Thirty-third street to Park avenue, to Thirty-second street; also from First avenue and Thirty-fourth street along First avenue to Thirty-third street, to Lexington avenue; also from First avenue and Thirty-third street through Thirtythird street to the East river; also from Thirty-fourth street and Eleventh avenue through Thirty-fourth street to the North river; also from Forty-second street and Eleventh avenue through Forty-second street to the North river; also from Sixty-fifth street and Eleventh avenue through Sixty THIRTY-FOURTH STREET FERRY AND ELEVENTH AVENUE RAILROAD COMPANY fifth street to Eighth avenue, to Sixty-sixth street and back to Eleventh avenue.1 The franchise for this route was sanctioned by a resolution of the board of aldermen on October 13, 1885, but Mayor William R. Grace vetoed it for the reason that the minimum amount of compensation to the city as fixed by law, three per cent of the gross earnings for the first five years and five per cent for all subsequent years, was less than 1 Proceedings of the Board of Aldermen, vol. 180, pp. 107-109. 1 the real value of the proposed privileges; 1 and, furthermore, that the owners of three-fourths of the assessed valuation of the abutting property on Thirty-second and Thirty-third streets were opposed to the road. The mayor also objected to the franchise for the reason that it made possible the transportation of freight as well as passengers over the contemplated road.2 In spite of these objections, the measure was passed on November 10, 1885, by a vote of twentythree to one." Nothing further of importance in the franchise history of this company occurred until March, 1896, when it was united with the Thirty-fourth Street Railroad Company to form the Thirty-fourth Street Crosstown Railway Company,* which, in turn, soon became merged in the Metropolitan Street Surface Railway Company." 4. THE CABLE PLAN The period of New York city street railway consolidation was foreshadowed by an elaborate plan for installing the cable system of operating the railroads of the city. Although this plan failed to materialize, the franchise history of the period under consideration would be incomplete without a brief description of the New York Cable Railway Company. In an effort to solve the transit problem of the city, which yearly became more difficult as the city grew in area and population, Mayor Edson, pursuant to a legislative act," 1 1 Practically the same conditions were stipulated as for the Chambers Street and Grand Street Ferry Railroad Company. 2 4 Proceedings of the Board of Aldermen, vol. 180, pp. 433-436. * Report of the Public Service Commission of the State of New York, First District, 1913, vol. v, p. 1316. • Infra, ch. viii. * Laws of the State of New York, 1875, ch. 606. appointed on November 30, 1883, a Rapid Transit Commission to inquire into and work out a plan for better passenger transportation facilities.1 This commission, in reporting its proceedings to the mayor in April, 1884, requested that he transmit the same to the board of aldermen for their consideration and action. The mayor complied with this request.2 At about the same time the cable company was incorporated for the purpose of "constructing a single or double track steam railway or railways over, under, through or across streets, avenues, places or lands in the City of New York." This company, which had outlined twenty-nine different routes totaling between seventy and eighty miles, proposed a scheme of intramural transit involving a system of railways on the East and West side. extending from the Battery to the Harlem river, partly elevated and partly surface, with convenient crosstown lines connecting these longitudinal railways with all the important ferries on the North and East rivers. By means of a transfer system, a person would be enabled to travel over the entire route for five cents. Two and a half per cent of the gross earnings were to be paid to the city annually.* The plan in its entirety was identical with one submitted by the Rapid Transit Commission in its report to the mayor. An application for a franchise covering the proposed road was referred to the councilmanic committee on railroads, and 1 The members of this Commission were Edwin R. Livermore, a prominent member of the New York Produce Exchange; Thomas E. Stewart, a former Congressman and Park Commissioner of the City; Edward L. Hedden, Collector of the Port of New York; Edmund D. Randolph, President of the Continental Bank; and Joseph M. De Veau, President of the Mt. Morris Bank. Proceedings of the Board of Aldermen, vol. 181, pp. 144-145. 3 Report of the Public Service Commission of the State of New York, First District, 1913, vol. v, p. 867. * Proceedings of the Board of Aldermen, vol. 180, pp. 1030-1034. 3 4 on December 8,, 1884, this committee submitted a favorable report,1 which, however, was laid over for further consideration.2 Before the next meeting of the common council took place, an owner of abutting property along one of the proposed routes secured a temporary injunction restraining the board from making the grant. This injunction was dissolved, and immediately another owner obtained a similar writ, which continued in force until December 31, 1884. It was vacated too late to give the outgoing mayor opportunity to consider whether he should approve the consent of the board for the construction of the railway or railways in case the board adopted a resolution to that effect. No sooner had the restraining writ been vacated than the matter came up for discussion; the board of aldermen, however, by the narrow vote of thirteen to twelve, decided to postpone consideration of the subject indefinitely. The company, therefore, renewed its application for a franchise on January 19, 1886, which request went the way of the first petition. The committee on railroads, in its report of March 2, 1886, urged that the franchise be granted,' and it is interesting to note that the committee practically apologized to the cable company for recommending compensation to the city. This report was adopted and the franchise 6 8 5 1 Proceedings of the Board of Aldermen, vol. 180, pp. 1030-1034. 2 Ibid., p. 1035. • See Documents of Public Service Commission, 1913, vol. v, p. 880. * Proceedings of the Board of Aldermen, vol. 181, p. 151. 5 Ibid., pp. 193–199. "For petition in full see City Record, vol. xiv, pt. i, pp. 155-6. 8" Your committee has, however, in deference to the suggestion of Mayor Edson's Rapid Transit Commissioners reluctantly decided to acquiesce in the suggestion that the Cable Company pay as a consideration for its franchise two and one-half per cent of its annual net earnings into the city treasury." Report of Committee on Railroads; see Proceedings of the Board of Aldermen, vol. 181, pp. 474-493. granted by a vote of nineteen to four.1 On March 19, 1886, Mayor Grace returned the resolution with his veto, stating, among other things, that he did not consider two and onehalf per cent of the net proceeds sufficient compensation.2 He was not, however, opposed to the project as such, and even went so far as to suggest an alternative plan, as follows: Let the city instead of being the grantor, become the lessor of street railway privileges; let the Commissioners of the Sinking Fund lease all franchises at public auction for a term of not less than ten or more than twenty years; let them appoint an auditor, who, with the officers of the road shall certify under oath the actual money value of the road and equipment at the time of construction, i. e., real cost; let the comptroller prescribe the form in which the books of the company are to be kept, and let the sinking fund commissioners have an accountant continuously in the office of the company but shifting the accountants from week to week, as they are now shifted from day to day in the Money Order Bureau of the Post Office, to provide a check upon wrong doing or collusion on their part; let the person taking the franchise receive all profits on the operation of the road up to ten per cent on the actual investment for construction and equipment, all sums earned in excess of such ten per cent to be paid quarterly into the City Treasury. At the expiration of the lease, let the franchise be re-let as is now done with ferry franchises; and in case it is let to new parties, let the city pay the old lessee the estimated cost of replacing the plant, charging a like sum to the new lessee who shall be represented in the appraisement. Such a system the mayor thought would result (1) in the city's reaping the benefit of the "unearned increment of value"; (2) it would furnish sufficient inducement to cap 1 Proceedings of the Board of Aldermen, vol. 181, p. 495. 2 Ibid., pp. 675-682. |