"This plan, however, contemplated a railroad owned or controlled by the municipal authorities and forming an essential part of the dock system of The City of New York. The connecting railway desired by the New York and New Jersey Bridge Company would, on the contrary, subordinate, if not annihilate municipal ownership and control of the dock system by sacrificing public interests to the welfare of the private corporation which would own or operate this bridge.

"For generations, the policy of the State of New York and of The City of New York has been one firmly and consistently in favor of municipal ownership and control of the dock system. The City of New York has, in addition to the value of its land and wharf rights, derived under its ancient charters and by grants from the State, devoted to the development of this dock system up to January 1, 1901, the sum of $44,148,335.95.

"Improvements now under way contemplate an additional expenditure in the near future of at least $20,000,000. The present value of New York City's water-front property has been estimated at $100,000,000, but it is really beyond price, since it cannot be duplicated. One of the chief arguments in favor of municipal ownership and control of the dock system of The City of New York has been the ability to prevent monopolization of its commercial facilities in the hands of any one special interest or combination of interests.

"The commercial supremacy of the Port of New York does not depend primarily upon the terminal facilities offered to railroads, but to its position in relation to international, and espe cially transatlantic commerce.

"The report recently presented by a State Commission, of which ex-Mayor Schieren was Chairman, has demonstrated that increased port facilities designed to benefit railroad transportation inure not to the benefit of the commerce of the Port of New York, but to the railroads themselves, by reason of differential rates agreed to by the railroad companies between themselves and not discountenanced by the Interstate Commerce Commission.

"It has even been plausibly alleged that if it were not for the municipal ownership of docks in New York City the great railroads having termini at the Port of New York could absolutely control and monopolize all the City's wharf property, to the complete destruction of many forms of water transportation.

4

"It can scarcely need argument to demonstrate that if transportation to and from docks of Manhattan Island can be controlled by a private corporation, the docks themselves become useless to the public, and valueless to the City except to the extent to which this private corporation may permit.

"With the exception of the vague and indefinite reference to the power of the Department of Docks to establish reasonable rules and regulations affecting the construction, maintenance and operation of this bridge, there is no provision in this bill for municipal regulation and control. No reference is made to the rates of fares or tolls to be collected by this bridge company.

"Extortionate rates may be charged, nor would it be a hindrance to the speedy monopolization of commercial traffic if those rates were to be uniform to all users, since the control of the bridge by one or more railroad corporations would enable such corporations easily to pay such extortionate rates themselves, in view of the fact that the receipts would only flow back into their own treasuries.

"Attention is also called to the fact that this bill affords no guarantee that a bridge will ever be built across the Hudson river as a result of obtaining this railroad franchise. The West street marginal railroad might be built first and operated for years with enormous profit to the company securing the franchise, while the building of the bridge proper might be delayed indefinitely.

"The foregoing arguments are designed to show that such a connecting railroad, owing its great value to its intimate and essential connection with the dock system, should not be permitted to be owned by a private corporation. Assuming, however, that it would be proper to make

such a grant under any circumstances, the fact still remains that this bill attempts to dispose of immensely valuable franchise privileges and property rights of The City of New York without adequate compensation.

"So valuable does this Board regard these property rights and franchise privileges that it hesitates to estimate the money value thereof. Even the New York and New Jersey Bridge Company has never attempted to deny their value. An informal offer was made in behalf of that company that if the Commissioners of the Sinking Fund would approve the location of this so-called approach with its dock connections, it would engage that after the expiration of 100 years of private ownership and operation the whole bridge structure, together with its approaches and appurtenances, should become forever thereafter the property of The City of New York.

"This proposition was not favorably regarded by the Commissioners of the Sinking Fund, because the term thereof appeared to be too long, being double that provided in the case of the rapid transit subway. Inadequate as this arrangement appears to be, however, it is infinitely more advantageous to the interests of the City than the plan of compensation provided by Senate Bill No. 1597. The Legislature should not be more generous in disposing of the property of The City of New York than the beneficiaries of this grant themselves.

"It is not true, as has been publicly alleged, that the Commissioners of the Sinking Fund have wilfully refused to negotiate with the New York and New Jersey Bridge Company with respect to the compensation which should be paid to The City of New York as a consideration for the grant of these valuable franchises.

"The Commissioners of the Sinking Fund are without power to enter into such arrangement in behalf of The City of New York. That question was carefully considered at the time when the approval of the main approach was under consideration in 1896.

“An opinion in regard thereto was rendered by the Hon. Francis M. Scott, Counsel to the Corporation, in which, after citing the Mayor vs. the Second Avenue Railroad Company, 32 N. Y., 261, and the matter of the Kings County Elevated Railroad, 105 N. Y.. 97, it was held that the Commissioners of the Sinking Fund possessed no power to 'impose pecuniary burdens as a condition of granting their approval to some location.' If the local authorities possessed requisite power by legislative grant to deal with the New York and New Jersey Bridge Company in this matter they would willingly consider this question on its merits and endeavor to reach some conclusion which would adequately protect the interests of The City of New York.

"Apart, therefore, from the many constitutional objections which appear to be present in the form and substance of this attempted grant of a railroad franchise, it is respectfully submitted that by the passage of this bill a dastardly blow has been struck at the commerce of the Port of New York and that the interests of the corporation of The City of New York as proprietors have been wantonly and unnecessarily sacrificed."

