Chapter 05. Legislative Commission on Rapid Transit

Previous

Index

Next

Fifty Years of Rapid Transit · James Blaine Walker

Chapter V

Legislative Commission on Rapid Transit.

WHILE Willson and his associates naturally felt aggrieved at the action of Governor Fenton, who had deprived them by a pen stroke of the fruits of two years of labor, they accepted the Executive's interference with the best grace possible, and set to work to remove the cause of his objection. With their counsel they went over the terms of the bill and addressed a communication to the Executive, in which they bound themselves and their company to waive all rights to which the Governor had taken exception. The Governor, however, refused to sign the bill, even with this waiver.

Willson's project and the publicity it obtained during the Legislative session of 1865 started a perfect avalanche of rapid transit schemes, and the newspapers of that year are filled with a variety of plans for providing better transportation facilities. Subways, depressed railroads, elevated railroads and railroads built through blocks, were proposed, some practical and others fanciful in the extreme. Many of them, no doubt, originated with the companies owning the existing street car and omnibus lines, who had fought the Willson project in the Legislature and before the Governor. Anticipating that the Metropolitan company would apply to the next Legislature for the rights they sought, these interests devised a number of rival schemes and companies to contest for the Broadway underground franchise. On the other hand many men of inventive turn took advantage of the public interest in the matter to bring forward their ideas of providing rapid transit.

It would be useless to describe or even name these different projects. Suffice it to say that among them were several proposals for elevated railroads which commanded respectful attention from the press. One of these was the Harvey and another the Montgomery plan. The former, brought forward by Charles T. Harvey, contemplated a railroad elevated on pillars erected at the sidewalk line and operated by cars propelled by cables driven by power from stationary steam engines. The other, advanced by Richard Montgomery, consisted of a similar elevated structure operated by cars drawn by steam locomotives, the structure to be built of corrugated steel bars, invented by Montgomery, and for which great strength and lightness were claimed. The latter never got beyond the stage of newspaper plans, but the Harvey scheme we shall hear more of later, as it was the progenitor of the present elevated railroad system.

In November 1865 another election was held for all State officers except the Governor and for members of the Legislature. The Republicans were again successful, electing General Barlow Secretary of State and a majority of both branches of the Legislature. The Unionists had 28 Senators to four for the Democrats, and the Assembly stood 94 Unionists to 34 Democrats. At the same time the Democrats elected John T. Hoffman as Mayor of New York City, a man who subsequently became Governor and played a prominent part in the rapid transit game.

Before the new Legislature met Willson made another attempt to get Governor Fenton to sign the bill passed by the previous session, subject to the waiver by the company of all privileges to which he objected. This effort was backed by more or less newspaper support. The New York Times in an editorial in its issue of December 14, 1865 said:

"Why does the Governor still refuse his signature to the Underground Railroad bill? The bill was passed by the last Legislature, if we remember rightly, by twenty-two votes in the Senate and upwards of ninety in the Assembly -- a vote which would have passed it over a veto if it had been previously passed and vetoed by the Governor. It has, therefore, received the constitutional vote, though not upon the constitutional condition, to become a law without the Governor's signature. For some unexplained reason Mr. Fenton withholds his signature.

"The measure is one of very grave importance to the people of New York. Its feasibility and utility are no longer matters of experiment."

After alluding to the success of the underground road in London the writer continues:

"The names of the gentlemen who compose the company which offers to undertake this enterprise constitute a sufficient guaranty that the work will be promptly undertaken and carried forward to completion; and as the law limits them to five years from their organization, nearly two of which have already elapsed, they have certainly not any too much time. We trust the bill will without further delay be signed; and as the company has with great liberality come forward and under the advice of able counsel tendered to the Governor a relinquishment of any portion of the franchise which he may require, there ought to be no reason to apprehend that we shall not soon have the privilege of seeing this much-needed enterprise actually begun. The question is one which will not bear further trifling with. Every month's delay is an immeasurable loss to the city in a business point of view and an incalculable sacrifice of the comfort and convenience of residents."

