Committee on Docks, ADVERSE TO APPLICATION OP THE HEW YORK AKS LONG ISLUD RAILROAD COMPAHY, FOR PERMISSION TO JOIN THIS CITY WITH LONG ISLAND BY RAILWAY TUNNELS BOARD OF ALDERMEN, mm mi DOCUMENT No. 2. NEW YORK: MARTIN B. BROWN, PRINTER AND STATIONER Nos. 49 and 51 Park Place. 1889. izx ICthrtB SEYMOUR DURST When you leave, please leave this book Because it has been said "£ver'tbing comes t' him who waits Except a loaned book." Avery Architectural and Fine Arts Library Gift of Seymour B. Dl rsf Old York Library REPORT OF Committee on Docks, ADVERSE TO APPLICATION OF THE NEW YORK AND LONG ISLAND RAILROAD COMPANY, FOR PERMISSION TO JOIN THIS CITY WITH LONG ISLAND BY RAIL W A Y TUNNELS. BOARD OF ALDERMEN, JAN UARY 1*1 >, 1889. DOCUMENT No. 2. NEW YORK: MARTIN B. BROWN, PRINTER AND STATIONER, Nos. 49 and 51 Park Place. 1889. DOCUMENT No. 2. BOARD OF ALDERMEN, JANUARY ^O, lSJ^O. The following resolution was reported by the Com- mittee on Docks, and adopted : Resolved, That all the applications made by the New York and Long Island Railroad Company, by Roy Stone, President, for the consent of the Board of Aldermen to the construction of a tunnel railway, join- ing this city with Long Island, mentioned in the accompanying application, be and are hereby denied and such consent refused ; that your Committee be discharged from the further consideration of the sub- ject ; that the report and accompanying papers be placed on file, and that five hundred copies thereof be printed in document form. F. J. TWOMEY, Clerk. Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2014 http://archive.org/details/reportofcommiteeOOnewy REPORT. The Committee on Docks, to whom was referred a petition, signed by Roy Stone, President of the New York and Long Island Railroad Company, praying that action be taken by the present Board of Aldermen on applications heretofore made by that company, to authorize the said company to construct tunnels under the waters of the East river and beneath certain of the streets in this city, respectfully REPORT : That it was not necessary to remind your Honorable Body, as does this new application, " that throughout the past year the company has constantly sought the consent of your Honorable Body to the construction of a tunnel railway joining this city with Long Island,'' nor is it necessary to inform Mr. Roy Stone and his company that the Common Council of this city has constantly and persistently denied the application. The villification to which the members of the Common Council was subjected last year, and the villainous attempt made to injure their reputations, both as citizens and officials — at the instance of Mr. Stone and his friends — served to remind the re-elected members of the late Board of the former fact. The action recommended herewith by your Committee will, it is hoped, convince Mr. Stone and his friends that a similar line of conduct, which they have seemingly entered upon in their efforts to influence the members of the present Common Council, will serve to keep constantly before the minds of Mr. Stone and his friends the latter fact ; and it maybe well, in addition, to assure him and the other aiders and abettors of this tunnel scheme of railroad, for benefiting Long Island at the expense of New York, that your Committee believe the Common Council of the City of New York would deem themselves recreant to the trusts con- fided to their care by their constituents, did its mem- bers, or a majority of them, consent to the scheme, thereby inflicting a blow to the welfare and prosperity of this city, from which it would not, because it could not, recover. Yonr Committee, in their consideration of the pre- sent application, have been greatly facilitated by the aid given them in reports of Committees of the late Board of Aldermen, made on the subject. The major- ity of the Committee on Eailroads, on the 17th day of last April, presented a report adverse to the application of this company, which so clearly set forth the objects, purposes and results of the measure, that the Board, by a vote of 19 in the affirmative to 4 in the negative, refused to give the desired consent, and made their opposition final by refusing to reconsider the vote by 7 which the adverse report was adopted. A modified application was subsequently presented and referred to the Committee on Bridges and Tunnels. That Com- mittee reported the scheme favorably, by a bare majority, on the 2d of January, in the present year, and the Board, by a vote of a 11 in the affirmative to 4 in the negative, laid the report on the table. On the 22d of January, 1889, the accompanying application was presented in the Board and referred to the Com- mittee on Docks. The recommendation your Com- mittee intend to make, and which they trust your Honorable Body Avill adopt, will, it is hoped, induce Mr. Stone to withold any other applications for tunnel privileges across Manhattan Island, and that thereby the members of your Honorable Body will escape the tirade .of abuse, unjust accusation and bitter denuncia- tion which seem to be inseparable from the expressed determination of a large majority of the members of the Board to refuse Mr. Stone and his partners the right to inflict irreparable damage upon the City of New York, without the slightest benefit, directly or indirectly, to our own people. Your Committee, in this connection, deems it not in- appropriate to remark, that the prevalent custom of attacking members of the Common Council, of the city, in the columns of the daily newspapers, oftentimes, as in the present instance, without the shadow of a reason, is growing to be a very serious evil, and one that mili- 8 tates against the best interests of our city and its people. The position of a chosen representative in the Common Council, each of whom represents a large constituency, and in the aggregate, the entire people of this city, should be regarded as an honorable one, until, at least, something dishonorable or dishonest has been proven against him, and should entitle its possessor at least to the common civilities and ameni- ties of civilized life. The contrary is, however, the case, and public sentiment, framed and directed gener- ally by speculators in public franchises, who, by some occult science, secures the control of some of our public journals, is against any man, no matter how up- right, honorable or competent he may be as a legis- lator, whose public acts cannot be controled by them, and whose service they cannot secure. It is unfortu- nate that this is an uncontrovertible fact ; it is never- theless true and is a great calamity, as it deters many high-minded, honorable and able men from assuming the weight of odium that attaches to the position, and will so continue to deter them until a reaction takes place in public sentiment. The legitimate fruits of this undesirable condition of holding public office in our city government is becoming more and more ap- parent to the most casual observer, and unless an anti- dote to this moral poison is applied speedily, it will result in the utter demoralization — not to say annihila- tion — of government by the people. 9 One of the newspapers most prominent in abusing the members of this Board secured only a few days ago a privilege worth to it many thousands of dollars, as it enabled the proprietor of that paper to add hundreds if not thousands of superficial feet to its proposed press-room area. The petition for the privilege was presented, passed by the Board, approved by the Mayor, and a duly certified copy furnished, all within twenty-four hours. It is surprising that the facility with which this great privilege was secured to the World newspaper, did not suggest the idea of " boodle " to some of its contemporaries and competi- tors, as the alacrity exhibited in granting the privilege, without reference or question, in the anxiety of the Board to serve the great newspaper, certainly leads to the suspicion, if it does not justify the conclusion, that improper motives actuated the Board in passing and the Mayor in approving the resolution granting the privilege ; and as the privilege is revocable by the Common Council, it might be well to do so, in order to satisfy the skeptical, if there are any, that such was no 1 the case, but that the valuable privilege was granted out of pure good will to Mr. Pulitzer. A slight scrutiny only is necessary to justify your Committee in recommending your Honorable Body to set the seal of your disapproval and condemnation on this proposed scheme of uniting this city with Long Island by a tunnel beneath our streets and the waters 10 of the East river. Eight to fifteen millions of dollars is given as the probable cost of the work. The New- York and Long Island Railroad Company, Roy Stone, President, is organized to do it, with a capital of $100,- 000, of which not one per cent., or 81,000, is yet paid up. He must place a very low estimate on the value of a vote of a member of your Honorable Body if lie supposes, as he seems to desire the public to infer, that money has been asked to secure favorable action on his application. It is to be hoped that the entire capi- tal stock — not the sum paid up — would not be sufficient for the purpose. Aldermen's votes should not be held so cheap. No preliminary surveys have been made ; it is not known positively whether the scheme is or is not practicable ; no details are given of the duration of the work ; its effect upon adjoining buildings ; what alterations it will necessitate to the location of sewers, water, gas or steam pipes, electrical conduits, or private vaults, and no security is offered to save the city or property-owners harmless from any loss or damage that may occur to either during the progress of the work. Mr. Roy Stone, President, is simply an employee of the Department of Public Works, is in no way or manner a responsible person, does not own a dollar's worth of property in the city, if any where else, has no interest whatever, other than the amount of sal- ary he draws from its treasury, in its welfare or pros- perity, and it is very questionable if any of his asso- ciates are better qualified to engage in such an extensive 11 enterprise ; and your Committee has come to the con- clusion that Mr. Stone and his associates in the "New York and Long Island Kailroad Company " are simply cat's paws, chartered or incorporated to draw this municipal chestnut out of the fire for the use of more important and better known individuals, who, if their identity appeared, would arouse a feeling of indigna- tion at this new one of the many schemes they have inaugurated and established, by which they have enriched themselves at the expense of the City of New York and its people. Fortunately, your Committee have been aided in their investigations by many of the owners of property likely to be affected by the proposed tunnel. With a public spirit, in the highest degree commendable, they have taken a leading part in exposing the shallow pre- tenses of Mr. Stone and his associates. These gentle- men, through a committee of their number, have caused their views of the project to be presented, and as they are in full accord with those held by your Committee, it is suggested that they be printed, with the report of the majority of the Committee on Rail- roads, April, 17, 1888, as an appendix to this report of your Committee, together to form one of the documents of this Board, thereby giving a connected statement of the reasons that have induced your Committee to recommend your Honorable Body to refuse the permis- sion asked by the New York and Long Island Railroad [2 Company to connect this city and Long Island by underground tunnels. The following resolution is, therefore, respectfully offered for your adoption : /'evolved, That all the applications made by the New York and Long Island Railroad Company, by Roy Stone, President, for the consent of the Board of Aldermen to the construction of a tunnel railway, joining this City with Long Island, mentioned in the accompanying application, be and are hereby denied and such consent refused ; that your Committee be discharged from the further consideration of the sub- ject ; that the report and accompanying papers be placed on file, and that five hundred copies thereof be printed in document form. WILLIAM H. WALKER, 1 JAMES F. BUTLER, | Committee WILLIAM TAIT, \ on WILLIAM P. RINCKHOFF, I Docks. CHRISTIAN GOETZ, I Alderman Storm moved that the report of the Com- mittee be laid over. The President put the question whether the Board would agree with said motion. Which was decided in the negative, on a division called by Alderman Storm, as follows : 13 Affirmative — The President, Vice-President Fitz- simons, Aldermen R. J. Barry, Gregory, Gunther, Morris, Noonan, Shea, and Storm — 9. Negative — Aldermen D. Barry, Butler, Carlin, Clancy, Cowie, Divver, Dowd, Flynn, Goetz, Hammond, Oakley, Bapp, Rinckhoff, Sullivan, Tait, and Walker —16. Alderman Storm arose to a point of order, and stated it to be, that the report must necessarily lay over as the printing of the report involved an expenditure of money. The President declared the point of order not well taken, on the ground that the printing of the report formed part of the procedings of the Board. Alderman Gregory moved to amend by striking from the resolution all but the portion relating to discharg- ing the Committee from the further consideration of the subject. Bat the President ruled the motion out of order. Alderman Fitzsimons moved to amend by striking out that portion referring to the printing of five hundred copies of the report and accompanying jDapers. The President put the question whether the Board would agree with said motion. 