Securities. 
 
 SECURITIES. 
 
 Statement of Securities deposited with The Comptroller of the 
 City of New York by the Rapid Transit Subway Construction 
 Company, as security for Construction and Equipment. 
 
 Bonds and Stock Registered in the Name of "The Comp- 
 troller OF the City of New York, in Trust as 
 Security for John B. McDonald, Rapid 
 Transit Railroad Constructor." 
 
 $30,000 Zi Additional Water Stock of the City of New Yorlc. ' 
 Principal payable October 1st, 1905. 
 Interest payable April 1st and October 1st. 
 30,000 Zi Consolidated Stock of the City of New York, for 
 acquiring lands for Mulberry Bend Park. 
 Principal payable November 1st, 1924. 
 Interest payable May 1st and November 1st. 
 50,000 Zi Dock Bonds of the City of New York. 
 Principal payable November 1st, 1925. 
 Interest payable May 1st and November 1st. 
 15,000 Zyxi Consolidated Stock of the City of New York 
 for the new East River Bridge. 
 
 Principal payable November 1st, 1918. 
 Interest payable May 1st and November 1st. 
 30,000 Zy^i Corporate Stock of the City of New York for 
 the New Aqueduct. 
 
 Principal payable October 1st, 1919. 
 Interest payable April 1st and October 1st. 
 25,000 Zy^i Corporate Stock of the City of New York, for 
 School Houses and Sites therefor in the Boroughs of 
 Manhattan and The Bronx. 
 
 Principal payable November 1st, 1940. 
 Interest payable May 1st and November 1st. 
 100,000 Zy^i Corporate Stock of the City of New York, for 
 the Uses and Purposes of the Department of Docks 
 and Ferries. 
 
 Principal payable November 1st, 1928. 
 Interest payable May 1st and November 1st. 
 
 $270,000 Amount carried forward. 
 
Securities — City Lien on Equipment. 277 
 
 $270,000 Amount brought forivard. 
 237,000 31^^ Corporate Stock of the City of New York, for 
 the Construction of the Rapid Transit Railroad. 
 Principal payable November 1st, 1950. 
 Interest payable May 1st and November 1st. 
 
 Coupon Bonds. 
 
 250,000 'r,<fc Chicago & Alton Railroad Company Refunding 
 50 years Gold Bonds (Nos. 15115 to 15364, inclusive, 
 for $1,000 each). 
 
 Principal payable October 1st, 1949. 
 
 Interest payable April 1st, and October 1st. 
 251,000 3^ Illinois Central Railroad Company, Litchfield 
 Division, First Mortgage Gold Bonds, (Nos. 751 to 
 1000 inclusive, and 1500, for $1,000 each). 
 
 Principal payable January 1st, 1951. 
 
 Interest payable January 1st and July 1st. 
 
 1,008,000 
 
 CITY LIEN ON EQUIPMENT. 
 
 The City shall also have a first lien upon the Equipment of the 
 Railroad, as further security for the faithful performance by the 
 Contractor of the covenants, conditions and agreements of the 
 contract of February 21, 1900. Such lien shall arise immediately 
 upon the acquisition by the Contractor of any part of the Equip- 
 ment for use on or in connection with the said Railroad or any 
 part of it, or intended for such use, whether or not such equipment 
 be set up or delivered upon or at the railway. 
 

 ID CO 
 
 o a 
 
 aj 
 
 .-a H 
 
 (D 
 
 2; 
 o 
 
 l-H 
 
 H 
 o 
 D 
 
 ft; 
 h 
 
 M 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 h 
 o 
 
 < 
 
 h 
 
 O 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 tn 
 Q 
 Z 
 O 
 PQ 
 
 ni 
 
 Pi 
 
 t: 
 
 ^ 
 
 v 
 
 
 a 
 
 
 b/) 
 
 T-H 
 
 
 
 
 
 m 
 
 
 OJ 
 
 rH 
 
 
 M-( 
 
 
 o 
 
 T1 
 
 
 c 
 o 
 
 ■4-J 
 
 eq 
 
 a 
 
 o 
 
 u-< 
 
 fa 
 
 O 
 
 <1 
 
 :r. 
 
 
 
 
 ^> 
 
 Ti 
 
 
 fi 
 
 rH 
 
 aJ 
 
 0) 
 
 
 b/i 
 
 >^ 
 
 tn 
 
 -i-> 
 
 a 
 
 3 o 
 
 E ■" 
 
 t-l ni 
 
 If 
 o (J 
 <L> « 
 
 C/p J-j 
 
 /3 H 
 3 O 
 Ol U 
 
 i-T -a 
 
 O C 
 ni O 
 
 J= Q 
 
 C O 
 
 ° s 
 V 
 
 CO S 
 4=1 
 
 E 
 
 
 
 M o 
 ►4 -i 
 
 ;" .C 
 
 a 
 
 5 -S y ^^ 
 
 n -.S -4? 
 
 ; c oj 's G 
 
 1 — — f^ — I 
 
 ^,n .^ s "^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 = 2 C ;^ 
 
 a--^ 
 
 
 QB 
 
 O 
 
 r. i ^ 
 
 w 
 
 5o 
 
 CO 
 
 a o 
 
 
 ft 
 
 
 
 5? 
 
 
 '5E 
 
 S 
 
 
 S -S 
 
 
 s s 
 
 c_/ eft 
 
 rH C 
 
 
 
 
 :***> 
 
 : p>> ■ 
 
 . i> c3 : 
 
 ^ O; ^ O (D 
 
 4J Si"*^ S-^ -t^ ci; d " ^ ^ i^ « ^ 
 
 ■ C7h^ r . ^ _ -*^ 
 
 OiJ^"" '~'~I^ ■OJi—' 
 
 s:;r ^o"^^ i'^'o? 
 
 ''-^ J S ■ c ^ i^ ■ r^ 9^ - 
 
 4J o o — ^' - a: .=: 1: ^ 
 -: +-> ^ K „ , . 
 
 ^ vj ?:; 00 - ^ 
 
 gx 
 
 S-2i cS 
 
 Bcq'c^ ax 
 
 "5 
 
 a 'T c-i _ .z =t CI r s :5 E , 
 
 X+: 
 
 iS'H.c 
 
 : =t 
 
 E-^K-; 
 
 iSrS-S --^ 
 
 
 ^ c 
 
 - c 
 
 '^..'S 
 
279 
 
Q 
 
 o 
 
 H 
 U 
 
 O 
 U 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 e 
 
 
 o 
 
 n1 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 Oi 
 
 H 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 "a 
 
 
 lO 
 
 
 
 « 
 
 rt 
 
 
 <D 
 
 P^ 
 
 
 a 
 
 3 
 
 : — . 
 
 
 
 F 
 
 »4-( 
 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 
 (-< 
 
 
 
 
 C! 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 o 
 
 
 A! 
 
 
 
 O 
 
 o 
 
 3 
 1-1 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 O 
 
 r: 
 
 M 
 
 >^ 
 
 -M 
 
 o 
 
 ■*-> 
 
 n 
 
 o 
 
 u 
 
 4-> 
 
 H 
 
 (U 
 
 •a 
 
 w 
 
 J5 
 
 (U 
 
 U 
 
 o 
 
 a. 
 
 H 
 
 ^ 
 
 cd 
 
 < 
 
 o 
 
 u 
 
 (^ 
 
 o 
 
 ^ 
 
 O 
 
 c« 
 
 o 
 
 cu 
 
 1) 
 
 -(-> 
 
 » 
 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 O 
 
 u 
 
 o 
 
 a 
 
 u. 
 
 
 o 
 
 J3 
 
 
 U 
 
 
 
 
 cfl 
 
 
 o 
 
 ■a 
 
 
 1) 
 
 0) 
 
 
 d 
 
 C) 
 
 
 tn 
 
 o 
 
 C 
 
 o 9 
 
 C ,-1 
 U CO 
 
 
 CQ 
 
 8 
 
 g s 
 
 s 
 
 8 
 
 s 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 o_: 
 
 ^ 
 
 O O 
 
 ~~io 
 
 ^ 
 
 in 
 
 ^5 
 
 
 
 
 
 tC 
 
 S' 
 
 t s 
 
 s 
 
 3- 
 
 °? 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 Ic 
 
 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 rn' ffif 
 
 
 cc 
 
 cJ 
 
 -o 
 
 c© 
 
 
 
 
 
 tf 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 s 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 <i 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 a 
 
 a 
 
 o 
 
 CO o 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 OS o 
 
 in 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 „ 
 
 § g 
 
 ~«r 
 
 ^ 
 
 in 
 
 oa 
 
 
 
 
 t^ 
 
 u 
 
 
 O l- 
 
 
 
 w 
 
 Ph 
 
 K 
 
 « «- 
 
 CO 
 
 g 
 
 e-" 
 
 
 o 
 
 M «5 
 
 03 
 
 in 
 
 o 
 
 ^ 
 
 « 
 
 
 
 
 "S 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 s 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 <j 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■d 
 a- 
 
 8 
 
 s s 
 
 8 
 
 8 
 
 s 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 o 
 
 o o 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 O <=i 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 O 
 
 o^ c_ 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 in 
 
 o" 
 
 
 (-J" 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 § 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 s 
 
 «& 
 
 i-T o« 
 
 ^ 
 
 co- 
 
 N 
 
 < 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^- 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 "C?. 
 