The Governor again refused to yield, and Willson and his associates prepared to resort to the new Legislature to obtain the passage of another bill. The measure they submitted was identical with the bill which the Governor had vetoed, the promoters holding that it was the province of the Legislature, if it deemed it wise, to amend it to conform to the Governor's suggestions. They should have made the amendments themselves, for later in the session the fact that their bill contained the objectionable features was used to advantage by their opponents. Chief among these was a deserter from their own camp, one Origen Vandenburgh, who had been employed by Willson during the previous session as a lobbyist at Albany. This man now appeared with a bill of his own for the same rights to build a subway under Broadway for which the Metropolitan company was an applicant. He sought to justify himself in this course by making the statement that the president of the Metropolitan company had told him that that company would not make another effort to get the franchise. In this, however, he was flatly contradicted by Willson.

The fight in the Legislature opened early. Before the session was ten days old, namely on January 10, 1866, the following resolution was introduced in the Senate by Senator Lent:

"Resolved that the engineer of the Croton Aqueduct Board be requested to report his opinion as to the practicability of constructing a railroad under Broadway in the city of New York, and especially as to the effect of the attempt to construct the same upon the Croton and other pipes and the sewers, and the damage if any which may be caused to the city and to the individual property owners thereby, and what precaution ought to be taken to guard against the same, and to provide for the payment of damages, and what legislation is necessary in reference to that object."

After lying on the table for a day, this resolution was adopted. The engineer of the Croton Aqueduct, to whom it was addressed, at that time was Alfred W. Craven, one of the leading engineers of the day and an uncle of Alfred Craven, who from 1910 to 1916 was chief engineer of the Public Service Commission in charge of the building of the new Dual System subways. In response to a request from A. P. Robinson, when the latter was preparing his report for the Metropolitan company, Alfred W. Craven had stated that with proper precautions the underground road could be built without seriously damaging the water system.

But what Alfred W. Craven found unobjectionable in 1865 he declared highly objectionable in 1866 in his response to the Senate resolution. On February 2, 1866, the president of the Senate laid before that body Mr. Craven's report, in which the Engineer of the Croton Board said:

"I assume that the inquiry refers to a road constructed upon the same general plan as that vetoed by the Governor last year. Also that the grade, location, plan of the tunnel etc. are the same as proposed in the report of A. P. Robinson Esq., civil engineer. In reply I beg leave to state that to set forth in specific detail the extent and cost of the work of removing and relaying pipes, and the reconstruction of sewers necessarily resulting from the building of such a road would require more time than appears to have been anticipated by your honorable body. I have been compelled, therefore, to confine myself in general terms to the principal points involved; which, together with the aid of the accompanying maps and profiles, will enable you to form at least an approximate estimate of the complicated difficulties to be encountered so far as the water pipes and sewers are involved; the damages to the inhabitants whose daily comforts and daily absolute necessities are dependent upon the uninterrupted use of these public works; the losses of manufactories suspended; the risk of destruction of property by fires during the total or partial interruption of the water supply, and other interests affected.

"First, the Water Supply: It must be borne in mind the chief supply of the whole city is drawn from the large main pipes through Fifth Avenue and Broadway, directly on the site of the proposed railway. From these main pipes the water is distributed east and west to the river limits. At whatever point the work on the railroad should be in operation, it would at once involve the necessity of the removal of these main pipes from the section where the work might be in progress. During the time taken for this removal and the reconstruction of the numerous lateral branches, the inhabitants in the intersecting streets would be cut off from water entirely, while the rest of the city, from river to river, south of the point of work, would be dependent solely on the utterly inadequate supply coming through the small cross-mains, reaching districts for which they were not intended by the way of lateral connections with the remote parts of the general system or net work of pipe distribution....