14 Which was decided in the negative on a division called by Alderman Sullivan, as follows: Affirmative — The President, Vice-President Fitz- simons, Aldermen 1). Barry, R. J. Barry, Gregory, Gunther, Morris, Noonan, and Storm — 9. Negative — Alderman Butler, Carlm, Clancy, Cowie, Divver, Dowd, Flynn, Qilligan, Goetz, Hammond, Oakley, Rapp, Rinckhoft", Shea, Sullivan, Tait, and Walker— 17. The President put the question whether the Board would agree to accept the report and adopt the reso- lution. Which was decided in the affirmative on a division called by Alderman Walker, as follows : Affirmative— Aldermen D. Barry, Butler, Carlin, Clancy, Cowrie, Divver, Dowd, Flynn, Gilligan, Goetz, Hammond, Oakley, Rapp, Rinckhoff, Sullivan, Tait, and Walker— 17. Negative — The President, Vice-President Fitzsi- nions, Aldermen R, J. Barry, Gregory, Gunther Mor- ris, Noonan, and Storm — 8. Alderman Shea was excused from voting — 1. Alderman Carlin moved a reconsideration of the above vote. 15 Alderman Shea moved that the motion be laid on the table. The President put the question whether the Board would agree with said motion. Which was decided in the negative on a division called by Alderman Oakley, as follows : Affirmative — The President, Vice-President Fitz- sirnons, Aldermen R. J. Barry, Gregory, Gunther, Morris, Noonan, Shea, and Storm — 9. Negative — xlldermen Butler, Carlin, Clancy, Cowie, Divver, Dowd, Flynn, Gilligan, Goetz, Hammond, Oakley, Rapp, Rinckhoff, Sullivan, Tait, and Walker —16. The President then put the question whether the Board would a^ree with the motion of Alderman Carlin to reconsider. Which was decided in the affirmative on a division called by Alderman Carlin, as follows : Affirmative — Aldermen D. Barry, Butler, Carlin, Clancy, Cowie, Divver, Dowd, Flynn, Gilligan, Goetz, Hammond, Oakley, Rapp, Rinckhoff, Shea, Storm, Sullivan, Tait, and Walker— 19. Negative — The President, Vice-President Fitz- simons, Aldermen R. J. Barry, Gregory, Gunther, Morris, and Noonan — 7. 16 Alderman Storm moved that the whole matter be laid on the table. But he subsequently withdrew the motion. Alderman Carlin then moved that the report of the Committee be accepted and the resolution be again adopted. The President put the question whether the Board would agree with said motion. Which was decided in the affirmative on a division called by Alderman Divver, as follows : Affirmative — Aldermen D. Barry, Butler, Carlin, Clancy, Cowie, Divver, Dowd, Flynn, Gilligan, Goetz, Hammond, Oakley, Bapp, Binckhoff, Shea, Sullivan, Tait, and Walker— 18. Negative — The President, Vice-President Fitz- simons, Aldermen R. J. Barry, Gregory, Gunther, Morris, Noonan, and Storm — 8. Alderman Carlin moved a reconsideration of the above vote. The President ruled the motion out of order as under the Bules no vote for a reconsideration can be taken more than once. \ APPENDIX. 2 19 REPORT. The Committee on Railroads, to whom was referred the accomparry- ing application of the New York and Long Island Railroad Company, for permission to construct, maintain and operate a railroad entering the City of New York from Long Island, by two adjacent parallel tunnels beneath the bed of the East river, etc., respectfully REPORT : That several meetings of your Committee have been held, at which all persons interested in the proposed undergound railroad were given an opportunity to be heard, but the attendance at such meetings other than the promoters of the enterprise did not warrant the opinion that the public generally, or the owners of property to be particularly affected by the proposed railroad, took the slightest interest in the proposition, yet it is one of the most stupendous schemes ever presented for the consideration of the local authorities of this city, and more directly .and intimately affects the interests of both the people and government of the City of New York than any and all other schemes ever devised or carried into practical operation by private corporations or individuals to enrich themselves at the expense of the City of New York and its most vital interests. It is proposed by the New York and Long Island Railroad Com- pany to enter the City of New York, from Long Island, by two adja- cent parallel tunnels beneath the bed of the East river, at or near Thirty-fifth street, and continuing in such tunnels beneath the streets and lands of the said city to a terminus at a point between Ninth and Tenth avenues and between Twenty -ninth and Thirtieth streets, where the said tunnels will reach the surface of the ground. It is also intended to construct two branch tunnels and railroads, one from Thirty-fourth street and Fourth avenue to the Grand Central Depot at Forty-second street, and a second from West Thirtieth street, at Ninth avenue to connect with what is now known as the Hudson River Tun- nel, at or near the foot of Christopher street, North river ; that the top lines of the tunnels will be at an average depth of 60 feet below the present surface of the lands in the city, the larger part being at a still greater depth, and that at all points of intersection of the routes of said tunnels with the different lines of elevated railways, at other suitable 20 points it is intended lo e(»nstniet and operate passenger elevators in veiiieal shafts, on property of tht company to connect with the two lines of railroad for purposet of " traffic." four Committee would most cheerfully reeoininend that your Hon- orable Body should consent to the ( instruction and operation of the proposed tunnels and railroads were the lines thereof reversed and the proposed facilities for 1 traffic " alTorded to residents of this eit\ alone, and would consent that such 1 unnels he constructed transversely beneath the waters of the Harlem instead of the Lust river. If a desire to [mpT9TO facilities for " traffic " anions our own residents was even In a remote degree contemplated by this scheme of the "New York" and Long Island Railroad Company, it might be prudent on the part of your Honorable Body to assent thereto, or if the intent was to add to the value of property located, or the volume of. bu i>jf s I 1 1- I KD. Again: What purposes do the following suggestive extract from the 'last-named circular indicate ? ' In commerce Hie cost of storing :m d handling goods hen- is already driving business away. A single transportation line carries five millions of tons of merchandise past New York annually * * *. Other indications are not wanting that fee city is losing its grip on the business of the country * * * The improvement we propose gives hope of a He* era of prosperity- ti opens up twenty square miles of beautiful territory lying neater to the ( itv Hall than* Harlem river • * * it gives quick transit to the sea' and it pavei the way for the introduction of all the railroads to the N, w York below ground." TFIE Ul'PEIt WABDB TO UK AliANDoNED. Vnother circular, issued from the same source, and containing ex- tract from the editorial of March 17. 1886, in Tin Engineering \ tl r, announces : 11 We need hardly say that the natural mode of growth of large cities, when not interfered with by topographical causes, is by a circular spreading of population in all directions." Then, notwithstanding the veritable fact that Manhattan Island is not " circular," because the Creator or "topographical causes " made it elongated, the writer proceeds to demonstrate how this mistake in creation can be remedied through the means of this tunnel ; the process consisting in cutting off and casting to waste all of the upper part of the City of New York, and in piecing up a "circular " city out of the lands of Long Island, reached by, if not owned by, this railroad com- pany. We are assured that this transformation of New York City becomes desirable, because " the whole eastern third of the city, beyond the Bowery and Third avenue, a few cases excepted, is one vast and squalid tenement region, crowded to suffocation with human beings, and a breathing place of wretchedness and crime." 35 This cannot be claimed as a very flattering, as it certainly is not a truthful, description of a major part of the constituents of the Aldermen to whom this Railroad Company is petitioning for favors. A Test, If this is not intended as a freight road, but is simply a passenger road designed to improve the east side by abolishing its 14 wretched- ness and crime," what is the necessity of building this tunnel entirely across the city under Thirty-eighth street ? Would not a tunnel from Long Island City under the East river, branching to Mott street and Mackerelville answer this purpose better ? The Unanswerable Reply of the Aldermen. To this kind of argument the majority of the Railroad Committee, in their report hereinbefore referred to, in rejecting this tunnel project as subversive of the interests of ike City of .New York, and particularly of the laboring people, whose interests they are the peculiar represen- tatives and guardians of, replied as follows : Your Committee would most cheerfully recommend that your Hon- orable Body should consent to the construction and operation of the proposed tunnels and railroads were the lines thereof reversed and the proposed facilities for ' traffic ' afforded to residents of this city alone, and would consent that such tunnels be constructed transversely beneath the waters of the Harlem instead of the East river. If a desire to improve facilities for k traffic '.among our own residents was, even in a remote degree, contemplated by this scheme of the • New York ' and Long Island Railroad Company, it might be prudent upon the part of your Honorable Body to assent thereto, or if the intent was to add to the value of property located, or the volume of the business transacted in this city, the required consent should be given. Such, however, is not the case, nor is it even intended that such should be the result. Ask the owner of property, or man in business iu Fulton street, or any other of the business streets in the lower part of the city, how much his business has been increased, or the value of his property enhanced by the construction of the ' New Y^ork ' and Brooklyn Bridge. * * * The Bridge has half depopulated the lower wards of our city ; the proposed tunnels and railroads will complete the depopulating process for the central and upper wards. * * * But a merely superficial examination must be sufficient to convince the most skeptical that pas- senger ' traffic is a mere blind, a subterfuge, and intended to deceive both the people and government of this city.' Your Committee believe they are warranted in saying that the proposed tunnel scheme MS ot rili |n,atiiiL r law permits, the con- struction of such a railroad within two parallel ad jacent tunnels upon the routes and according to the profiles heretofore brought to your notice in a chart * * * submitted to you * * * on or about the fifteenth day of January last, to which chart and petition filed therewith reference is respectfully mad". That brief then goes on to say that Long Island is about 120 miles long and has a population of 900, 0D0 ; but it forgets to