 * ^ 
 
 eo T-i 
 
 ^ 
 
 in 
 
 03 
 
 
 Tj) in 
 
 
 
 CM 
 
 o 
 
 T-l 
 
 T-i o 
 
 S3 
 
 co' 
 
 CO 
 
 J3 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 m ■ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 5 
 
 ^ S 
 
 ; 
 
 ^ 
 
 - 
 
 d^ 
 
 M 
 
 ^ CO 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 o 
 
 S8 
 
 s 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 OJ 
 
 oa 
 
 
 
 TH 
 
 
 IH 
 
 
 
 K 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 •"§ 
 
 t-t 
 
 
 
 
 " 
 
 p 
 
 <I> 
 
 
 
 
 
 -S 
 
 ■O 
 
 
 
 
 
 d 
 
 3 
 
 a 
 
 o 
 
 . - 
 
 - 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 'A 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 S 
 
 ■V ?^ 
 
 QD 
 
 00 
 
 to 
 
 d 
 
 (K 
 
 CM 
 
 ■;=< 
 
 
 S 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 s 
 
 
 >. 
 
 
 s 
 
 t{ 
 
 
 o d O 
 
 
 CD 
 
 d 
 
 A 
 
 a 
 
 5 
 a 
 
 09 
 O 
 
 0) 
 
 OS 3 oi 
 
 «H S 
 
 3 
 
 <D 
 
 "S 
 
 TH w, ,-1 
 
 
 '^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 p 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 Q 
 
 
 in 
 
 o in 
 
 i- 
 
 «D 
 
 w 
 
 (D 
 
 CM 
 
 CO « 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 h 
 
 CD 
 O 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 § § S 
 
 OS rj Ol 
 ^ ^ 'H 
 
 
 <0 
 
 !3 
 
 CD 
 
 
 
 
 
 « 
 
 Q 
 
 d 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■Xi 
 
 r-1 
 
 M CO 
 
 ■V 
 
 lO 
 
 CO 
 
 s a 
 
 <D in" 
 
 EH « 
 
 i § 
 
 a8o 
 
Q 
 
 P CO 
 
 o § 
 
 u « 
 
 ^ m 
 
 _ I-" 
 
 LD n 
 
 Z 
 O 
 
 u 
 
 cd crt ^ 
 
 o pi! 
 
 O 
 
 L) 
 
 ■a 
 
 p :s 
 
 
 H ^ -2 
 
 ~i o 
 
 ■->>-. 
 
 ft iC ■" 
 
 
 s 
 
 8 S 
 
 g pq 
 
 !-i XI 
 
 lU 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 x: 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 +j 
 
 ^-! 
 
 c: 
 
 H 
 
 __^- 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 a. 
 
 T3 
 
 
 3 
 
 a. 
 
 
 ■a 
 
 
 CO 
 V 
 
 c/5 
 
 cs 
 
 Ph 
 
 
 
 
 
 qj 
 
 -o 
 
 
 jC 
 
 OJ 
 
 ni 
 
 a) 
 
 fU 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 
 o 
 
 a! 
 
 !-. 
 
 
 
 
 
 <u 
 
 4-J 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 r^ 
 
 Al 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 ;-< 
 
 
 
 () 
 
 O 
 
 M T3 
 
 J-l 
 
 >< 
 
 CI 
 
 <u 
 
 1-1 
 
 ^ 
 
 .m 
 
 n 
 
 <u 
 
 o 
 
 ■*-* 
 
 3 
 
 :z; 
 
 m 
 
 )-. 
 
 T-l 
 
 M-H 
 
 4-1 
 
 •a 
 
 CU 
 
 o 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 >1 
 
 i) 
 
 -1 
 
 
 
 S 
 
 (L) 
 
 13 
 
 3 
 
 U 
 
 rt 
 
 rt 
 
 
 -C 
 
 
 fi 
 
 
 4-" 
 
 
 
 n1 
 
 M-( 
 
 
 en 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 a 
 
 v 
 
 T3 
 
 
 <u 
 
 nl 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 a 
 
 
 h4 
 
 1 
 
 o 
 o 
 d 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 QO 
 CO 
 r-T 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 d 
 o 
 o 
 
 of 
 m 
 d 
 
 , O 
 
 
 ooooooooooo o 
 ooooooooooo o 
 
 ooooooooooo o 
 o_^ooo_^oo^ooooo^ o 
 Ti<"Di"wi--'"iOco"dHOorin x' 
 coi--i>t^oooi>tn'*«3 ira 
 tnu3i>ojxxxxxcio oi 
 
 1900. 
 
 $365,000.00 
 187,000.00 
 346,000.00 
 359,000.00 
 
 528,000.00 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Titractor 
 
 = 
 
 J 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 = 
 
 = 
 
 ; 
 
 = 
 
 -. 
 
 -. 
 
 t 
 
 : 
 
 
 
 
 o .t: Tt< coi> 
 
 O a"-! M I'- 03 
 O SoOO 
 
 OH P 
 
 c^ o 
 
 ■^rHOHHO:c:i-r;t~.H 
 
 CO W X O rH C MO m O O C t 
 iH iH H Ot 7' 7! Cf ?> 7( ^0 CO 
 
 CO W 
 
 i- XiOO TtH -+H-frHG: rOOirtOiOTt<7C 
 
 o d 
 
 
 
 
 19, 
 S9 
 
 281 
 
S 
 
 cS 
 
 w 
 pq 
 
 en 
 
 « 
 O 
 
 < 
 
 X 
 
 w 
 
 O , ^ nj . 
 O S ? ^ 
 
 (D 
 
 T3 
 Oi 
 
 W pq 
 
 J3 
 0) 
 
 •^ U 
 
 >-. u 
 ' ca 
 o 
 
 eq 
 
 s r " 
 
 OJ o <U 
 
 •a 
 <u 
 
 4-) 
 
 ni 
 
 -a 
 
 OS 
 
 en 
 
 a 
 
 U 0) 
 
 (U 
 
 u 
 ctf 
 3 
 
 C O 
 O 
 
 -.- a. <" S 
 
 O "O 73 
 
 
 
 be .. 
 
 p< 
 
 5 "J 
 
 J3 O 
 
 2 H 
 
 o 
 
 a, 
 
 -o 
 
 a o 
 o 'x: 
 a. o 
 
 3 1) 
 
 1) 
 
 .2 a, 
 •,5 — -° 
 
 Tj TJ +J 
 
 J3 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 IB 
 
 c 
 a) 
 
 <L) 
 
 c 
 o 
 
 U rti 
 
 CO 
 
 0) 
 
 O CO 
 
 o 
 
 « ;= <u 
 
 "> 2 ^ 
 
 e ■" CO 
 ■-^ O 
 
 '3 
 
 T3 
 CO 
 O 
 
 o 
 
 cti ■<: 
 
 2 'll 
 
 C 
 
 a 
 o 
 
 ' S 
 o 
 
 '+4 
 
 J3 
 
 >, ca 
 ni O 
 
 2 o 
 
 5 i-T tw CO -H 
 
 o 
 
 it' 5 '*^ 
 
 ■±3 « 
 
 
 *cn "^ 
 
 O OS 
 
 „ o 
 
 
 r-i ■a N pq u S 
 
 o 
 
 w 
 
 o 
 
 
 o o 
 
 5 c 
 
 I « 
 
 S c 
 
 o o 
 
 
 •s. 
 
 tM 3 
 
 o c 
 
 
 m O 
 
 '<!<)'<; 
 
 0+3 
 
 ro 
 
 !2i fl" 
 
 0>S 
 
 o g p 
 
 N w ■* 
 
 •o fl 
 
 
 ■3 aj 
 
 ■e Eh 
 
 o ^ 
 
 ^ o 
 
 
 e s 
 
 e a 
 
 9 P 
 
 >? 5 
 
 ■c 
 
 w 
 
 
 
 p, 
 
 b 
 
 ■H 
 
 (1 
 
 = 
 
 of 
 
 
 s 
 
 m 
 
 y 
 
 lif 
 
 1^ 
 
 uj 
 
 
 
 382 
 

 
 ■" t3 
 
 
 o 
 
 O 1 c; 1 
 
 
 
 wi .^ 
 
 
 o c; 1 c: 
 
 
 
 
 
 d :c 1 ^: 
 
 to -.0 I rH 
 
 
 
 " p4 
 
 S 
 
 w I 
 
 c 
 
 
 
 c 
 
 o 
 H 
 
 ^ >'o ' '-2 {■ 
 
 
 
 ""' a; 
 
 
 (fj 
 
 
 
 
 >-' x! 
 
 
 y 
 
 > c^-- ' 
 
 
 
 O ^-i 
 
 
 
 h 
 
 
 
 •^-1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 4-( 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 
 
 
 u O 
 
 
 
 X c 
 
 
 
 
 1) 
 
 
 
 00 If 
 
 Pi 
 
 
 
 — G 
 
 i-H 
 
 
 CO 0. 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 O O 
 
 O 
 
 
 CD r- 
 
 4^ 
 
 
 
 i-- "r! 
 