In connection therewith the Mayor offered the following resolution :

Resolved, That the Commissioners of the Sinking Fund hereby approve of and concur in said

resolution.

Which was unanimously adopted.

Adjourned.

EDGAR J. LEVEY, Secretary.

COMMISSIONERS OF

THE SINKING FUND OF

THE CITY OF NEW YORK.

Proceedings of the Commissioners of the Sinking Fund, at Meeting held at the Mayor's Office at 1 o'clock P. M., on Thursday, May 2, 1901.

Present-Robert A. Van Wyck, Mayor; Edgar J. Levey, Deputy and Acting Comptroller; Patrick Keenan, Chamberlain; Randolph Guggenheimer, President of the Council, and Robert Muh, Chairman, Finance Committee, Board of Aldermen.

The minutes of the meeting held April 25, 1901, were approved as printed.

The following communication was received from the Department of Docks and Ferries, transmitting for approval amended form of advertisement and terms and conditions of sale of the ferry franchises of the Fulton, Wall, Catharine, South and Hamilton avenue ferries (Minutes, p. 157): NEW YORK, April 25, 1901.

EDGAR J. LEVEY, Esq., Secretary, Sinking Fund Commission:

SIR-I have been directed by the Commissioners governing this Department to request you to return the proposed advertisement of the sale of the Union Ferry franchises transmitted to you April 1, 1901, and to request you to submit to the Commissioners of the Sinking Fund, for their approval, in lieu thereof, the inclosed terms and conditions of sale.

The terms and conditions of sale transmitted herewith are substantially the same as those under which the existing lease was sold in 1893, conforming to the suggestions contained in the report of Eugene E. McLean, Engineer, to the Comptroller, dated April 10, 1901, with the following exceptions:

Ist. The upset price is fixed at $88,403.18, being 11.65 per cent. of the gross receipts of said ferries for the year 1900, instead of 74 per cent. of the gross receipts as in the existing lease.

2d. A clause is inserted providing that if at any time during the term of the lease, the Board of Docks shall require any of the wharf property used for ferry purposes in order to proceed with

the water-front improvements in the vicinity of the ferry landings, the lessees shall surrender and vacate the premises upon three months' notice.

Yours respectfully,

CHARLES J. FARLEY, Assistant Secretary.

PHILIP A. SMYTH, AUCTIONEER.

SALE OF FERRY FRANCHISES.

The franchises for operating the ferries hereinafter designated, along with the wharf property belonging to the City, used or required for ferry purposes situated on the East river, within the cities of New York and Brooklyn, as follows, will be offered for sale by the Board of Docks at public auction, to the highest bidder, at Pier "A," Battery place, North river, on

for a term of ten years, from May 1, 1901, to wit:

1. The Fulton Ferry, to and from Fulton street in the Borough of Manhattan, to and from Fulton street in the Borough of Brooklyn, in The City of New York, comprising all that certain wharf property consisting of bulkheads, slips and adjacent Piers Nos. 21 and 22, now used and required for ferry purposes, at the foot of Fulton street, in the Borough of Manhattan, the surface of said piers, however, being reserved, excepting so far as the same may be required and is now occupied by fences or guards for protection behind the racks or piles in the slips, as shown on maps filed in the Department of Docks and Ferries; and also, all that certain wharf property consisting of bulkheads, slips and adjacent piers now used and required for ferry purposes, at the foot of Fulton street in the Borough of Brooklyn.

2. The Wall Street' Ferry, from and to Wall street, in the Borough of Manhattan, to and from Montague street, in the Borough of Brooklyn, in The City of New York, comprising ail that certain wharf property belonging to the City of New York, consisting of one-half the bulkhead and slip and adjacent Pier No. 15, on the southerly side thereof, excepting the surface, now used and required for ferry purposes, at the foot of Wall street, in the Borough of Manhattan.

3. The Catharine Ferry, from and to Catharine street, in the Borough of Manhattan, to and from Main street, in the Borough of Brooklyn, in The City of New York, comprising all that certain wharf property consisting of bulkheads, slips and adjacent Piers Nos. 34 and 35, except the surface, now used and required for ferry purposes, at the foot of Catharine street, in the Borough of Manhattan ; and also, all that certain wharf property consisting of bulkheads, slips and half the adjacent pier on the westerly side of the slip, now used and required for ferry purposes, at the foot of Main street, in the Borough of Brooklyn.

4. The South Ferry, from and to Whitehall street, in the Borough of Manhattan, to and from Atlantic avenue, Borough of Brooklyn, in The City of New York, comprising all that certain wharf property consisting of bulkheads, slips and Pier No. 2, northerly side, excepting the surface, and short pier, southerly side, now used and required for ferry purposes, at the foot of Whitehall street, in the Borough of Manhattan; and also, all that certain wharf property, consisting of bulkheads, slips and adjacent piers, now used and required for ferry purposes at the foot of Atlantic avenue, Borough of Brooklyn.

5. The Hamilton Avenue Ferry, from an 1 to Whitehall street, Borough of Manhattan, to and from Hamilton avenue, Borough of Brooklyn, in The City of New York, comprising all that certain wharf property consisting of bulkheads, slips and Pier No. 2, northerly side, excepting the surface, and short pier, southerly side, now used and required for ferry purposes, at the foot of Whitehall street, in the Borough of Manhattan; and all that certain wharf property consisting of bulkheads, slips and adjacent piers now used and required for ferry purposes at the foot of Hamilton avenue, Borough of Brooklyn.