say that the far greater portion of such population resides in Brooklyn, who rarely, if ever, would use this tunnel in going to and from their business at the lower end of Manhattan Island, on account of its distance therefrom. The Brief reasons that because the improved railroad management on Long Island for the past few years has induced the building of sum- mer residences on Long Island instead of on the shore line of New- Jersey, that, therefore, it is the duty of the City of New York to sub- mit to the sacrifices entailed upon it by this tunnel, without any com- pensation derived from its revenues, as New York City, by means of the tunnel, would divert patronage from New Jersey and give it to Long Island ; and from these premises the following not very obvious 39 conclusion is attempted to be drawn : " From whatever point of view the projects of this company are regarded, it will appear that their realization must result in immediate and lasting benefit to the people of this city." These immediate and lasting benefits are reasoned out from the proposition assumed to have been settled by experience, namely, that " increased facilities of rapid, safe and economical travel from the suburbs of a city to its centre contribute to * * * its prosperity." It may, in passing, be suggested that the correctness of this proposi- tion, with certain limitations, might be admitted ; but it is a very dif- ferent admission from that asked of us — that it would be more to the advantage of New York City to give superior advantages for commu- nication with Long Island than to its own uninhabited land. . One of the limitations above referred to is, that the same advantages do not accrue to a city or town through which a railroad passes as to one in which it terminates. The same suggestion is applicable to the argument of the Brief that this railroad company ought not to be made to pay a percentage of its profits to the city, because its purposes and designs are similar " to those of the New York and Harlem, New York and New Haven, New York and Northern and Hudson River rail- roads ; " for all of these railroads bring their traffic to New York City and stop there, while the design of this tunnel is — if the Board of Aldermen were correct in their conclusion, or if every indication developed or concealed by this tunnel railroad is brought to the test of common sense— to pass its traffic under New York City, and not to stop there, but to stop at some other point which, as the terminus, will reap most of the advantages accruing from the enterprise. A Flimsy Assumption that this is not a Street Railway. The Brief proceeds : " It is to be borne in mind that this company is not a street, surface or arcade railway company ; that it does not ask the use of any part of any street, avenue or public place in the city as a part of its route, distinctly disclaiming any such demand." ■* * * Courts judge the character of a scheme from its purposes, inevitable tendencies, apparent characteristics, rather than by its language " dis- tinctly disclaiming," for an evident purpose, that which it has by its nature, acts and even words, distinctly avowed. The Court of Appeals has decided that just such a railroad as this proposes to be, is "an underground street railroad." In that case the railroad began and ended in the same city. This railroad, while it has all the characteris- tics of that one, does not begin and end in the same city ; but does that 40 aber the character of thai portion of it which lies within tin- city ! Would it not he considered an absurdity to say that the Madison A venue railroad was a street railroad until it CTOMOd the eitv limits, and that such crossing transformed that part of it within the city lim- its to something- else than a street railroad? There is nothing in tbil pretense. If there is, why does this company refuse to suspend this application until that precise question is settled by the General Term where it is still pending '.' The Brief continues ; " That it proposes to pay in cash for all the properly required for its use in the city, and that it contemplates no competition for local travel with any existing surface, underground or elevated railway, but that it proposes only to construct , maintain and operate its lines, as a common carrier of persons and property, into mid OUt of the City of New York." " We ask from you no con- tributions in money towards the accomplish men't of ourdesigns, and as we contemplate the expenditure of a large sum of money at your doors, in the prosecution of a great, difficult and extremely hazardous enterprise, the ultimate cost of which no man can fortell, we should not be required to pay any other sum of money for the right to enter your city than the annual tax assessed and levied upon our property within its boundaries." Is there not a necessity for another Brief to explain w here the money is to come from for the payment of all damages inflicted on eighteen or twenty millions of property in Thirty-eighth street alone, and for all property taken, and for the expenditure of a large sum, * * in the prosecution of a great, difficult and t xtremely hazardous enterprise, the ultimate cost of which no man can fortell ! " Certainly it cannot come from the capital of $100,000! Certainly not from any sane capitalist, if it be true as pretended that the revenues of this tunnel are alone coming from the fares and freight induced to descend from 100 to 150 feet into the bowels of the earth in order to secure transporta- tion only from New York City to Long Island and nowhere else. It seems impossible to contemplate the shifting and shallow state- ments of this railroad company as to its own routes purposes and promises, changing position and hue whenever a new obstacle renders necessary a new turn of the kaleidoscope, without exclaiming— New York and Long Island Railroad Company, thy real name is inconsis- tency ! In the confusion caused by this multiplicity of contradictory words as to the real composition and intentions of this Railroad Com- pany, it is wise to remember that these promises are written in the sand and will not endure. When once its purpose is accomplished, and aldermanic permission has been obtained, then this corporation will cast aside the mask and will do and claim everything allowed to it by law— and probably considerably more. "The Mersey Railway." Complete failure of a Tunnel en many respects similar to the proposed east rrver tunnel, and in most respects affording superior prospects of success to any which can be claimed for the one under consideration. It is safer to be guided by experience than by theories, when the inquiry relates to the possibility of profitable progress through the hidden obstacles down deep in the earth. The best built tunnel under water now in existence, called for by necessities most imperious, and by inducements most promising, backed by wealth to any required amount, and guided by engineering skill unsurpassed, after 20 years of struggle for inception and existence and notwithstanding half a dozen or more enabling Acts of Parliment, and more than ten millions of dollarr. of expenditures, has in two years become bankrupt, and demonstrated that passengers prefer ferries to tunnels for crossing rivers. Compare the two Situations. Assuming the present pretense to be the true purpose, that is, to " carry antl fetch " between Long Island and New York City, and not to transfer from the West, under New York City, to Montauk Point, our proposed tunnel railway must depend upon passengers to and from New York City to Long Island exclusive of Brooklyn, for Brooklyn is south of Manhattan Island and will not be accommodated by a Thirty-eighth street tunnel, and Long Island has no mineral or other products, worth mentioning, which this city needs to the extent that its transportation will pay a fair investment percentage upon a construction account of more than ten millions of dollars, and a work- ing expenditure of 70 per cent, of gross income. In such case the de- mand for and prospects of the tunnel under the Mersey were im- mensely superior to those of the East River Tunnel. Liverpool, the natural metropolis of the great manufacturing districts of Lancashire and York and the agricultural districts of Cheshire, is situated on the northwesterly side of the Mersey River, almost exactly corresponding in tunneling width, so to speak, to our East river, upon the opposite bank of which is situated its suburb Birkenhead, con- taining a part of the renowned Liverpool Dock s}*stera, the two places being separated by a river traversed only by about half a dozen ferries, which transport about 26,000,000 of passengers a year. Birkenhead is 42 located upon a tongue of land belonging to ( Ik shire, about H or 9 miles wide, and hounded upon its northwesterly side hv the Mersey, and on the southeasterly side hv tin- river Dee, which separates it from Wales. Wales is that portion of England, consisting of ahout 12 counties, lying on the western coast, north and east of the Severn river, and south and east of the Mersey, its coast line l»eiiiL r on the Irish sea. Wales is mountainous and abounds in minerals, and Liverpool is its natural port. Liverp>ol wanted the commerce of Wales more than Birkenhead wanted Liverpool to have that which she thought naturally belonged to her ; just as L.>nL r Island wants ;) tunnel more than New York City wants Long Island to have a tunnel, because Long Island covets that which New York City has. and New York City does not need anything thai Long Island has. The Mersey tunnel was a Liverpool affair, and Birkenhead refused *t0 see its tremendous blessings unless she was paid for injury to her ferry franchises and in addition had good security for the damage done to her sewers, streets and citizens. The great railway companies, in order tO get from Liverpool to Birkenhead and to Wales and hack, were forced to make a circuit of :}() miles and cross the Mersey at Runcorn by a most expensive bridge. The Mersey tunnel under the river was ahout a mile long from abaft to shaft, which is about the length of our pro- posed one. The Mersey railway proper was about three miles long, including that portion under the river, while our- is proposed to be about five miles. The less than three miles of the Mersey railway cost over ten millions of dollars, notwithstanding it bored its way through the most desirable material, new red sand stone ; and its officials bragged that it cost only about two millions of dollars per mile, which they claimed was only about oce-half of the cost of similar tunnels. What will our five miles of tunnel cost at this rate? Let the aban- doned Hudson River Tunnel answer ! The Mersey consisted of three or more tunnels— a main tunnel, another tunnel to ventilate the main tunnel through, another tunnel to drain the main tunnel through. It was found necessary to change the air in the Mersey tunnel every seven minutes by the operation of four immense fans, sending the sucking currents through the auxiliary tunnel. What would become of pas- sengers in that tunnel in case of an.accident to train and fans ? Would it not be difficult to demonstrate anything left of, 30 feet wide, Thirty- eighth street after boring three tunnels through it of the required dimen- sions ? The proof of the substantial correctness of these statements is given below, mostly in the language of the officials and friends of the Mersey tunnel. Read it. It is lengthy but profitable— it affords us facts in the place of theory. 