 Q 
 
 
 CD CC 
 
 I 
 
 
 
 .t-" 7\ 
 
 rH 
 
 
 CO r- 
 
 
 
 o O 
 
 
 
 e» r- 
 
 ■i^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 § 
 
 
 
 ai 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 
 — a 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 d 
 
 
 4^) 
 
 
 
 C <-> 
 
 d 
 
 ir: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 O 
 O 
 
 o 
 
 -.4-. '.*-l 
 
 rH 
 
 'Ji 
 
 
 O 
 
 
 
 O H I- 
 
 ^ 
 
 1 
 
 IZ) 
 
 o 
 
 
 o o c 
 
 ci c; a 
 
 i City of Ne- 
 L* 31. 1901... 
 
 '■5 
 
 8 
 
 c2 
 
 W 
 H 
 < 
 
 .2 S- 
 
 a 
 
 H rH r- 
 rH^ rn' I- 
 ^ !>. > 
 
 P & S 
 
 ^ S !2 
 
 1 
 
 
 0.0-0) 
 
 ^ ^ 
 
 
 O 
 
 a, 
 
 CU '^ 
 
 
 j= -.ja -.js 
 
 
 en 
 
 
 ■*^pH 2h p: 
 
 u £ 
 
 W 
 W 
 
 pq 
 
 m 
 Q 
 
 -s^ 
 
 
 ^..V* -r-H- "^V 
 
 4^ +:> +- 
 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 ide under 
 the City 
 
 
 Stocli issued 
 Rapid Transi 
 Stocli issued 
 Kapid Transi 
 Stock issued 
 
 ^ P 
 
 ^ o 
 o o 
 
 O OJ 
 
 " ■-; 
 
 tn 
 
 w 
 
 H 
 
 the payments m: 
 ;ock issued by 
 
 eh" 
 
 1 
 
 on the Corporate 
 onstruction of the 
 
 on the Corporate 
 onstruction uf the 
 
 on the Corporate 
 
 i s 
 
 ?• 3 
 
 ^ s 
 
 O C 
 
 S g 
 
 
 
 |i( 
 
 O O 0) u © w 
 3 a S ID 3 in 
 
 
 
 
 bB^ 
 
 
 'Ojg'Cd'd.^ 
 
 "" H^ 
 
 
 
 
 *'t^f^X. 
 
 "rn ^ji 
 
 
 
 .a 0) 
 
 
 sii S'H s« 
 
 1 -s 
 
 
 
 1 2 
 
 
 d ^ fl t^ g ^4 
 
 
 
 
 J3 O 
 
 
 ■"0-" o-"p 
 
 
 
 4-> 5 0! 
 
 
 ent of 
 NewY 
 ent of 
 NewY 
 ent of 
 New Y 
 
 a 3 
 
 3 3h 
 
 is 
 
 C8 -^ 
 
 
 
 S 1) 'S 
 
 
 Sog,o?,c 
 
 
 
 State 
 
 on th 
 
 nsit R; 
 
 
 (»S (ub oo 
 
 
 
 
 S^ X\ J=. 
 
 B H H 
 
 1 O 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 OJ nj 
 
 d 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ u 
 
 iH 7! :^' 
 
 
 
 
 ■zi r-i 
 
 
 
 
 
 Q 
 
 [in 
 O 
 
 H 
 
 u 
 
 D 
 H 
 
 CO 
 
 O 
 U 
 
 h 
 
 w 
 w 
 
 O 
 
 s ^ 
 
 
 S) a; m 
 
 2 © 
 
 a 3 
 
 •a 
 
 PH h PH 
 
 283 
 
Q 
 D 
 
 < 
 
 W 
 
 o 
 
 I 
 
 p 
 
 p 
 w 
 
 H 
 
 o 
 
 
 H 
 
 
 ffi 
 
 , 
 
 H 
 
 
 fa 
 O 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 u 
 
 J 
 
 < 
 
 <c 
 
 < 
 
 m 
 
 m 
 
 >• 
 p 
 
 w 
 h 
 O 
 
 O 
 M 
 en 
 
 H 
 
 P 
 
 W 
 H 
 <! 
 H 
 
 
 
 
 
 CD 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 tH 
 
 
 
 tH 
 
 
 
 w 
 
 
 
 OS 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 in 
 
 H 
 
 q q CO q in 
 
 : CO L-^ d C» CO 
 I- in r-. ^ (M 
 
 o 
 d 
 
 X 
 
 i> 
 
 O ■<i< Tt4 »0 H 
 
 CO 
 
 rplus, 
 cable 
 he cu 
 propi 
 
 s» 
 
 - «' r^" '^ 
 
 to 
 
 0( 
 
 7 ^ P4 
 
 
 
 m 03 
 
 
 
 qS 
 
 
 
 urse- 
 ablet 
 alanc 
 ,ppro- 
 
 3. 
 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 
 q 
 
 
 
 
 
 q 
 
 xcess Disb 
 Qts, charge; 
 xpended b 
 previous a 
 priationi 
 
 
 OS 
 
 
 
 
 
 OS 
 
 
 tiT 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■* 
 
 
 tfy 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 HSg« 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 ':t< T-l OJ to O '^ to 
 
 t- 
 
 i> oi ffl q lo M t- 
 
 in 
 
 n 
 
 cc «? 00 1-3 d (d c; 
 
 « 
 
 w X in in i> I- CD 
 
 '^ 
 
 W C3 O lO C» O « 
 
 r^ 
 
 
 
 TjT i>r TjT, lO rH t^ of 
 
 CO 
 
 ?© in w CO U3 « tH 
 
 CO 
 
 iM 
 
 m 
 
 
 
 e# 
 
 p 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ClTt<0 
 
 OSOSC^ 
 
 
 'jflWCO 
 
 CO CO CO 
 
 iniHco 
 
 ■^oo 
 
 cocoes 
 
 -e 
 
 
 tHCOCO 
 
 ■*«rH 
 
 coxin 
 
 qxi:- 
 
 r-inr-4 
 
 °i*R'^ 
 
 «Wr-J 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 COHcd 
 
 cddoo 
 
 «o6i> 
 
 diriin 
 
 r-idd 
 
 doO rH 
 
 di>d 
 
 Q 
 
 
 «i>W 
 
 -^UiCO 
 
 t-c-tm 
 
 COOStM 
 
 OlMH 
 
 01 OS in 
 
 CD-* in 
 
 
 
 C»<N 
 
 OINCD 
 
 inq-"^ 
 
 oicoos 
 
 mosm 
 
 xcom 
 
 xoco 
 
 ■2= 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Oiri 
 
 cDcdin 
 
 int>iH 
 
 inrHoo 
 
 tMI-^C» 
 
 oTcod 
 
 COiHI> 
 
 
 y^ 
 
 »c«oi 
 
 COrHCO 
 
 e&iMco 
 
 e^iHW 
 
 f# « 
 
 in tool 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 « 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 <3 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■e 
 
 i 
 
 6 
 
 
 OS 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 <u 
 
 
 © 
 
 
 © 
 
 
 © 
 
 
 K 
 
 o 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 u 
 
 
 CJ 
 
 
 w 
 
 
 a 
 
 m 
 
 
 B 
 
 
 S0 
 
 
 iS 
 
 
 Efi 
 
 
 ES 
 
 
 
 
 ■^ 
 
 1 
 
 o 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 O 
 
 
 O 
 
 
 O 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 cS 
 
 
 S3 
 
 
 C3 
 
 
 cS 
 
 
 (X! 
 