"When it is considered that even now, when all the mains are in operation, complaints of an insufficient head of water throughout the lower part of the city are constant and urgent, you will more readily understand the condition to which the inhabitants might be reduced if that head were materially diminished, as it most certainly would be, by the construction of the proposed railway, however well devised or skillfully conducted might be the operations. "The above statement implies the possibility of prosecuting the work on the road in the most careful and deliberate manner, commencing at the Battery and working in regular sections. But it is undeniable that if the road were to be finished in any reasonable time it would be necessary to work it in many points simultaneously. This, while it would decrease the number of persons deprived of water, would also diminish the supply through the laterals to the rest of the city.

"The extent of damages to individuals and to companies growing out of the construction of the suggested railroad it is impossible to estimate with even approximate correctness. The area of population covered, the extent and variety of interests involved and the different degree of inconvenience and loss sustained by each class of sufferers, all make up a whole so complicated that the actual experience alone of proved results could warrant any summing up of the total loss or damage. That the municipal government, which has guaranteed to consumers the use of this water, would be obliged to make good the losses growing out of the interruption seems probable. I do not advert to the cost to the city of making all these changes in the mains, because the cost of removal and reconstruction would depend on so many contingencies that it is impossible to arrive at any degree of accuracy, and because also it is proposed the railway pay this."

When the above report had been presented to the Senate and published, there was consternation in the camp of the advocates of,an underground railroad and corresponding rejoicing in the ranks of the surface railroad companies and in the Jacob Sharp lobby. This lobby had been at work for years trying at each session to get passed a bill giving Sharp and his associates the rights for a surface railroad in Broadway. These lobbyists were no amateurs like Willson and his friends, but seasoned Albany operators who worked intelligently if not always legitimately. There is little doubt that to them was due the failure of the Willson subway scheme. Opposition by such a prominent engineer as Craven, occupying probably the greatest engineering position in the public service at the time, was, of course, a powerful argument against it. The press so regarded it, and at first it was heralded as the death knell of the underground.

But the friends of the latter were not vanquished yet. They rallied presently and began to pour into the Legislature petitions and documents calculated to offset the Craven report. One of the strongest shafts hurled in this way was a letter from A. P. Robinson, the engineer of the Metropolitan Railway company, who had planned the Willson subway. Mr. Robinson not only defended his plans and asserted that the road could be built without damaging the water system, but he produced a letter written by Craven a year before in which Craven had made practically the same assertion. Mr. Robinson quoted in full the following letter:

					CHIEF ENGINEER'S OFFICE 
					CROTON AQUEDUCT DEPARTMENT,
					February, 1865. 

	H. B. Willson Esq. 
	Care Senator Angell, Albany, N. Y.

Dear Sir: I beg leave to acknowledge the receipt of Mr. A. P. Robinson's report upon the contemplated Metropolitan Railway in this city, and also his report on the contemplated Pneumatic Railway, together with a note from you, asking whether in my opinion the proposed works would injuriously affect any of the sewers or other interests committed to our charge. In reply I beg leave to say that the works proposed would, of course, involve the necessity of very considerable changes in the position of water mains, sewers and appurtenant constructions now occupying space below our street surfaces; and that during the time required for such alteration there will be unavoidably much inconvenience felt in the immediate locality of the work. The inconvenience or damage will extend beyond the immediate locality just so far as the water supply and sewerage may depend upon the water mains and sewers, the operations of which by reason of the prosecution of your work are suspended. The extent of this damage or inconvenience would of course be lessened or increased according to the manner in which the work would be carried on.