43 Favorable Statement of "the Mersey" officials — interest tng as indicating the experience our tunnel must encounter. A statement by the officers and promoters of the Mersey Railroad, entitled "Private, not to appear in print before Thursday, January 1, (1877)," gives the most favorable history of the scheme from its incep- tion it is susceptible of, by which it appears that previous to the year 1864, various projects for crossing* the Mersey" - * * " had been suggested, but nothing of a practical kind seems to have been done until the autumn of that year, when a bill was deposited for the Birkenhead and Liverpool Railway. " This was defeated. Consolidation — Temporary Abandonment. The next year, 1865, bills were deposited for three schemes for crossing the Mersey, one was for this tunnel — another for a bridge, and the third for a pneumatic tunnel. The pneumatic tunnel scheme only was adopted, but languished, while various other schemes were started and abandoned in 1866, 1867 and 1868. On December 22, 1869, a meeting was held and all other than the pneumatic scheme were abandoned, and in 1870 and 1871 that scheme was turned into a rail- way tunnel project, and it was incorporated under its present name, the " Mersey Railway Company." After sinking a shaft 90 feet deep on the Birkenhead side, which disclosed sound rock, the work was abandoned. Six Years for a Partial Completion. Finally, in 1879, a contract was effected with Major Isaacs, backed by a powerful body of capitalists. " The work was at once taken in hand in earnest, the ground for the shafts on either side of the river being broken, in December, 1879, just six years ago, * * * and from that date to the present * * * work on the railway has never stood still for a single day save Sundays." * * * Preliminary Experiments cost $600,000.00. " So soon as the shafts were sunk the first object of the engineer * * . * * was to push forward the trial heading on either side to- wards the river, so as to test and prove the nature of the strata to be worked in as soon as practicable." * * * The drift ways towards the river were carried forward deep down in the rock, and gradually rose towards the centre of the river so as to drain off the water from the workings to the pump. Powerful pumping engines were put clown on either side of the river. " * * * " By June, 1881, Major Isaac and his friends, after an outlay of some £125,000, felt themselves justified 1 1 by the progress made, and Hit- knowledge and experience of the strata under the river which had by that time been gained, in applying to the public for Capital." (This was successfully made). " The works have been driven day and night, with three shifts of men working for eight hours each." * * * NOTWITHSTANDING THE "Sol-ID " Ro(K IT KKqi.'IKhD AN KXTHA Shaft to keep THE 'Fennel from being diiow.nkd. In September, 1HH1, it was found necessary to have a second shaft on either side of the river, so that it might he exclusively devoted to pumping purposes, while the spoil from the workings • * * should be brought to the surface by the new shaft." * * "The formation of the second shaft was followed by the laying down of an additional pumping set." Main Tennee COMMENCED before preliminary Tests < » »\i jm.etei ». " The progress already achieved with the trial headings was con- sidered to warrant the Hoard in announcing their intention to proceed at once with the main channel without waiting for the complete pierc- ing of the rock from side to side. WhiNt the work was actually pro- ceeding in the drift way, the excavation for the actual tunnel was accordingly pushed on, but owing to the gradient following the river, it was necessary to get rid of any water that accumulated at the faces, To this end bore holes were put down at stated intervals into the drainage headings, and as each advanced hole was bored the preced- ing was plugged up." Parliamentary Aid solicited — Damages bkoin to appear. In autumn, 1881, it was found necessary to apply to Parliament for extended powers ; the question of damages to the Ferry rights of the Birkenhead Corporation came to the surface. It resulted in a clause compelling the Mersey Railway Company to pay £50,000 within six years as compensation for the damage. " This transaction evoked strong expressions of opinions. * * * On the one hand, it was strongly urged that the town of Birkenhead, which was to benefit so much and in so many ways by the construction of the tunnel, should have gladly abandoned all right they might have to compensation." Curious "throbbing" from Dynamite firing. In October, 1882, Mayor Isaac gave a lunch to the Lord Mayor of London in the tunnel works. " The proceedings * * * were enlivened by the occasional accompaniment of shot firing with dyna- 45 mite at the rock faces when the work was progressing, the vibration causing a curious throbbing along the smooth brick arching of the tunnel." Boring— Breaking— Bricking— Sand— The tunnel and drift way meet January 17, 1884. " In the spring of 1883 the boring machine of Colonel Beaumont, R. E., was added, and it greatly accelerated the driving of the head- way and the main tunnel. The cutting instruments are disks of chilled cast iron, set in strong iron bar, which is made to revolve by means of compressed air, and thus scoops out a tunnel seven feet in diameter. By progressive improvements in the mechanism, to suit the special quality of the rock, Colonel Beaumont obtained a high degree of speed of over fifty linear yards per week, which left far behind the old method of blasting by dynamite or tonite. Mr. AVardwell's apparatus, in breaking up the rock at different places to the size of the main tunnel, and bricking in short lengths, followed close upon the tunnel driver by Colonel Beaumont ; and all through 1883 and 1884 the works both under the Mersey and on the landward extensions, were in full swing." "The visitors * * * inspected the lower drainage headings * * * and the devices to dispose of the water which per- colated through the rock during the process of construction." * * * "On the Cheshire side a splendid engineering work was completed at immense cost through soft sand, the difficulty and importance of which the passengers * * * will have no idea." The 17th Jan., 1884, was a great day in the history of the Railway, for the last few feet of rock, which divided the Beaumont tunnel on the Birkenhead side from the drift way on the Liverpool side were broken away by the boring machine. * * * " The distance across from shaft to shaft was 1,770 yards, or rather more than a mile * * * ." Main Tunnel 26 by 23 feet. " So soon as the necessary length of excavation at each face of the ' brick ups ' in the tunnel, some 9 to 12 feet, was taken out, the brick- layers came in and rapidly built up the permanent tunnel. This consists of from six to eight rings of the most solid brickwork in cement, the two inner curves being blue Staffordshire or Buckley bricks. The width of the tunnel is 26 feet, the height above rails 19 feet, giving a height of 23 feet from invert to crown of tunnel. At the two stations * * * the tunnel arch is enlarged to 50 feet 6 inches span and 32 feet in height, by a length of 400 feet, n; A Tl NNKI, I OK VENTILATION. " In addition to the Railway tunnel, :i parallel drift way was driven by the Beaumont Boring .Machine for the purposeof ventilation, This ventilation heading is 2, :;<»() yards in length, and is connected with the railway tunnel in eight different places by means of cross cuts, which, being provided with suitable doors, enables the air to be conducted to the fans from a number <>| points. " The ventilation If effected by means of four Guibal fans, two on the Birkenhead, and two on the Liverpool side of the river. One DO feet in diameter * * * throws ls«,()00 cubic feet of air per minute * * * the fan at Shore road is 40 feet in diameter by 12 feet in width in the blast, and this draws the air from the tunnel at the centre of river through the ventilation heading up to the fan itself. The principle aimed at in the scheme is that pure air shall enter the station, and travel inwards in either direction into the funnel to the respective fans, thus keeping the plat forms as free as possible from the smoke. * * * The fans at Liverpool are similar to those at Birkenhead." The quantity of air thrown by all four fans is about (JOO.000 feet per minute. So that the entire air of the tunnel is changed every seven minutes. (Suppose they break, wh it then ? ) It Mu iIIM KY STOPS IT WILL BE "SOMK HOUHs" BEFORE THE TRACKS WILL BE OXDEB WATER. " The company 's pumping machinery is capable of dealing with four times the quantity of water, which makes its way into the drainage headway, and even were the pumps from any cause temporarily to cease work, it would take some hours before the water rose to the level of the rails in the tunnel." Gas Preferable to Electric Light. "The engineers are believed to have evinced sound judgment in deciding to light the stations with gas in preference to electricity, * * * it was considered that it should not be adopted unless gas was also immediately available, in case of the inevitable break down that sooner or later occurs. * * * An equivalent amount of light in each case, the cost of establishing the latter is still four times that of the former." Connection with Railway System discovered to be a necessity. " In the last session of Parliament (1886), the company obtained an act for connecting the tunnel with the line of railway running along 47 the Liverpool dock." * * * " On the Birkenhead side, the company obtained an act in 1880, foi a branch in the direction of North Birken- head and the Great Float, along the line of Beckwith street, to a station under the Park beyond Duke street. Here it will be met by the Wirral Railway, which will unite it with the railway now for many years running from the head of Wallsey Pool to Hoylake, thus bringing Hoylake and West Kirby and their neighborhood, unsurpassed as watering places and for all residential purposes, within less than half an hour's through railway journe}^ from the Liverpool Exchange." * * The completion of the first stage of the Mersey Railway, marking the point where it could be operated, may be said to be when it received the statutory inspection by the Government Inspectors which took place January 4, 1886. Promised Inducements to Investors. For the purpose of showing briefly the high expectations indulged in by the promoters of the Mersey Tunnel, as well as by men prominent in public affairs, and of showing the superior reasons for success in the case of the Mersey Tunnel over the East River Tunnel in the scheme as now presented, and of showing how deplorably those expectations were disappointed when put to the practical test , attention is called to the following. The Directors in 1881 published a statement from which the following facts are taken : " Capital, £866,000 ($4,330,000)" * * * The railway will be a little over two and a half miles in length. * * * The traffic is estimated as follows : *'..* * 13,000.000 passengers per annum, at an average fare of 2d. each £108,323 500,000 tons goods per annum, at Is. per ton. 25,000 Parcels and sundries 6,000 * * * D 'duct 50 per cent, for working expenses, net balance, £58,866. Equal to a dividend of 9 per cent, upon the capital." " Shafts were sunk * * * to a depth of 18'") feet in order to drive a trial heading, which should also serve to drain the main tunnel. * * .* The quality of the rock proving on both sides of the river to be both hard and uniform, the company has determined to proceed with the main tunnel." * * * About the same time the Mayor of Liverpool said : " It is an under- taking which would rank as one of the most important engineering works of the present generation, * * * uniting together the two great parts of the Mersey Dock estate, and linking together the manu- facturing population of Lancashire and Yorkshire with the agricultural and mining districts of Cheshire and North Wales. H 1 )i moran >nh — Power. The Chairman upon the same occasion said : "The two main maftl have been sunk, that at Liverpool to the depth of 1?-'. feet, with a diameter bf 15 feet . and that at Birkenhead to a depth of 170 feet with a diameter of 17 feet. * * * The diameter of the second shafts were each ten feet ; the pumping power at the Liverpool end amounts to seven million- per diem : * ;i that at Birkenhead end to no less than six millions, " up to (he present time ; the water which has been forced at either end of the work- has been mainly derived from land sources, and that there is very little evidence of any water coming from the bed of the river. * • * The traffic which we may expect with regard to good- and minerals is one which I will not dilate upon to-day, but 1 will point .