 
 58 
 
 
 ca 
 
 
 
 
 £- 
 
 
 
 
 h 
 
 
 h 
 
 
 p 
 
 
 ^> 
 
 
 ^1 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 © 
 
 
 £ 
 
 
 a) 
 
 
 © 
 
 
 © 
 
 
 © 
 
 
 © 
 
 
 
 R 
 
 
 fl 
 
 
 a 
 
 
 Cl 
 
 
 q 
 
 
 p 
 
 
 P 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 QJ 
 
 
 CI 
 
 
 aj 
 
 
 ® 
 
 
 © 
 
 
 O 
 
 
 © 
 
 
 
 s 
 
 O 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 O 
 
 
 O 
 
 
 C5 
 
 
 
 
 
 -C! 
 
 
 ■a 
 
 
 13 
 
 
 -« 
 
 
 13 
 
 
 ■d 
 
 
 
 
 C 
 
 
 fl 
 
 
 
 
 fl 
 
 
 p 
 
 
 P 
 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 
 cS 
 
 
 c3 
 
 
 OS 
 
 
 cS 
 
 
 S 
 
 
 S 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 ffi 
 
 
 • 03 
 
 
 03 
 
 
 © 
 
 
 © 
 
 
 © 
 
 
 © 
 
 
 
 
 > 
 
 
 t* 
 
 
 > 
 
 
 > 
 
 
 > 
 
 
 >■ 
 
 
 > 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 15 &fl 
 
 ti 01, 
 
 Bbo 
 
 If &B 
 
 ■-H OD 
 
 '-I3 o(, 
 
 ^ sId 
 
 
 
 
 1o ^ 
 
 ga 
 
 So 
 
 
 
 go 
 
 
 
 .S OJ 
 
 
 5S Q) 
 
 .s © 
 
 52 © 
 
 «S 
 
 .™ © 
 
 
 
 .S§- .SS-: .SS-; .SS^ .s§- .s§^ =§-: 
 
 
 ||«a s-|g |-as a-aa J-ga a-ag, s-ag, 
 
 <j,HH <1H(-! <m^ ^Hh3 ^HhI ^H»^ ^Hj-^I 
 
 
 
 O W O O) r^ CO 00 
 
 OS 
 
 q CO CD o oi CO OT 
 
 m 
 
 i 
 
 d lo lo OS d lo CO 
 
 d 
 
 'C 
 
 o Oi CO o 00 <M m 
 
 •^ 
 
 P. 
 o 
 
 q 1> rH O CO CD CO 
 
 »0" CO « CD CO b^ CO 
 
 CO 
 
 b 
 
 ۩ ift O CD in Di ^ 
 
 s 
 
 P< 
 
 rri 01 
 
 to 
 
 P. 
 
 
 m 
 
 <1 
 
 
 
 ^• 
 
 ■* in CO i> 00 oj o 
 
 
 
 oj ai OS o; oj OS o 
 
 
 |2 
 
 CO OO X X X M OS 
 
 
 
 H 
 
 
 
 
 '4 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 '" 
 
 ■{ 
 
 
 
 r- 
 
 H 
 
 
 
 •" 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 
 H 
 
 
 
 
 384 
 
I 
 
 CO 
 
 W 
 o 
 
 < 
 < 
 
 COOi^ 
 
 O 
 
 xno 
 
 
 
 
 WU31* 
 
 'S 
 
 OOTCC 
 
 
 
 • ^ 
 
 CC-^r^ 
 
 g©CO 
 
 
 "s>- 
 
 ^3 =><! 
 
 S.S 
 
 is 
 
 a 
 
 ■o 
 
 sg 
 an 
 
 S2 
 
 
 
 
 § 
 
 C30 
 
 ca 
 
 n> 
 
 lOCD 
 
 r-H 
 
 
 5 
 
 OrH 
 
 ot 
 
 w 
 
 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 com 
 
 « 
 
 X 
 
 
 
 
 
 fH 
 
 
 
 
 p< 
 
 
 OJ 
 
 o 
 
 <! 
 
 
 e# 
 
 ee 
 
 o 
 
 300 
 
 |« 
 
 gp, 
 
 So 
 
 OS 
 
 * s 
 
 Q 
 
 O 
 
 H 
 U 
 
 w 
 o 
 
 pi; PQ 
 
 H 
 
 O 
 u 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 p 
 ^; 
 D 
 hi-i 
 
 ;? 
 o 
 
 H 
 O 
 
 « 
 H 
 
 O 
 
 u 
 
 w 
 w 
 
 H 
 
 fc. 
 O 
 
 w 
 (J 
 2; 
 <! 
 
 < 
 ffl 
 
 >■ 
 
 >^ 
 
 K 
 O 
 
 ? 
 o 
 
 K 
 H 
 
 g 
 W 
 
 
 '3 I 
 
 O M 
 
 H3 
 
 
 H +3 
 
 ooco 
 
 OOiH 
 000 
 
 
 CO CO c3 p, 
 
 ateri 
 ateri 
 and 
 heC( 
 
 
 wa 
 
 ^S 
 
 Work an 
 Work an 
 Extra W 
 Interest 
 
 II 
 
 *1^ 
 
 
 SO 
 
 0000 
 
 
 hfefilfH 
 
 t) 
 
 •^« 
 
 oco 
 
 iHCD 
 iHi-T 
 
 e©rH 
 
 00 
 
 010; 
 
 >1 
 
 285 
 
RECAPITULATION. 
 
 Board of Rapid Transit Railroad Commissioners. 
 
 GENERAL FUND. 
 
 Requisitions. 
 
 Total amount of Requisitions made upon the 
 Board of Estimate and Apportionment for the 
 requirements of tlie Board of Rapid Transit 
 Railroad Commissioners from June 18, 1894, 
 to December 31, 1901 M77.868.19 
 
 Appropriations. 
 
 Total amount of Appropriations made by the 
 Board of Estimate and Apportionment for 
 the purposes of the Board of Rapid Transit 
 Railroad Commissioners, from June 18, 1894, 
 to January 14, 1903 |977,883.19 
 
 DiSBURSEMliNTS. 
 
 Total amount of Administrative and General 
 
 Office Disbursements. $150,018.37 
 
 Total amount of Engineering Disbursements 596,880.15 
 
 Total amount of Legal Disbursements 214,903.38 
 
 Total amount of General Fund Disbursements 961,801.80 
 
 Unexpended Balance. 
 Unexpended Balance of the General Fund to De- 
 cember 31, 1901 $16,060.39 
 
 CONSTRUCTION FUND. 
 
 Corporate Stock. 
 
 Total issue of Corporate Stock of the City of New 
 
 York from June 35, 1900, to December 31, 1901 $13,000,000.00 
 
 Premium. 
 Total amount of Premium on the issues of Cor- 
 porate Stock 740,761.46 
 
 Proceeds. 
 Total amount of Proceeds applicable to the con- 
 struction of the Rapid Transit Railroad from 
 June 35, 1900, to December 31, 1901 12,740,761.46 
 
 Ajnount carried forward. $12,740 761.46 
 
 286 
 
Recapitulation. 287 
 
 CONSTRUCTION YXi'S^Y)— Continued. 
 
 Disbursements. 
 
 Aviount brought forward $13,740,761.46 
 
 For Work done and Materials furnished pursuant 
 
 to Contract dated February 21, 1900 $13,038,000.03 
 
 For Extra Work done and Materials furnished 
 
 pursuant to agreement dated May 3, 1901,. 162,000.00 
 
 For Interest due on the Corporate Stock issued by 
 the City of New York for the construction of 
 the Rapid Transit Railroad 165,013.90 
 
 Total amount of Construction Fund Disburse- 
 ments 12, 355,013.90 
 
 Unexpended B.vl.^nce. 
 
 Unexpended Balance of the Construction Fund to 
 
 December 31, 1901 $385,747.56 
 
 CASH. 
 
 Statement of Cash transmitted by Bion L. Burrows, 
 Secretary of the Board of Rapid Transit 
 Railroad Commissioners, through Bird S. 
 Coler, Comptroller, to Patriclc Keenan, 
 Chamberlain of the City of New York, ac- 
 count General Fund of the said City ; 
 
 October 8, 1900. Proceeds for the sales of plans, 
 etc. (as stated on page 1036 of the minutes of 
 
 1900, of the Board of Rapid Transit Railroad 
 
 Commissioners) $169.35 
 
 August 20, 1901. Proceeds for the sales of plans, 
 etc. (as stated on page 1371 of the minutes of 
 
 1901, of the said Board) ; _ _9a85 
 
 Total amount transmitted to the City Chamber- 
 lain , $260.20 
 
 SUMMARY OF DISBURSEMENTS. 
 