I have no doubt, however, that the works you contemplate can be so constructed, and the necessary removals and changes in the water mains, sewers, etc. be made in such a manner that, after the whole work is completed, the public works will not be found to have been permanently injured, either in regard to their condition or efficiency in operation. As the professional member of the Board, responsible for the good condition of the public works referred to, and also for the maintenance of and uninterrupted enjoyment of their use by the inhabitants, I feel obliged to add that the bill authorizing your railway should make provisions:

1st, That the Department charged with the proper maintenance of the water mains, sewers and pavements should have such supervision and control over your operations as the public interests might require;

2d, That the city shall be secured against all liabilities for damages sustained in the prosecution of this work. What I mean by this is not only the damage resulting from the carelessness or inefficiency of workmen, but all the damage, including that which is inseparable from the nature of your proposed work.

As the contemplated operations involve the necessity of the entire reconstruction of long lines of sewers, with alterations in the grade and direction of many of them, and also make necessary a very considerable change in the position of some of our large water mains, you will, I know, readily concede that temporary inconvenience and damage will be unavoidable under the most favorable fortune, while any negligence or failure might very greatly increase that which, under the best circumstances, will be a very great annoyance. You will, therefore, see that in calling your attention to these points, and begging you to make proper provision for them in any bill you may ask of the Legislature, I am only doing what is made imperative by my official responsibility.

						I am etc. 
						A. W. CRAVEN, C. E.

Mr. Robinson then added:

"Mr. Craven here requires very reasonable, proper safeguards and guarantees for the public; and in accordance with his suggestions the clauses in the bill passed last winter referring to these points were prepared after full consultation with the other members of the Croton Board, as well as with the Corporation Counsel.

"I believe that the public works to be affected remain in about the same state now as then. No extensive sewers have been constructed, nor have any new water mains been laid down.

"A work which then presented no serious difficulties to the mind of Mr. Craven becomes now impracticable; and because we have a water pipe three feet in diameter, lying eight feet below the pavements, and a few petty brick sewers three feet wide by four feet high in the route proposed, there is not in his opinion engineering skill enough in this country to construct this railway. This is the standard as to the ability of the profession in the United States gravely put forth by a representative member. I have entertained a pardonable pride in my profession, and a still higher pride that I am an American engineer; for although we cannot point to works of the magnitude and extent of many in the old country, we can show as brilliant conceptions and as bold achievements as any that the world can boast; and I should indeed feel humiliated if I could for a moment believe that you would indorse the meager standard here given us by a refusal to report a bill for the construction of this work for any of the reasons set forth in the communication of Mr. Craven."

This spirited rejoinder to Mr. Craven's change of front no doubt helped to soften the blow which the latter's unfavorable report dealt the Willson underground project, but it did not prevent the defeat of that project in the Assembly.

It would be useless to recount the several attempts made at this session of the Legislature (1866) to get charters for an underground railroad. Three or more bills for this purpose were introduced, and as many more for rights to build elevated railroads of one kind or another. Broadway was the route most desired, and the fight for the underground rights was waged over this thoroughfare. The reason for this was that Broadway was then as now the main business artery of the city, and the traffic on its surface was greater than that of any other street, so that the great need for relief of congestion was a new road of some kind along Broadway.

As before stated, the horse railroad interests looked with hungry eyes on this thoroughfare and for years had sought the priceless franchise for the surface rights. Property owners had resisted their efforts successfully, and when the Legislature of 1866 met were prepared to continue their resistance. Owners of the horse railroads, too, argued that if Broadway underground rights were granted to rivals the construction and operation of a subway would delay, perhaps for all time, the building of a surface road in that street. As they were still fighting for the surface rights, they naturally opposed the grant of the sub-surface rights sought by Willson.

The main fight in the Legislature of 1866, therefore, was between Willson and Vandenburgh. Both had bills introduced, and soon the Committees on Railroads of the two houses had a lively time with the clashing interests. Efforts were made to bring the rivals together, and a bill was introduced to embrace both interests, but Willson and his friends would not accept the compromise plan, and it came to naught. Vandenburgh, who undeniably had great influence with the Legislators, finally prevailed, and his bill was favorably reported in the Assembly.