-ut that there la a great business to be done in that way. Kven H W6 run paesenger trains, as we hope to do, every five minutes during the day hours, at night we shall be able to run mineral trains, and if gentlemen bare considered the importance of the great coal fields of North Wales to the City of Liverpool, they will atonce perceive the enormous prospect of business there is in the way of transporting minerals from Flintshire and Denbigshire to the City of Liverpool. We have also some of the best building stone in the world * * and other products, such as lime, which are ready for importation to Liverpool as soon as fresh communication can be arrived at." In-phess of Wateu— TnE Great Danoek. The London Times of October 31, 1881, said : "An engineering enterprise of great boldness, and one which will link together the railway systems of Lancashire and Cheshire, now divided by the deep waters of the Mersey. * * * The lowest> point at which the Mersey is bridged is at Runcorn, where the London and Northwestern Railway Company have constructed one of the most massive bridges in the kingdom. * * * The passenger traffic also promises to be considerable, inasmuch as this line will draw together the 750,000 residents in Liverpool and the suburbs, and the 100 000 dwellers on the Cheshire banks. * * * It will be a work of enormous magnitude. * * * The geographical formation is favorable to tunneling. The stratum consists of red sandstone of solid formation. * * * The in-press of water, of course, is the danger chiefly to be apprehended. 49 Can Long Island offer New York City such Inducements as the following — for the voters it proposes to extract. Hod. Wm. E. Gladstone, Oct. 16, 1886, said : "How is Liverpool situated ? No one can fail to be struck, upon looking at the map. by the peculiarity of its position. It is impossible to conceive a more favorable situation, if you look at the back country to the east, because there it has that vast manufacturing district which it supplies with the necessary materials of its industry and with a large portion of its food. But that relates to the east alone. Look to the w T est, and see how Liverpool is situated on the west. In the first place, you have the Mersey running nearly north and south ; thus you have the Hundred of Wirral, w r hich is, after all, but a narrow strip of country ; and then intervenes another river, separating the Hundred of Wirral from Wales, as the Mersey separates it from Liverpool. Now the intervening of these two rivers did for a long time make Liverpool a perfectly solitary towm so far as the country lying westward is concerned. * * * You have efficient railways — but those railways, unfortunately, laboring under the fatal disadvantage of making long circuits. * * * Now what is the position of North Wales ? * * * But it is extremely rich in minerals. * * * I take the stone of North Wales. * * * Take slate alone. * * * There is coal. * * * There are brick and clay works carried on largely in North Wales. * * * The most valuable commodity w T e produce — the one which approaches nearest to a precious metal — is the commodity of lead. * * * Now, these commodities must be carried b} T railways, which cannot bring them direct to Liverpool. Liverpool is the natural metropolis of North Wales. * * * It has been cut off from you * * * by these two rivers, and until the great enterprise of the tunnel was commenced nothing else could be taken in hand, with serious advantages for effecting the happy marriage, if I may so call it, between Liverpool and North Wales." Count the Cost. The chairman upon the same occasion said: "He had been asked several times where was Wirral ? That to his mind displayed very great ignorance. However, they knew that the Hundred of Wirral was an oblong part of Cheshire, situated between the Dee and the Mersey, about 18 miles long and from six to eight miles broad. * * * With respect to the Mersey tunnel, he might mention that he had received that morning a communication from Mr. Fox, the engineer, to the effect that out of a distance of 1,770 yards between shaft and 50 drift on each side of the M.tm-v. that morning there only remained '»•)-, vanls to complete and finish. Mr. Fox mentioned a circumstance which was perhaps very encouraging to then, that 1 he cost of th« Mcrsev Kailwav was something about £400.000 per mile-not much more than ball what the Metropolitan Railway was, £770,000 per mile, while the Metropolitan District Railway co-1 £710,000 a mile. The 20,000.Uhy ok passengers urn- pkei-ekk»:i> mil Ferries. \ Prospectus issued bv the Directors, Feb 1. 1886, said : M At the present time the traffic is carried across by means of Steain Ferries. Over 20,000,000 of passengers are ferried across annually. * The total tonnage annually carried amounts to more than T.WtfKl tons. * * * At the present time all the railway* on the Liverpool squ- are compelled to earry their traffic round to Kw Birkenhead side by making a detour— via Runcorn, of over 30 miles." Now i on mi, Realization— Receivers Appointed. The report of the Directors for the half year ending December 31st. 1S*7 wh.n The Mersev Railway was in the hands of a Receiver appointed by the High Court of Justice-says: "The total receipts from all sources for the half year ended December 31. 18*7, have been £20 469 9*., as compared with £21,482.15*. for the corresponding period of 1886. * • * The working expense having been " * Li the rate of 77.78 per cent. * * * The number of passengers con- veved dnring the six months ended December 81, 1887, has been o 492 070 as against 2,992,428 for the corresponding period of 1886. * * ' * The number of ordinary passengers conveyed since the date of its opening — Feb 1886, 5 months 2,492,957 Season Tickets 1184. Dec 31 " 6 " 2,992,423 " • "71. June 30,' '87, 6 •« 2.865,555 3002. Dec. 31, " 6 " 2,492,070 " 29ol. "Ho.l. Statement of capital authorized and created by the com- ^ The Mersey Railway Acct. of 1866, 1871, 1882, 1883, 1884, 1885, - 1886, 1887, was on stock and shares £2,685,000, Loans, £394,600. " Total £3,573,600. » Expenditures on lines computed « Zi %a Q Deduct on Debenture Stock ....ll.bbi £2,258,088 8 51 " Miles authorized — lines owned by the company 6 in. — f. 8 ch. — miles constructed, 3 m. 4 f. 4 ch.— miles constructed or to be con- structed 2 m. 4 f. 4 ch.— miles worked by engines 2 m. 3 f . 4 ch." Damages — The Ninth Parliamentary Act applied for. The Liverpool Daily Post, of Tuesday, July 24, 1888, under the caption "The Mersey Railway Bill — A New Arrangement" — prints the following, " The bill of the Mersey Railway Company for new works and fresh capital came before a Select Committee of the House of Commons yesterday * * * Mr. Bidder explained the object of the bills, viz : to complete works on the Liverpool and Birkenhead side and to issue £200,000 new debenture stock. Bankruptcy — Birkenhead, like New York City, wants to handle the security. * * He stated that the company was in serious pecuniary difficulties ; at present they owed about £20,000 for deben- ture interest besides which they had a large number of creditors, amongst others the contractor and the corporation of Birkenhead. The latter seemed to take a very shortsighted view of the case, because the operation of the company would enormously raise the value of property in Birkenhead. Under an existing Act j of Parliament the parties were obliged to pay the corporation £50,000. They had already been paid £20,000, and £30,000 was still due. The corporation said they would not object to the company raising further capital provided that the £30,000 still due to the corporation was fully secured and they asked that their debt should be made a first charge on the undertaking." * * * "Mr. Scotter further stated that * * * the debenture holders had met and assented to the scheme, which would enable the company to raise £200,000, as a predebenture stock, and £318,000 behind that." "Mr. E. P. Bouvier, Chairman of the Mersey Railway Company, stated * * * if the bill did not pass nobody w r ouid get anything * * * they were now in connec- tion with the Wirral system, on the other side of the water. Damages. Cross-examined ; No doubt a great deal of damage had been done by the works in Beckwith street/' * * * Mr. Gill, Town Clerk of Birkenhead, said the work in Beckwith street has caused a complete disorganization of the sewerage system. The local Government Board had sent down an inspector, and an expenditure of £6,000 had been sanctioned to make good the damage. The necessary 52 works would bo completed in three or faff —flu, and in the tfc n time the taxpayer- would have to bear tin- expense. The corporation did not object to the company bavin- further borrowing powers, but they asked that before the new works were -one on with the corpora- tion should be recouped the £0,000 they had already incurred, that the property-owners who had been injured should also be compensated, and that a sum of money should be deposited, sufficient to cover similar Injuria to public and private property that might be caused in future * * *" -Mr. Bidder said he would have no objection to come under an obligation, that when the line went under a street the whole or a part of it should be done, " cut and cover." " Mr. E P. Smith irave similar evidence, and also spoke to the injury to property along the line already made The owners were strongly opposed to the wcrrk going on unless security was given. , PARLIAMENT WAS < oNTI.MP1.ATIV. HOW BEST TO GET OUT OF A " G UK AT ELARD8HTP " Wi MOKK WIM.LY PUOI'OSK TO Kl LP OUT. " The committee having consulted, the Chairman said they had carefully considered the suggestion of counsel in regard to the whole case, which was one of great hardship, and they were of the opinion that the preamble of the bill was proved, subject to the insertion of a clause for making the new extension to the Birkenhead docks under the plans known as "cut and cover." The True Interests of New York City - What are they? Tins is i xdoubtedly a Far West and Atlantic Freioht Road. The endeavor has been, in the foregoing two divisions of this brief, to expose the attempted concealment of the real purpose of the New York and Long Island Railroad Company, and to show that if it is to confine itself to " traffic " between New York City and Long Island, as it now seems to pretend, the tunnel is an enterprise of such immense magnitude, in difficulties to be overcome, in time to be consumed in construction, and in cost to be incurred, as to stamp the scheme indelibly as a piece of financial folly. Showing this, leads to the inevitable conclusion that the pretended purpose is not the true one ; but that the real purpose is that originally published by this company— namely—" To connect with what is now known as the Hudson River 53 Tunnel " : That, of course, meant precisely what the Alderman sus- pected, namely — transportation from the South and West under New York City to some other locality than Xew York City. The Hudson River tunnel, by itself considered, was not necessarily detrimental to this city because it terminated in the city ; but connecting it, or any similar tunnel, with another tunnel which continues under, across and beyond the city, indicates a new purpose and presents a different ques- tion for discussion. Is this Charter merely oxe to Speculate ox ? Xo one in his senses can doubt that either this scheme is another of those nefarious projects for obtaining chartered rights at the expense of the public and of property-owners, under the pretense of affording great public convenience, but really for the purpose of hawking the charter as a speculative enterprise, of which this city has had sad examples, or that it is intended to convey "long haul " freight to ship- ping at Montauk Point or Gowanus Bay, where extraordinary prepara- tions are being made to avoid Xew York City charges, or to some other Long Island port. The intimation that a paying passenger traffic could be induced through a dark, deep subaqueous tunnel of such a character as the pro- posed one in competition with our adequate ferry and bridge facilities, even though the tunnel were conveniently located, can only excite the smile of incredulity. If such had been its purpose, that tunnel would have been located between Xew York City and Brooklyn instead of between Long Island * City, Biackwell's Island, Kipp's Bay and AVeehawken, a route accom- modating the criminal class much more than ordinary travelers. The Mersey tunnel succeeded in inducing less than 6,000,000 of the 26.000,000 annual ferry passengers through its subterranean bore dur- ing the first year of its operation ; and the number grew less and less as the novelty wore off and the danger became more apparent. That the proposed tunnel will meet with competition still more disastrous the very nature of the situation and the Mersey experience demonstrates