 Total amount of General Fund Disbursements 961,801.80 
 
 Total amount of Construction Fund Disbursements 13,190,000.00 
 
 Total amount of Interest paid on Corporate Stock 1 65,013.90 
 
 Total amount disbursed in the Construction and 
 
 Equipment of the Rapid Transit Railroad 
 
 from June 18, 1894, to December 31, 1901 $13,316,815.70 
 
 Finale. 
 
INDEX 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Accidents, List of 359 
 
 Act; of 1891 13 
 
 failure under 14 
 
 of 1894 15, 16 
 
 amendment of 20 
 
 constitutionality of 26, 113-181 
 
 origin of 12 
 
 Aiken, William A.; appointed General Inspector of Material ; etc. . .199, 207, 252 
 
 American Bridge Co., Sub-Contractors for Steel 211 
 
 Appeal in 1899 to Legislature 56, 57 
 
 Application for Broadway route. Opinion of Appellate Division 113-131 
 
 " Elm Streeet " " " " " 133-159 
 
 Application re Bond for Construction and Equipment, Opinion of 
 
 Appellate Division 161-169 
 
 Appointments to Engineering Staff 200-207 
 
 Appropriations by Board of Estimate and Apportionment; General and 
 
 Construction Funds 267, 284, 285 
 
 Approval of 1897 Plan by Supreme Court 38, 39 
 
 Award of Contract 73, 74 
 
 Beekman, Henry R. , appointed Counsel ; etc 17, 18, 99 
 
 Beginning of Construction 81, 226 
 
 Belmont, August & Co., Sureties on Contractor's bond 75, 274 
 
 Bids of Contractors ; terms of 196, 197 
 
 Board ; efforts of in 1899 58-63, 67-69 
 
 commissioners and engineers, under Act of 1891 13, 14 
 
 " " 1894 15 
 
 historical account of preliminary work 11, 12 
 
 memorial to Legislature re private capital 56, 57 
 
 organization of 15, 16, 17, 66, 97-99 
 
 report of Sub-Committee on Contract re Manhattan Co 52-55 
 
 " " " ■' $15,000,000 Bond 43-51 
 
 statutory powers of 48, 58 
 
 Boardman, Albert B. ; elected Counsel 17, 99 
 
 Boardman, Piatt & Soley ; elected Counsel 99 
 
 Bogart, John ; appointed Consulting Engineer 14 
 
 289 
 
290 Index. 
 
 Bond(s) ; amount of Sub-Contractors' bonds 209-311, 378, 379 
 
 authority for issuance of, etc 16 
 
 City bonds, issuance of 58-60 
 
 County" " " 61 
 
 $15,000,000 Bond 39, 43-51, 161-169 
 
 reduction of amount of by Supreme Court 73, 167-169 
 
 security required by Supreme Court 39, 43, 161-169 
 
 " " from Contractor 75, 76 
 
 statutory provisions of 47 
 
 sureties for 75, 374-377 
 
 Bradley, Alfred ; details of Sub-Contract 317 
 
 Bradley, William ; details of Sub-Contracts 310, 214, 315, 319, 336 
 
 Broadway Route ; adoption of in 1895 28 
 
 defeat of in Supreme Court 25 
 
 estimate of Chief Engineer, cost of Construction 19, 20 
 
 general features of 19, 24 
 
 opinion of Appellate Div. on application for 113-131 
 
 proceedings after defeat of 37, 38 
 
 report of Board of Experts 31, 23 
 
 Brooklyn Extension 83-86 
 
 Burr, Prof. William H.; member of Board of Experts 30 
 
 Burrows, Bion L. ; elected Secretary 66, 99 
 
 Bushe, Eugene L. ; Commissioner, Acts of 1875 and 1891 13 
 
 Carr, Albert ; appointed Division Engineer 199, 201 
 
 Carson, Howard A.; appointed Consulting Engineer 39, 73, 195 
 
 Cast-iron manufactured 354 
 
 Cement ; briquettes broken, result of 357, 258 
 
 number of barrels 246, 347 
 
 shipment of 256 
 
 specifications for 255, 256 
 
 tests of 257, 258 
 
 Central Park Tunnel ; details of construction 337, 338 
 
 progress of headings 338 
 
 Changes in Plans 349 
 
 Chanute, Octave ; member of Board of Experts, Consulting Engineer 14, 20 
 
 City Hall Loop ; details of construction 326, 349 
 
 Claflin, John ; elected Commissioner and Treasurer; etc 15, 66, 97 
 
 Clarke, St. John ; appointed General Inspector of Designs; etc 199, 300, 250 
 
 Clarke, Thomas C. ; member of Board of Experts 30 
 
 Coler, Bird S. ; ex-officio member of Board 40, 98 
 
 Columbus Circle, Special features of construction 335, 336 
 
 Compressor Plants Installed, Description of 333, 225 
 
 Concrete ; number of cubic yards 346 347 
 
 Condemnation Proceedings 92 
 
 Connections at Grand Central Station, Proposals as to 86-88, 234 
 
Index. 
 