beforehand. Brooklyn is Loxg Island. So far as passenger traffic is concerned Brooklyn is Long Island ; and substantially all of Brooklyn lies south of a line drawn east and west across Xew York City at Houston street. Below this line sub- stantially all of the passenger traffic between the two cities crosses the river. Is it to be pretended that instead of crossing Brooklyn Bridge or our numerous and ample short ferries, that of Houston street being 54 only 725 yards in length, passengers are likely for the purpose of patronizing this tunne to travel the three miles on Manhattan Island to Thirty-eighth street, one mile under the cast river, and tour miles on Lom/lsland, substantially right miles, and such miles, in going from the City Hall in New York to the City Hall in Brooklyn, and substantially un equal average distance from and to other points in the two cities. No proposition could better define absurdity. Is Tnis Tunnel for Local Freight ? Where is local freight in paying quantities to come from and go to ! Long Island is already more thickly settled with railroad- than with anything else. Does it expect thil tunnel will give them Something to do? Brooklyn from Greenwood Cemetery to the Bridge is the retreat where New York traders go to vote and to rest ; a city of churclief, whose inhabitants resort to this city for their secular pursuits. Long Island is not famous for its minerals, woods, granaries, manu- factories llocks, herds, or for its commerce in carrying these com- modities for others. It requires onh supplies for it- domestic use, and no one has ever been impressed with any public clamor on the part of its inhabitants that the consumption of the necessaries of life transcend* the ability of the bridge and the ferries to supply. If the idea that this tunnel is intended for such local passengers and freight as could be induced into its inconvenient and forbidding channels must be dismiss,,! U chimerical, then this projected tunnel must be none other than that suspected by the Board of Aldermen, namely: One designed to avoid transhipment in New York City, and therefore necessarily tending to cripple its commerce and to retard its prosperity. The Aldermen are Bound to Oppose this Tunnel. The Board of Aldermen of New York City is not a charitable or an eleemosynary institution, but strictly the constituted guardians of the material interests of the municipality alone. It may truthfully be affirmed, unci affirmed in no illiberal or narrow sense, that it would be the duty of the Board, if it were possible without retarding the city's growth, to compel every person, who permanently transacts his business within this city, to reside within its limits, vote at its polls, build its dwellings upon its vacant lots, and not only pat its taxes here, instead of into the treasury of its neighbors, but by his occupa- tion 'enhance the valuation of surrounding city property and thus furnish somewhat of the means it costs this city to afford him his business facilities. This may not be compelled, but should it not so far as possible be induced ? Should an opposite policy be tolerated ? 55 The immense cost of caring for and repairing the miles of streets already occupied and of preparing for occupation our uninhabited domain must be paid for by local taxation, and the values upon which such taxation is based are so enhanced by occupation that the first great duty of the local government is, by every means in its power, to first people its own territory, and afterwards look with complacency upon its overflow, through which its neighbors thrive. Municipal transactions should primarily tend to local advantage. AVhen yielding advantage to others, this city should seek its recom- pense, precisely as individuals do, by exacting equivalents. What equivalent has Long Island or New Jersey to offer New York City for inducing her business men to become their citizens, when its own lands are not half populated ? Every facility afforded for more accessible homes off Manhattan Island than on it ; every neglect to open up and to render attractive and accessible to the utmost degree to our traders and our laborers our own unimproved lands amounts to such an inducement. Tms City has been more Generous to its Neighbors than just to Itself. Rapid transit up the Island instead of off the Island should have been the policy of the past, and must be the policy of the future. The aggregate loss, in its multitude of forms, arising from this mistaken policy of the past, no man can calculate. In some of its phases, how- ever, it is appreciable. Brooklyn and even Jersey City have out- stripped New York City in percentage of increase of population. If our increase in the last eight years had equaled the percentage attained by Brooklyn we should now number about 1,800,000 inhabitants, in- stead of about 1,600,000. That 200,000 of population, if it could be restored to this city, and settled around its new and magnificent parks, would, from taxation arising from increased valuations, amply supply the fund for their purchase and improvement. From what source has Brooklyn or Jersey City gained this extra population, excepting from New York City ? If the same facilities had been afforded to our busi- ness men, and our laboring men, in search of cheap homes, to rapidly reach the healthful, beautiful and inexpensive building sites within our city limits, that we have afforded by our twenty-five ferries and Brooklyn Bridge, by which to get off the Island, will any one pre- tend that the natural attractions of Long Island and Jersey City would have so fatally competed with Manhattan Island in this matter of pop- ulation ? f)fi Shall we continue the tendency in the wrong direction by authoriz- ing tunnels to Long Island which can by no possibility do other than withdraw from us our resources I What made New York and what mainly Contributes to its ClJoW 1 II The unrivaled geographical position and harbor determined the site of New York City, and the necessity that the products of the earth and of the industries in their transit to and over the Atlantic and across the Continent should be handled here tilled that site with its marvel- ous enterprise and prosperity. Tunnels, railroads and other transport- ation companies which aim solely at their own interests and not at the city's ; whose dividends might be enhanced if they could get rid of the toll. for handling their cargoes, upon which handling our city thrives, have some reason for asking tunnel privileges under New York island, but the Board of Aldermen have none for granting them. The time may arrive when our city limits arc tilled to overflowing, that the policy of honeycombing the Island under our streets, parks, churches, public and business buildings and dwellings in the interest of railroads who want to pass under and by us may lie tolerated, but that time is not yet. Our Unlimited and Marvelois Attractions invite In* reased Rapid Transit to the Northern Limits of the City. We have generously contributed toward populating the 16 odd square miles of Jersey City, the 26 odd square miles of Brooklyn, and is it not obvious that all our tendencies should now tend toward peopling the 41 square miles of New York City. This city is the metropolis of a nation which will in 1927 contain nearly 200,000.000 of people if the rate of increase continues in the future as in the past. Ten years before that period, if true to its own interest, New York City ought to have a population of about six millions. To-day it has less than 2,000,000, while possessing land capacity for more than three times that number. Broad and bountiful provisions for future millions has marked our recent policy. "We • have doubled our territory by annexing 12,317 acres of land beyond the Harlem River ; we have added 3,800 odd acres to our 1,200 odd acres of Parks and Parkw ays. We have increased our water supply by completely draining two counties at an additional cost of over eighteen millions of dollars, and now, logically, we should husband our resources for peopling our unimproved acres. 57 No city on the face of the earth can equal the location of New York in everything that contributes to health and comfort. Its territory, stretching about 17 miles northward from the Battery to its Pelham Bay Park, over hill and valley, woods and streams, is washed by broad, deep, rapid rivers, and enjoys both sea and mountain air. For about 13 miles above the Grand Central Station it exhibits one of the best park systems in the world, culminating in Pelham Bay Park, which alone presents nine miles of seashore, and is justly called " the New- port of the toilers." Any, even the most distant part of this magnifi- cent domain can and ought to be within half an hour's ride of every dwelling within the city limits, and reached at a cost of five cents fare. To accomplish this, rapid transit up and down the city alone is wanting. When it is realized there will be an end to the pretense that our wage-earners must become citizens of New Jersey or Long Island, and in their daily experience be liable to encounter the annoy- ance and detention of fog and ice upon the river, or the more ob- noxious experience in tunnels, for their cheap homes will be located within the city limits and at less distances from their work than is required to escape the miasmas of New Jersey marshes or the stenches of the proposed tunnel, and its freightage of "garbage," and the odors of Newtown Creek. Rapid Transit Will Pay. No policy can be wiser than for our City Government to encourage every reasonable project for permanent, pleasant and inexpensive transportation to and beyond the Harlem ; and no policy can be more suicidal than to grant cross-town privileges which will erect themselves into barriers to progress up and down the city's length. The New York and Long Island Railroad Tunnel, if authorized from river to river, will gird the city midway with an impassable zone of selfishness potert to arrest that kind of rapid travel which the interest of the city imperatively demand with its claim of "vested rights." Locate the monopoly ever so deep, ever so shallow, its claims for facilities deeper and higher than its legal location will surely embarrass progress across its fatal line. The rapid transit of the future, while securing untold advantages to the community at large, ought not, as in the past, systematically to rob the property owners along its routes of their property and rights. The swift and endless increase of transportation patronage, which the future of this city must guarantee, will afford ample revenue out of which to compensate property owners, pay honest construction bills and ample dividend*. The city could well afford, when considered as 8 financial venture Bkme, itself to DuBd these rapid transit roads, iii view of the immense revenue it would secure from increase of valua- tion arising from I mp r o v e ment and occupation of its territory. All experience in this country and elsewhere proves the profitableness of municipal improvements in the shape of pleasure grounds, drives and parks. It is estimated that the excess of taxation upon the in- crease of valuation caused by laying out Central Park has already repaid for its six or seven millions of dollars cost of land, its twenty thousand dollars per acre cost of improvements, and left a balance in the city treasury of more than seventeen millions of dollars. Tin. Majority Km pout ok thk Railroad Company sums it thi Aroumknt. Extensive argument may elaborate, but it can hardly improve the statement of the true grounds of objection to the tunnel ■cheane so tersely given in the majority report of the railroad committee of the Hoard of Aldermen, portions of which have already been quoted herein. The length of this paper can only, alter BUCh B convincing report and such an overwhelming defeat of the scheme, be justified in view of the unparalled audacity of the New York and Long Island Railroad Com- pany in making a second application to this Board for substantially the same favor, which, after months of unopposed hearing afforded it. was rejected by a vote of nineteen to four, and after experiencing a no less signal defeat at the hands of the Legislature of the State, and after a cool reception from the Supreme Court, upon a petition still pending asking it to override the constitutional authority of this Board to pass upon the question of public necessity for this tunnel, and after other efforts to insult, malign and punish this Board for daring to refuse to grant to a corporation— having only a paper existence, with a capital of one hundred thousand dollars, and concerning which, in its petition to the Supreme Court, it says, '"that at least, one thousand dollars for every mile of railroad proposed (5 miles is the length) * * * has been duly subscribed in good faith, and ten per centum of the par value thereof has been paid in cash " (about 500 dollars casfi capital)— the right to undertake an enterprise requiring from ten to twenty millions of dollars, to accomplish, to say nothing of the damage with which it will menace twenty millions of private property and the true interests of the city and of its inhabitants. I repeat that nothing but the unapproachable assurance? of such an application under such circumstances can excuse the length of this paper. 59 "What possible grounds can exist justifying this second application ? Is resort to other than argument to be relied upon by this corporation ? Is it to be assumed that the Board of Aldermen are so craven as to reverse their majority of 19 to 4 under the intimidation which has been attempted by this corporation ? So long as the Aldermen stand upon the unanswerable reasoning of their Railroad Committee's Majority Report, it will cost but little courage to predict that they cannot be indicted, however many times they reject this double faced, perilous tunnel scheme. B. F. WATSON, Of Counsel for Thirty-eighth Street Property Owners. REJOINDER TO THE Reply of EVERETT P. WHEELER & A. D. PALMER. "RAPID TRANSIT UP THE ISLAND, INSTEAD OF RAPID TRANSIT OFF THE ISLAND." WATSON. 62 Committee of Tltiriy-t iyhth Stmt Proprrt// tjirncn : B. F. Watson, Chairman, ('. P. Lati in<;. Secretary. . Chaklek T. Barney, Treasurer, Peter ('. Baki i; Samuel P. A very. Wm. L. Andrews, James M. Cohbtable, b. f. Dujuulnq, Louis F. Kieker. M. I).. Charles S( ki i;n i:h. Titom kB BoBBA, William R. (ii: \ « i Henry Steers, Hansel M. Streeter, M. D., Jacob Wendell Executive Committee : Watson, Baker, Latting, Barney, Avery. 63 In the Matter */ The second application to the Board of Aldermen by the New York and Long Island Railroad Company for leave to excavate a tunnel under New- York City, through Thirty-eighth street, and to operate a railroad therein, with branches, tunnels, etc. B. F. Watson's Rejoinder on behalf of the prop- erty-owners on Thirty- eighth street, in opposi- tion to the tunnel. This rejoinder is to the reply, on behalf of the petitioning railroad company, of Appleton D. Palmer, attorney, and Everett P. Wheeler, counsel, to the brief of the undersigned in answer to the first brief of the petitioners presented to the Aldermanic Committee on Bridges and Tunnels. Briefly stated, the history of this tunnel scheme is as follows : Cer- tain persons formed a corporation under the statute and certified that their nominal capital stock was $100,000, of which five per centum, or $5,000, had actually been subscribed, and ten per centum of such sub- scriptions, that is. $500, had actually been paid in. This company applied about January, 1888, to the Board of Aldermen for leave to tunnel under the East river and under Manhattan Island for the pur- pose of forming a connection with the Hudson River Tunnel and for a railroad therein to be operated as a common carrier of persons and property. There was no opposition made to this application, for the reason that the pendency of the petition was not communicated to those who would be likely to oppose it. After repeated hearings before the Aldermanic Committee on Railroads, at which interested testimony was given and a so-called petition of workiugmen was introduced (the pe- culiar method of obtaining the signatures to which were carefully con- cealed), the Railroad Committee reported against the scheme, giving most cogent reasons therefor, and the Board rejected the application 19 to 4. Application was then made by this corporation to the Legisla- ture of New York State for such amendments to existing laws as would enable it to nullify the opposition of the Aldermen and to secure the right to tunnel under the city in spite of the Hoard. The opponents of the scheme, after a brief exposition of its true character, had no dif- ficulty in effecting its defeat by the Legislature. This corporation then applied to the Supreme Court to enforce the same law sought to be amended, notwithstanding it had been declared by the Court of Ap- peals t<> be unconstitutional, again endeavoring thereby to nullify the authority of the A Idermen, conferred upon them by the Constitution of the State. The Court refused to entertain the petition at that time on the ground that the property-owners, who were the most interested parties, had not been given sufficient notice of the application and, against the strenuous oppposilion of this corporal ion. it postponed the hearing from June to October. That petition is still pending and will be prosecuted after the Aldermen, upon this application, again refuse their consent. Immediately following this third failure some one at- tempted to obtain indictments against certain of the Aldermen for alleged corruption on the part of the nineteen Aldermen who had, for unanswerable reasons, rejected this project, which attempt, ftliSO, WUB an ignominious failure. Whereupon this corporation, with unparal- leled presumption, made this second application to the Aldermen for substantially the same scheme in form and precisely the same Scheme in reality a^ that one which had been rejected 10 to 4; and this application was referred to the Committee on Bridges and Tunnels. Every effort has been made in behalf of this Corporation to force a hearing upon this second application during the usual summer vaca- tion. At the first hearing on this second application this Corporation caused a printed Brief to be presented, and at the second and last hearing two unimportant witnesses were examined by the Petitioners and oral arguments were made for and against the scheme and the undersigned, on behalf of the opponents, presented a Brief in answer to that of Petitioners and the Committee adjourned for the purpose of making up and presenting their report to the Board. Subsequently the Reply on behalf of this Corporation to the Brief of the under- signed was written, printed and distributed; and to that Reply this Brief is a rejoinder. The said Brief of the undersigned argued in favor of "Rapid Transit up the Island instead of Rapid Transit off the Island ; " the argument being arranged under three general heads, namely : 1st " The New York and Long Island Railroad Company— What is it?"— 2d - The Mersey Railway "—3d "The true interests of New York City— What are they ? " Under the 1st General Head it was shown that this Corporation after each failure pretended to alter its scheme in just so far as seemingly to 65 avoid the latest objection, while in fact it retained its original purpose. This inconsistent and sinuous course rendered it an object of just suspicion. It was demonstrated that the real purpose of this scheme, originally avowed, but subsequently denied, to avoid the opposition of the Board of Aldermen, was, to transport the products of the West under New York City to some cheaper port of shipment, thereby avoiding the handling charges for transshipment in this city. It was shown that if this was not the real purpose the scheme was a financial folly of the most transparent character ; that it was absurd to suppose that merely local traffic in transporting persons or freight to and from Long Island was an inducement sufficient to secure the many millions of dollars which the project would cost to complete, if it ever could be completed. It was shown that the expense of pumping, fanning and operating such a tuunel would amount to more than two-thirds of any possible earnings. Under the 2d General Head the extent of this undertaking, the immense cost it would entail, the years which would be consumed in construction, the tremendous engineering difficulties which must be encountered, the constant danger of drowning the tunnel, and every- thing found therein, the aversion of people to traveling in subaqueous tunnels, the financial failure which was certain to follow the invest- ment, were demonstrated by citing the history of the Mersey Railway Tunnel which in all things so paralleled the proposed tunnel as to be an apt illustration of the actual experience awaiting this project, if it ever attained any stage beyond promises and theories. The Mersey Tunnel proved a complete failure, involving in disaster and disappointment the promoters of the scheme, the contractor for building it, those who, induced by extravagant predictions, invested in its securities, and all property-owners within the line of its devastation. Under the 3d General Head it was shown to be the imperative duty of the Aldermen to reject the scheme of a few speculators to subvert the true interest of the municipality, and to take from workiugmen of this city the handling of the freightage by which many of them live and thrive, in order to secure an increase in the profits of the great railroad lines which are common carriers between the West and the port of New York from whence their cargoes are transshipped for foreign ports. This Brief also showed that in the past the facilities furnishedby the action or consent of this city enabling our business men to reach the territory of our neighbors had been altogether out of proportion to those furnished for reaching our own vacant lands, a fact resulting in our detriment, and that it was the obvious policy of the future to increase the facilities for rapid and cheap transportation to our own uninhabited territory, 5 not only because this course would enrieli tin's city by the increase of valuation arising from occupation, but because these lands are, in all respects of location, healthfulncss, and genera] availability for poor as well as rich, superior to the lands of Long Island or New Jersej in the vicinity of New York City. Since the hearing before the Committee on Tunnels, Information has been received that some interested parties have an a gen( now in BorOpe enlisting capitalists in the enterprise of resuscitating and completing the drowned Hudson River Tunnel. The fact is very suggestive and WOTthy of consideration in this connection. Tjii. Ri i'j.v Ki.vjkw i o, The First Point of the Reply asserts this petition to he in fact an offer of $00,000 a year to the city treasury for a * st rip of rock" which is now of " no use to anyone" and for which "the objectors offer nothing ;'" and claims that it is the duty "of the Aldermen as trustees of the whole" to put this sum into the City Treasury ami thereby secure "compensation for the imaginary Injuries Inflicted by the tunnel." "Compensation " for " imaginary injuries " is good. Nothing could better illustrate the modesty and sincerity of this railroad company than this substantial repetition of an historic offer of all the kingdoms of the world— an offer made by a personage who did not own a foot of land. It is not over-statement to characterise this corporation's offer as the impudent proposal of an invader to divide a small percentage of the loot with the despoiled owner. This offer of $60,000 a year comes from a corporation which c as great in case the BC&eme failed to remunerate its promoters as otherwise. The City and the abut tors would indeed he greater losers in case of financial failure of the enterprise, because in such case there would he no responsible party from whom to enforce payment of the damages which at the btiSl would fall far B&Qffi of compensit ion for the injury inflicted* The Second point of the Reply asserts that " if the residents are injured the petitioner will be obliged t<> pay for the injury." Pay out of what fund? A capital of * I 00.000 no. $r,,ooo.00 of which have been subscribed, and ten per cent, of such Subscription has been paid in. will hardly repair the damage to $18,000,000.00 or $20,000,000.00 worth of private dwellings, and churches. The Reply objects to the valuation placed upon their property by the abuttors. The [K-titioners, if they ever get M far BS to excavate their tunnel, will find that, upon the question of damage-, they will have to deal with market values and not "assessed values." The market value bai not been