 21)1 
 
 Construction ; beginning of 81, 236 
 
 city authorities urged to talce action 66-69 
 
 corporate stock issued for, and interest payments 280, 288 
 
 delays incident t-o Greater New York Consolidation 40, 41 
 
 estimates of cost of Broadway Route 19, 20 
 
 situation in 1899 58-63 
 
 sub-contracts for. List of 209-22(1 
 
 tracks 260 
 
 Contract ; advertisement of 195 
 
 approval as to form withheld 56, 57 
 
 award of 73, 74 
 
 bids submitted 196, 197 
 
 criticisms of by Corporation Counsel 70-73 
 
 draft approved of by City Authorities 70 
 
 final execution of 76, 197 
 
 list of sub-contracts 309-330 
 
 modification of 83 
 
 negotiations with Met. and Man. Ry. Co's 40-55 
 
 sections as sub-divided 195 
 
 security in money, bonds, etc 43 
 
 terms of 76-80, 196 
 
 Contracts for Construction, Table of 309-320 
 
 ' ' equipment 259 
 
 ' ' material, Table of 311 
 
 Contract Sections 1 95 
 
 Contractor's Sections, Table of 209-211 
 
 Contractor ; organization of staff of 209 
 
 payments for work done and materials furnished 281 
 
 payments for Extra work done and materials furnished 282 
 
 plant of 232-225 
 
 security required from 75, 76 
 
 Cooper, Theodore ; appointed Consulting Engineer 14, 20 
 
 Court of Appeals; opinion of on Constitutionality of Rapid Transit Act. 171-181 
 
 Craven, Alfred ; appointed Division Engineer 199, 203 
 
 Criticisms of Contract by Corporation Counsel 70-72 
 
 Cunningham & Kearns ; details of sub-contracts 213-314, 216 
 
 Debt-incurring Capacity of City (Greater N. Y. Charter) 57-63 
 
 Degnon-McLean Contracting Co.; details of sub-contracts.. . .209, 212, 318, 319, 
 
 226, 227, 234 
 
 Delafield, Lewis L. ; elected Secretary ; etc 66, 99 
 
 Delays incident to Greater New York Consolidation 40, 41 
 
 Department of Inspection of Material, Work of 352, 255, 258 
 
 Description of Compressor Plants Installed 333-335 
 
 Design of Structure 186-188, 192 
 
292 Index. 
 
 Disbursements; administrative and General Office 368 
 
 engineering 360, 369 
 
 legal 'mD,2n\ 
 
 Diversions of Sewers .' "31 
 
 Draughting Department, Work of 350, 351 
 
 Ducts Laid; No. of Lin. Ft 348 
 
 Duncan & Hutchinson ; appointed Consulting Electrical Engineers 358, 359 
 
 Earth and Rock Excavation ; No. of Cu. Yds 346, 247 
 
 Educational Statistics of Engineering Staff 308 
 
 Efforts of Rapid Transit Board in 1899 58-63, 67-69 
 
 Elm St. Route ; opinion of Appellate Div. on application for ,. .133-159 
 
 report of Chief Engineer 39, 30 
 
 Engineering Department ; educational statistics 308 
 
 organization of ; etc 81, 199, 360 
 
 table of appointments 300-307 
 
 Extensions and Connections ; Brooklyn Extension 83-86 
 
 Connections at Grand Central Station 
 
 (proposed) 86-88, 234 
 
 Estimate(s); cost of Construction; Broadway Route 19, 30 
 
 of Quantities 197, 198 
 
 terminals and real estate _ 373 
 
 Equipment ; exempted from Taxation 16 
 
 sub-contracts for Power House 359 
 
 Farrell, Hopper & Co.; details of sub-contracts 310, 316, 320, 337, 239 
 
 Farrell, M. J. ; appointed Private Sec'y to Chief Engineer 200 
 
 Final execution of Contract 76 
 
 Fitch, Ashbel P. ; ex-officio member of Board 15, 98 
 
 Force employed by Sub-Contractors 245, 246, 248 
 
 Fort Washington Tunnel, Progress of Headings 244 
 
 Forty-second St. ; unusual features of construction encountered 234, 235 
 
 Four-track Subway, Length of 196 
 
 Fourth Avenue, Details of Construction 227-239 
 
 Fox & Co., Sub-Contractors for cast-iron 211 
 
 Franchises ; as amended by statute 20 
 
 failure to sell to highest bidder 14 
 
 power conferred by statute 16 
 
 powers of Board to grant to existing companies 40-55 
 
 Fteley, Alphonse ; appointed Consulting Engineer 20 
 
 Gas and Water Mains 194 
 
 Gas, Water and Drain Pipes Laid ; No. of Lin. Ft 346-248 
 
 Gilroy , Thomas F. ; ex-officio member of Board 15, 98 
 
 Greater New York Charter ; delays incident to 40, 41 
 
 terms of and its relation to construction 57-63 
 
 Grout, Edward M. ; ex-officio member of Board 98 
 
Index. 393 
 
 Heins & LaFarge ; appointed Consulting Architects 258 
 
 Hendrick, Calvin W.; appointed Engineer of Sewers ; etc 199, 306, 221 
 
 Hewitt, Abram S.; address by before Chamber of Commerce 101-109 
 
 member of Board of Experts 30 
 
 presentation of Gold Medal to 12, 101-109 
 
 Holbrook, Cabot & Daly Contracting Co.; details of sub-contracts 309, 213, 
 
 218, 237 
 
 Hollmann, H. A. D. ; elected Auditor 99 
 
 Inman, John H., Commissioner ; election of ; etc '. 13, 16, 38, 98 
 
 Jesup, Morris K. ; ex-officio member of Board 66, 98 
 
 Klapp, Eugene ; appointed Division Engineer 199, 205 
 
 Langdon, Woodbury, Commissioner ; election of 28, 98 
 
 Length of Railway 189, 192, 196 
 
 List of Accidents 259 
 
 List of Sub-Contractors' Bonds 209-211, 278, 279 
 
 List of sub-contracts for Construction 209-220 
 
 Lists (see also Tables) 
 
 Low, Seth; Commissioner, and ex-officio member of Board 15, 28, 97 
 
 McCabe, L. B. & Bro. ; details of sub-contracts 211, 241 
 
 McDonald, John B. ; award of Contract to 73, 197 
 
 terms of Bid 196, 197 
 
 McMuUen & McBean ; details of sub-contract 210, 239 
 
 Afanhattan Ry. Co. ; re $15,000,000 Bond 44-46 
 
 negotiations with 14 
 
 transit facilities, application to extend franchises 43-55 
 
 Masonry (Brick, Pedestal and Cut Stone) ; No. of Cu. Yds 246, 347 
 
 Metropolitan Ry. Co. ; re $15,000,000 Bond 43 
 
 proposals of 64, 65 
 
 withdrawal of proposal 66 
 
 Modification of Contract, Route and Plans 83 
 
 Morison, George S. ; appointed Consulting Engineer 39, 73, 195 
 
 Municipal Construction ; as defined by statute 17, 35, 26 
 
 preliminary studies for 18 
 
 Murray Hill Tunnel ; details of construction 230-333 
 
 progress of headings 283 
 
 Naughton & Company ; details of sub-contracts 209, 214, 219, 335 
 
 Negotiations with Metropolitan and Manhattan Ry. Go's 40-55 
 
 Norton, William F. ; details of sub-contract 315 
 
 Onderdonk, Andrew ; terms of Bid 73, 74, 197 
 
 Opinions of Appellate Div.; appHcation for Broadway Route 113-131 
 
 ■' Elm St. " 183-159 
 
 " " reargument or modification 
 re Bond for Construction 
 and Equipment 161-169 
 
294 Index. 
 
 Opinion of Court of Appeals on Constitutionality of Rapid Transit Act. .171-181 
 
 Organization of Contractor's Staff 309 
 
 " Engineering Dept., Rapid Transit Board 81, 199 
 
 " Rapid Transit 'Board 15, 16, 17, 66, 97-99 
 
 Orr, Alexander E. ; President, Commissioner and ex-offi-cio member 
 
 of Board 15, 16, 66, 97 
 
 Parsons, Wm. Barclay, Chief Engineer ; election of ; etc 13, 14, 17, 19, 
 
 20, 99, 195 
 
 Parsons, Shepard & Ogden ; elected Counsel 99 
 
 Pilkington, James ; details of sub-contracts 313, 213, 214, 216, 220, 331 
 
 Pipe Galleries , 89-91, 249 
 
 Plans and Specifications, Approval of. 195 
 
 Plans, Changes in 340-243, 349 
 
 Power House Equipment 359 
 
 Powers of Board to grant franchises to existing companies 53 
 
 Preliminary studies for iVlunicipal Railroad 18 
 
 Proposals by Metropolitan St. Ry. Co 64, 65 
 
 Proposed connections at Grand Central Station 86-88 
 
 Pullis, Pierre P. ; appointed Photographer 300 
 
 Railway ; equipment for exempted from Taxation 16 
 
 design of 186-188, 192 
 
 franchise offered for sale '. 14 
 
 length of 189, 192, 196 
 
 preliminary studies for ' 18 
 
 route of 185, 189 
 
 Rapid Transit Commissioners and Staff 97-99 
 
 Rapid Transit Situation in 1899 58-63, 67-69 
 
 Rapid Transit Subway Construction Co.; organization of 75, 209 
 
 Reconstruction of Sewers 193, 194 
 
 Repaying Street and Park Surface ; No. of Sq. Yds 247 
 
 Report(s) of Board, issuance of 11 
 
 Chief Engineer on Elm St. Route 39, 30 
 
 " " " " Rapid Transit in Foreign Cities" 17 
 
 Experts on Broadway Route 21, 33 
 
 Sub-Committee on application of Manhattan Ry. Co 53-55 
 
 " ;$15,000,000 Bond .^ 43-51 
 
 Requisitions of Contractor for work done and materials furnished 281, 383 
 
 Requisitions upon Board of Estimate and Apportionment; 
 
 General and Construction Funds 365, 266, 273, 373, 281, 282 
 
 Restoring Street and Park Surface and Repaying ; No. of Sq. Yds 247 
 
 Rice, George S., Deputy Chief Engineer ; appointment of 199, 200 
 
 Rives, George L., Commissioner ; election of 28, 98 
 
 Roberts, E. P. ; details of sub-contracts 210, 211,340, 241, 245 
 
 Rodgers, John C. ; details of sub-contracts 210, 217, 330, 240 
 
Index. 
 
 21)5 
 
 Route and General Plans ; approved of by City, but disapproved by 
 
 Supreme Court 25 
 
 approved of by Supreme Court 38, 39 
 
 as adopted under Act of 1894 15, 16 
 
 Broadway Route, adoption of in 1895 23 
 
 application for, opinion of 
 
 Appellate Division . .113-131 
 defeat of in Supreme Court. . .25 
 estimate. Chief Engineer, 
 
 cost of construction. . .19, 20 
 proceedings after defeat of . 27, 28 
 report of Board of Ex- 
 perts 21, 23 
 
 changes in 340-243, 249 
 
 consents of local authorities and of Supreme 
 
 Court 14 
 
 Elm Street Route, application for, opinion of 
 
 Appellate Div 133-159 
 
 report of Chief Engineer. .39, 30 
 
 modification of 83 
 
 of 1895 38 
 
 of 1897 31-37 
 
 procedure under Act of 1891 13, 14 
 
 re-examination of by Supreme Court 37 
 
 Route of Railway 185, 189 
 
 Section No. 1 ; work done 336 
 
 "2; " " 337 
 
 "8; " " ~ 337-330 
 
 "4; " " 330-333 
 
 "5A&5B;" " 334-236 
 
 "6A&6B;" " 336,337 
 
 " 7; " " 387,338 
 
 •• 8 ; " " 239 
 
 "9A&9B;" " 339,240 
 
 "10; " " 340 
 
 " 11; " " 240,241 
 
 " 13; " " 341 
 
 ■'13&14;" " 341-344 
 
 " 15; " " 345 
 
 Security required by Supreme Court 39, 43, 161-169 
 
 from Contractor 75, 76 
 
 Sewerage System, Description of 190 
 
396 Index. 
 
 Sewers ; Bleecker Street ^^^ 
 
 Broadway (47th St. to 60th St.) ^^^ 
 
 (60th St. to 104th St.) ^1^ 
 
 (104th St. to 135th St.) ; 230 
 
 (from 135th St. North) 330 
 
 East Side, 84th St. to 86th St 315 
 
 Canal Street 313, 331 
 
 contracts for 311-330 
 
 details of Lateral Sewers 313-317 
 
 " Longitudinal Sewers 318-330 
 
 diversions of "^^ 
 
 East 9th Street 313 
 
 " 10th •■ 313 
 
 " 22nd " 313 
 
 ■' 31st " 313 
 
 ■' 41st " 314 
 
 '■ 149th ■' 320 
 
 Elm Street (Post Office.to Great Jones Street) 318 
 
 Fifty-ninth Street and Circle 314 
 
 Forty-second Street and Broadway (Park Avenue to 47th Street) 219 
 
 Lafayette Place and 4th Avenue (Great Jones St. to 33rd Street) 218 
 
 Lenox Avenue 216 
 
 ■■ (from 135th Street, North) 230 
 
 " (from 135th Street, South) 230 
 
 Leonard Street 313 
 
 linear feet completed 231 
 
 Marion Street 313 
 
 Mulberry Street 313 
 
 One Hundred and Forty-ninth Street and Railroad Avenue 317 
 
 Pearl and Duane Streets 312 
 
 Seventy-second Street and Broadway 315 
 
 Sixty-fifth Street and Broadway 314 
 
 Spring Street 313 
 
 West 45th Street 314 
 
 
 • . 54th 
 
 ■ 81st 
 ' 96th 
 ' 108th 
 
 .' 110th 
 ' 115th 
 ' 134th 
 ' 143nd 
 
 ■ 157th 
 
 (f 
 
 .... 314 
 
 
 M 
 
 315 
 
 
 ., 
 
 315 
 
 
 .< 
 
 215 
 
 
 .< 
 
 . . ; 216, 221 
 
 
 <. 
 
 216 
 
 
 .. 
 
 216 
 
 
 <• 
 
 216 
 
 
 .. 
 
 .. .. 317 
 
 Worth Street. 
 
 
 213 
 
 Shaft Excavation ; No. 
 
 of Cu. Yds 
 
 346 
 
Index. 
 
 297 
 
 Shepard, Edward M. ; elected Counsel 99 
 
 Shields, John ; details of sub-contracts 210, 216, 220, 240 
 
 Sicilian Asphalt Company, Sub-Contractors for Asphalt, etc 211 
 
 Smith, Charles Stewart, Commissioner ; election of 28, 98 
 
 Sooysmith, Charles ; member of Board of Experts 20 
 
 South Ferry Extension. Defeat of by Park Board 38 
 
 Special Type of Track Construction (experimental) 260 
 
 Specifications for Cement 255, 256 
 
 Spencer, Samuel ; Commissioner, Acts of 1875 and 1891 13 
 
 Starin, John H., Acting President ; Vice-President and Com- 
 missioner 13, 15, 17, 66, 97 
 
 Statistics, Educational, Table of 208 
 
 Statutory Powers of Rapid Transit Board 48, 63 
 
 Steel and Cast Iron delivered ; No. of Tons 246, 247 
 
 Steel erected; No. of Tons 246, 247 
 
 manufactured 252 
 
 tests of 253 
 
 Steinway, WilHam, Commissioner ; election of ; etc 13, 15, 28, 97 
 
 Strong, William L. ; ex-officio member of Board 18, 98 
 
 Sub-Contractors, List of 209-220 
 
 Sub-Section No. 1 ; progress of work, and limits of 226 
 
 9A & 9B ; 
 10; 
 
 11 ; 
 12; 
 13 & 14 ; 
 15 ; 
 
 Sub-Sections Nos. 1 to 14 ; 
 •• ltol5; 
 
 2 ; 
 
 3; 
 
 4; 
 5A & 5B ; 
 6A & 6B ; 
 
 237 
 
 .237-230 
 .330-233 
 .234-336 
 .336, 237 
 .237, 
 
 238 
 
 339 
 
 .239, 340 
 
 340 
 
 .340, 241 
 .... 341 
 .341-244 
 
 345 
 
 i compressor-plants installed 232-235 
 
 names of sub-contractors, date of commenc- 
 ing work, etc 209-311 
 
 Sub-Surface Conditions 189-191 
 
 Supreme Court ; approval of 1897 Plans 38, 39 
 
 defeat of Broadway Route 35 
 
 opinions of, Application for Broadway and Elm Street 
 
 Routes 113-159 
 
 opinion of, Application for reargument or modification 
 
 re Bond for Construction and Equipment 161-169 
 
 reduction of amount of Bond 73, 167-169 
 
^98 Index. 
 
 Sureties for Contractor's and Sub-Contractors' Bonds 75, 274-377 
 
 Table of amount of work done by each Contractor to Dec. 31, 1901 246-248 
 
 cement tests 257, 358 
 
 contracts for construction 309-211 
 
 Corporate Stock issued and interest payments 280, 283 
 
 disbursements. General and Construction Funds 368-371 
 
 lin. ft. structure for which drawings completed 351 
 
 of Quantities (estimated) 197, 198 
 
 progress of headings, Murray Hill Tunnel 333 
 
 Central Park Tunnel ' 338 
 
 Fort Washington Tunnel -. .244 
 
 sewers constructed 311-220 
 
 Tables (See also Lists) 
 
 Telephone, Telegraph and Electric Light Subways, Ducts, etc.; No. of 
 
 Lin. Ft ,. 248 
 
 Terminals and Real Estate ■. 93, 94, 373 
 
 Terms of Contract 76-80, 196 
 
 Terry & Tench Construction Co.; details of sub-contracts.. 210, 211, 240. 241, 345 
 
 Tests of Steel 253 
 
 Topographical and Geological features 189, 190 
 
 Track, Maintenance of ; No. of Lin. Ft 347 
 
 Track Construction ; addition of Third Track 340, 241 
 
 special type of (experimental) 260 
 
 Tracy, Boardman & Piatt ; elected Counsel 99 
 
 Tunnel Construction ; Central Park Tunnel 337, 338 
 
 Deep-Tube Type 186 
 
 Fort Washington Tunnel 343, 344 
 
 Murray Hill Tunnel 193, 330-333 
 
 Tunneling ; No. of Cu. Yds '. 246, 247 
 
 Two-track Subway, Length of 196 
 
 Viaduct, " " 196 
 
 Types of Subway : 185-188 
 
 United Building Material Co., Sub-Contractors for Cement 311 
 
 Value, Beverly R. ; appointed Division Engineer 199, 204 
 
 Van Wyck, Robert A. ; ex-officio member of Board ; etc 40, 98 
 
 Water, Drain and Gas Pipes Laid ; No. of Lin. Ft 346-348 
 
 Water and Gas Mains .- 194 
 
 Waterproofing ; No. of Sq. Yds 346, 347 
 
 Wilson, Joseph M.; appointed Consulting Engineer 14 
 
 Withdrawal of Proposals by Metropolitan St. Ry. Co 66 
 
 Work ; dates of commencing 209-330 
 
 progress of on Section No. 1 326 
 
 " 3 327 
 
 " ■' " " 8 327-330 
 
Index. 
 
 299 
 
 Work — Continued. 
 
 progress of on Section No. 4 230-333 
 
 "oA&Sll 334-286 
 
 "" '■ "6A&6B 336,237 
 
 " " •' "7 237, 238 
 
 " " " "8 239 
 
 " 9A&9B 239,240 
 
 " "■ " "10 340 
 
 " " " "11 340, 241 
 
 " " " "12 241 
 
 " "13&14 241-244 
 
 " " " "15 245 
 
 to be done 196 
 
 total amount done by each sub-contractor to Dec. 31, 1901 246-248 
 
 Worthen, William E. ; Chief Engineer, Board of 1891 13, 14 
 
♦ * 
 
 LA FAVETTE PL. 
 