over- stated ; even if it had been, men have the right to affix a fictitious value to houses which arc intended for their own comfort and pleasure and which are not for sale. The Reply says that tunnels may be built, and trains run therein "without any injury whatever to the abutting owners:" that the petitioner called two witnesses who showed the facts, "and that not a single witness was called by the objectors to prove to the contrary." Did not the objectors call " the Mersey Railway," and demonstrate by actual experience the foolishness of the theory that blasting and running trains of cars under Sewers and foundations of buildings would cause no damage ? The Mersey Tunnel damaged the Sewerage System of Birkenhead in a single instance more than $30,000.00, and so injured property that all property-owners opposed it. The Reply says, " The objectors ask why not take a wide street ?" That certainly was a pertinent question which is not satisfactorily answered in the Reply. If it be admitted that a tunnel will less endanger property along a wide street than along a narrow street, must there not be stronger reasons than the convenience of the corporation for choosing the narrower one ? It has been aptly said that ''beggars should not be choosers." The interests of property- owners and of the city should be considered rather than the fear of this corporation that the opposition of the residents on a street proper for their enterprise will be so great 69 that they find it more convenient to select an improper street. It is, however, objected that the five or ten feet difference between the alti- tude of Thirty-eighth street and that of Thirty-fourth or Forty-second streets makes it preferable that a narrow street, filled with private resi- dences, shall be fully occupied rather than that of a wide street already devoted to business and to surface railroads should be partially occu- pied. It is absurd to claim that five or ten feet more or less added to the depth of a tunnel, projected 150 feet below the surface, is such an obstacle as to justify an improper selection of streets. The assertion that the selection of Thirty-eighth street will enable the tunnel to be run under Tenth avenue without interfering with the sewer," is only one out of the multitude of reckless statements in which this Corpo- ration indulges. By referring to the Brief of the undersigned, page 5, it will be seen that the top of the tunnel at Tenth avenue will be only seven feet below the surface of the avenue. The sewer at that point is thirteen feet below the surface of that avenue. The Reply asserts that property-owners always oppose transportation facility through their streets, and adds : " The owners on Third and Sixth avenues opposed the elevated roads, and yet these roads doubled the value of property.'" The cases are not parallel. The elevated roads were absolutely required for public convenience, and they conveyed patronage to the doors of the traders on those avenues, while this tunnel proposes to carry freight and passengers under this city to the doors of business men outside the city. How can it benefit the people on Thirty-eighth street to have a tunnel which is to have " no opening in the street '' — which " will not compete with any existing railroad ? " Can it be possible that the writer of the reply believed the Aldermen so dull as not to see that no parallel exists between the tun- nel in Thirty- eighth street, and the elevated roads in Third and Sixth avenues ? The reference to the Fourth avenue tunnel is quite as unfortunate. It is a public convenience, if not a necessity. It runs up and down the island, and lands its rich freightage in our city. Moreover, that tun- nel was a choice between two evils. The Harlem railroad claimed and exercised the vested right of running through Fourth avenue on the surface for years, killing and maiming many who were exercising the right to traverse the city streets. It took years and almost a revo- lutionary rising of the people to stop this carnage and put this railroad underground. To accomplish it cost the city treasury millions of dollars. Besides, it is not true that the tunnel is no annoyance to the abuttors in that widest avenue in the city. Shall we prevent this pro- posed tunnel now while we may, or grant it privileges which will some 70 day damage and annoy the property-owners as well as be destructive to the bests interests of this community, and perhaps eost the city mil- lions of dollars to abate the nuisance it will create. The new-papers of the day inform us of the catastrophe l.arelv averted at the Hoosac tunnel, where the foul air prostrated fifty or itacty workmen, and left them lying senseless upon their backs, liable to be mangled by ap- proaching trains, and this fearful danger was the result of the earc- lessness of a fireman, who put on fresh coal just before entering the tunnel. Who can predict the probable injury to health from this pro- pose,! tunnel, whether half excavated and abandoned, completed, abandoned and uncared for, owing to the want of patronage, or suc- cessfully operated as a commercial conduit ? The Third Point of tins Reply reasons that the city will not be injured by the construction of this tunnel. This is the vital question. To it the convenience of abuttors becomes secondary. Let it be shown that the public interests or the public convenience demands this meas- ure, and the Thirty-eighth street property-owners w ill make such s a eri tices as hccome good citizens. The proposed sehcme is not one entitled to demand the surrender of property and homes. A purely specula- tive enterprise demands the property and rights of the cit\ and of citizens, to be used as its capital, and this not in response to public demand or clamor. This Reply fails successfully to answer the brief of the undersigned from p. 33 to p. 42, showing that it is for the true ImteBBBtfl of this municipality to facilitate travel up the Island instead of off the Island ; and that this tunnel not only will, but is intended to benefit other localities at the expense of New York City. The argument of the Reply seems to be that the prime concern of the City Government should be to tax the people who do reside upon the Island to furnish the funds with which to provide facilities for doing business on the Island during the day time by those who reside and pay their taxes elsewhere. No sophistry can controvert, however much it may obscure, the plain proposition that it is the duty of the Aldermen to promote rapid transit up the Island instead of off the Island, so that our vacant lands may become improved and our taxable valuations increased, instead of supplying facilities for our business men to reside in New Jersey or Long Island while they enjoy in this city the facilities for making fortunes provided by the overtaxed citizens thereof. The Reply says that " no one can deny that the City of New York is overcrowded on the part of the Island below the RarK." No one does deny it. But that crowd should be dispersed into our own vacant and healthful lands instead of elsewhere. The Reply fails to answer 71 the Brief of the undersigned upon the point that, with proper rapid transit, our own lands are not only more accessible but are in every- way more desirable than those in New Jersey and Long Island which can be reached within the same distance. It must need be up-hill work for any one to prove to a New York Board of Aldermen that the interests of the City call upon them to give preference to their neigh- bors rather than to this city in the matter of rapid transit. The propo- sition is too plain to be controverted that there has been a mistake in the past in building up Brooklyn and Long Island, Jersey City and New Jersey at the expense of Manhattan Island and the upper Wards. We have at the cost of millions upon millions laid the foundations for a vast city beyond the Harlem, and it would be simply suicidal to hold out inducements for our people to shun instead of occupying the promised land. The Reply scores its best point in noting the failure of the Brief of the undersigned to acknowledge the strongest argument in favor of building this tunnel at a cost of $10,000,000 to $20,000,000. Namely, that it would afford conveniences for the transportation to this city of Long Island "vegetables." Those vegetables must sell for several thousands of dollars annually. But the Reply errs in asserting that it is assumed that no babies are born in Brooklyn. The lament was only that they are not born in New York City where their fathers earn the money with which to run the Nursery. The Reply thinks it will be a great advantage to working men to have this tunnel built here. That depends very much upon whether the Contractor gets any funds with which to pay them. The contractor for the Mersey Tunnel was left unpaid by the promoters of that scheme. As was stated in the oral argument in behalf of the objectors to the tunnel, it matters not whether it means connecting the West with Montauk Point to the exclusion of New York, or whether it means con- necting the West with any other locality in Long Island or elsewhere to the exclusion of New York. That the project means to exclude New York from the advantages it has and to which it is entitled, is certain, or it is a stupendous financial folly. The Reply undertakes to avoid by misrepresentations the illustration of the experience this tunnel will encounter, if it is ever built, so graphically shown by the history of the Mersey tunnel. This may be found at pages 17-33 of the former Brief of the undersigned. An attempt is made to liken this proposed tunnel to the New Aqueduct. The two have hardly any material thing in common. The New A que- 7-2 duct, an unequaled example of rapid tunneling. If u pipe, " a head- ing," compared with this proposed tunnel ; it i< .1 subterranean and not a subaqueous tunnel. It is true brooks and sewers were encountered and overcome w ith little difficulty ; the Harlem river was encountered, and there the difficulty and the expense were -«» immensely increased as to furnish a proper subject for reflections for those who propose to tunnel under the Kast river, in comparison witib which the Harlem b but a brook. The Money tunnel an apt redaction to practice of the blind and variegated theories with which thON petitioners are amusing the Alderinen. The Reply complains that the objectors over-estimate the cost of the proposed tunnel. The Mersey tunnel cost something about £400,000 ($2, 00b, 000) per mile— not much more than half what the Metro politan Railway (London) cost, viz. : 6770,000 per mile While the Metropolitan District Railway COat £711,000 per "mile. The petitioners considerately assure the Aldermen, "we are willing to submit to any reasonabl< conditions imposed by the Board, and amongst other things that we should consent to t he const ruction of any rapid transit road, either above or below our tunnel.' Would it not be as well for the Aldermen to retain in their own hands the power to "consent" to rapid transit up the island, instead of placing it in the hands of this corporation, whose idea of " reason- able conditions" might become very troubles,, m e after they had obtained the desired privileges and crystali/.ed them into "verted rights." The shrewd suggestion of Colonel Titus in Parliament, as to allow- ing the claims of the Pretender, is respectfully recommended to the Aldermen : M I tiear a lion in the lobhy roar ; Say, Mr. Speaker, shall we close the door. And keep him there, or shall we let him in, To try if we can turn him out again ! " B. F. WATSON, of Counsel for Thirty eighth Street Property-owners. 13 New York, January 15, 1889. To the Honorable the Board of Aldermen of the City of New York : The petition of the New York and Long Island Railroad Company respectfully shows : That throughout the last year the company has constantly sought the consent of your Honorable Body to the construction of a tunnel railway, joining this City with Long Island, and that a favorable report and resolution was presented by the Committee on Bridges and Tun- nels of the late Board, but too late to be acted upon by that Board. Your petitioner therefore prays that early action be taken by the present Board, agreeably to the report and resolution aforesaid. And your petitioner will humbly pray, etc. THE NEW YORK AND LONG ISLAND RAILROAD COMPANY, By Roy Stone, President. * I