 BOULEVARD 
 
 STEEL IMASONRT MASONRY ARCH^ iTE E L t L EVATEO 
 
 RAM 
 
 JT/STI0N3- 1 LOCAL j,^EXPRESS 
 
 ' I LOCAL i_t^ 
 
 NO eORlNS^lM/tOC 
 LOCAL : LOCAL 
 
 
 M 
 
 rt???>' ..•^~- .'♦' .-''• 
 
 yt''_v al<',.-?l ^*J- Cf- 
 
 l^ ** V 
 
 
 RAPID TRANSIT COMMISSION 
 
 MAP ANiPROFtLE 
 RAILWAY 
 
 SHOWN BY CONTRACT DRAWIMfiS 
 DATED APRIL 7^-" 1898 
 
 y^J3^^y!?^^^'J^_ChU/ Engi. 
 
 ^■■■::^ 
 
i-JAIIXC.m SOUL C VAX i- .*?>J?.>I. .^P.\l>^ i 
 
^ 
 
 H 
 
 \ 
 
 i 
 
 -J ()J U tl U U U Ui^jU 
 
 ^/J 
 

 __IL 1 
 
 
 tOfO 
 
>4Kir/V6^ 
 
 RAPID TRANSIT COMMISSION 
 
 REARRANGEMENT OF SEWERS. 
 
 RIRST DIVISION. 
 
ConnecT's m)^ 
 
 r/rT?f 
 
 
 MAlVSON 
 
 1^ 
 
 2-3 
 
 ■AV£r. 
 
 FA/?/( /im24"cJ. 
 
 r 
 
 r 
 
 I 
 
 0, <\ 
 
 
 /^/W/fi34^ Al^ - 
 
 \ 
 
 '^ 6/?ANO C£/^T/?AL 
 STA T/O/V 
 
 n£P£W PL. 
 
 AV£. 
 
 ^A/ST// 'j 
 
 
 / 'p sen 
 
 CO. 
 
 
 % 
 
 •. 6(M3^S a Jf <^"c.j{ 
 
 C EN r fi ^ L 
 
 Co 
 
 rir 
 
 Co/inecfs /fere n/ifj 
 
^ 
 
 ^f'S '^Z\^" 
 
 
 
 3-< >\\2^" 
 
 I 
 
 1^ 
 
 W^-. 
 
 -Ati^Ml 
 
 
 
 ,0l 
 
 f 
 
 W-t 
 
 I 
 
 IN 
 
 & 
 ^ 
 
 0, 
 
 C £ jN T Ti ^\ i. 
 
 P ^ Ti 'ri 
 

 ^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 J'<5"x£-V" 
 
 
 
 it' 
 
 I ^^'x^^T^ 
 
 TT 
 
 W£-S 
 
 A £A 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 j 
 ViAfS 
 
 w 
 
 -/^DAM 
 
 > 
 
 i^ 
 
 -^t: 
 
 1^ 
 
 0\ 
 
 •<<--/" 
 
 •^'•i.R^ 
 
 Co 
 
 
 % 
 
 36'X^-^" 
 
 
 
 
 3-6 
 
 .<?v 
 
 i? 
 
 
 w^^ 
 
 iN 
 
 ;5s 
 
 'V. 
 
 S4 
 
 C/ 
 
 AV£- 
 
 1 
 
 I 
 
 u 
 N 
 
 1 
 
 0) 
 
 
 >l 
 
 0) 
 
 1 
 
 0) 
 
 1 
 
 (^ 
 » 
 
 
 1 
 
 0, 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 i 
 
 0) 
 
 1 
 
 0) 
 
 1 
 
 i 
 
 i 
 
 I 
 0, 
 
 ,0, 
 
 M 
 
 RAPID TRANSIT COMMISSION 
 
 Rl_AN SHOWINGS 
 
 REARRANGEMENT OF SEWERS. 
 
 SEZCOMD DIVISIOM. 
 
 100 ?oo 300 100 aoo 
 
 SCALE or TECT 
 
 r03Q I50O 
 
/c'/i^£-/psjDe Dff/y&. 
 
 
 Com <2£-/-J rfBr-e iv/Uft 
 ex/si /,\<f Se ner'S 
 
 'N 
 
 
 Nj 
 
 ~S^^^-4 
 
 Connects het'e tyi//i 
 ex/^r/'/ji? Sewers 
 
 So"C/^ 
 
 
 ^'-6^^■4'^ 3- f i , r-4 " 
 
 A) 
 
 B/fpy^ntv^y' 
 
 fv^ 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 5f^ 
 
 ^, 
 
 '?5 
 
 'f^ 
 
 
 
 i^ 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 0\ 
 
 0, 
 
 ;0) 
 
 ^ 
 
 ,o> 
 
 0, 
 
 0) 
 
 
 N 
 
 >i 
 
 ■N 
 
 >< 
 
 ^ 
 
 N 
 
 V 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^C^'QX 
 
 
 
 0, 
 
 M 
 
 1 
 M 
 
 ( 
 
 ^t n-r/^Af av e\ 
 
 re 
 
 -4^f1 
 
 Caf<ni 
 
 3-6 
 
 >^ts here 
 A/si^/nC' seirers 
 
 \ 
 
 ^ 
 
 K5o 
 
 
 (/I 
 
 0) 
 
 Oi 
 
 '/RP^ 
 
 y-y a l /i^£ 
 
 
 (^ 
 
 N 
 
 
 i M 
 
 
 y j\A/nL^ >»^- 
 
 J ^'^Jherc/'S /JP.re n/'n 
 T r- £r'f/vr*->(:i Severs 
 

 
 
 fe 
 
 /^ 
 
 
 # 
 
 ■^ N 
 
 
 a 
 
 -^1 M 
 
 1 
 
 
 ex/s/'/nd) 3sivers (^ 
 
 
 I 
 
 
 f^ 
 
 
 fc; 
 
 S 
 
 
 
 
 
 >»^ V g-g" l L£//OX I [ 
 
 1^ 
 
 »^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^-hl^^-^" 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 i4kg. 
 
 S 
 
 RAPID TRANS 
 
 — Rt-AM 
 
 REARRANGEME 
 
 "THIRD 
 
ex/^/~/r>d> reivers (^ 
 
 V 
 
 ^ ^11^ 
 
 t^ 
 
 0, 
 
 
 
 ^<9 
 
 0, 
 
 
 :jf^ 
 
 BifQAOiViY 
 
 
 Ul 
 
 0) 
 
 0) 
 
 0, 
 
 Connects /ler-e yy/rn 
 
 IS 
 
 I 
 
 « 
 
 -4'-c->''if.2-3' 
 
 I 
 
 \aV£: 
 
 I 
 
 RAPID TRANSIT COMMISSION 
 
 —' PL_AN SMOWINCS — 
 
 REARRANGEMENT OF SEWERS. 
 
 "THIRD DIVISiaM. 
 


 V 
 
 r 
 
 f/' i 
 
 - X. ^> \ 
 
 
 
 m 
 
 '4 ^-^ L 
 
 \ 
 
 
 ¥ 
 
 
 
Sf fSFS^^alfn 'A§24M ifl^B^Lt^obESa^^^^Sj^S^^M^^Ws 
 
 '■^i 
 
 ^ct/ofT orpeef? Tiitftre/ /roMor /04*Sf: 
 
 CONTRACT DRAWING N? C 9 
 
 Sca/B, ^^^ — ' — ' 
 
 
m 
 
 
 -^O-OP- 
 
 i—i- 
 
 
 "1i 
 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 la 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ' 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 - 
 
 n 
 
 5 
 
 ssit 
 
 ^ 
 
 s> 
 
 
 o 
 
 s 
 ^ 
 
 ^1 
 
 ^ 
 
 ■^ 
 ^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 N 
 '^ 
 
 , 
 
 'O 
 
 5 
 
 c^ 
 
 rv 
 
 !§ 
 
 
 r? 
 
 |5 
 
 
 
 
 -J 
 
 8 
 
 85 
 1 
 
 ~? 
 
 ■^ 
 
 ^« 
 
 ^ 
 
 •i« 
 
 V 
 
 L 
 
 . 
 
 *? 
 
 >» 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 ,5 
 
 It 
 
 '0 
 
 Q 
 
 '•i 
 
 '0 
 
 
 
 t 
 
 00 
 
 'cD 
 
 <«> 
 
 '05 
 
 •^■» 
 
 
 
 
 !^ 
 
 °i 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 "0 
 
 " 
 
 "O 
 
 "oNw 
 
 <^ 
 
 § 
 
 fi^ 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
!jVS«"/ -•55'['7^:>jUS! /' ™ sC;~SsV~^~ ■ * '' 
 
 SP^S^fS 
 
 ,*«k^s?»?s-s*ss«MSs«e5ss;^'-^Li 
 
 
 
 EP "■"' 
 
 -."-- 
 
 M 
 
 ^