Willson made one last appeal to the Senate for justice. He was desperate at the prospect of losing everything which the success of Vandenburgh in the Assembly made imminent, and prepared a memorial which he submitted to the Senate and had published. Here it is:

"To the Honorable, the Senate of the State of New York:

"The petition of Hugh B. Willson, of the city of / New York, a loyal citizen of the United States, respectfully showeth:

"That he was the originator of the undertaking known as the Underground Railway in this city. Having been in London several times during the construction of the Metropolitan Tunnel Railway of that city, and for dome months after it was opened for traffic in January, 1863, he had great opportunities for obtaining practical information as to the engineering difficulties to be overcome. Those few months, during which he traveled almost daily through the tunnel, sufficed to convince him that the undertaking was a great success, and that a similar line in New York would not only be equally successful, but would in fact afford the most economical and effectual method of relieving our crowded thoroughfares. Hence on his return to this city in the summer of that year your petitioner determined to present the project to such influential parties as he might be able to convince of its adaptation to the wants of the community.

"This task your petitioner at first found difficult of accomplishment, owing mainly to the absorbing interest of the war, but he finally succeeded after several months of earnest labor in effecting through the instrumentality of friends a powerful organization of capitalists, under the name of the Metropolitan Railway Company, whose articles of association were filed March 22, 1864. Prior to that organization, and in order to demonstrate to the gentlemen in question the practicability of the undertaking, your petitioner and one of his friends employed Mr. R. T. Bailey, an experienced civil engineer, to examine and report on the same, aid the company so formed, in the autumn of the same year, had a still more careful survey and detailed report on the proposed work made by Mr. A. P. Robinson, another distinguished civil engineer, and no other scientific reports or practical information have ever been procured to be made and published by any other parties. These reports were in fact demonstrative of the whole question involved as to the possibility of constructing so vast a public work in the heart of a great city without damage to property of any kind whatever and without embarrassing the traffic.

"Your petitioner begs further to represent that "Your petitioner begs further to represent that the two parties have combined and made enormous demands upon the Metropolitan Company, which the gentlemen in its direction refused to accede to, and he is apprehensive that the undertaking will be wrested out of their hands by a bold act of piracy. Your petitioner in such an event will be left without any legal means of obtaining justice or indemnity for nearly three years of arduous labor and anxiety and an expenditure so large as to prove ruinous to himself and family.

"Your petitioner under all these circumstances feels that he may with propriety appeal to the sense of justice of your honorable House, and prays that it will be pleased to cause an investigation to be made into the claims of your petitioner and his friends before the passage of any such bill.

					H. B. Willson 
					New York, March 21, 1866.

This proved to be the swan song of Willson and the Metropolitan Company. Though first in the field their labors were to go for naught and the first subway project was to be throttled in deference to the wishes of the powerful corporations which controlled the horse car lines in New York City. Willson had the sympathy of the public, and the New York Times in an editorial expressed the belief that he had "suffered unfairly."

The day after the memorial was published a letter in reply from Thomas B. Van Buren appeared in the Times. Van Buren had been a member of the Assembly in 1865 and had supported the bill which Governor Fenton vetoed. He followed Vandenburgh on the latter's desertion of the Willson cause and became one of the incorporators of the company formed by the bill which Vandenburgh succeeded in putting through the Assembly. In his reply he denied Willson's charges of a combination and "holdup". He excused his own course by making the statement that Mr. Barney, the president of the Metropolitan Company, had told him that he intended to "drop the enterprise entirely". As he "hated to see the project dropped", he and Vandenburgh got up the bill which was introduced in the Assembly. Finding two other bills pending, he explained, he sought to get the promoters of the three measures together on a new bill, which would give representation to all. To his letter to this effect, The Vandenburgh bill had been favorably reported in the Assembly on March 15. On March 24 the same Committee on Railroads reported adversely on five bills for elevated railroads on Broadway and other streets. On March 29, in spite of Willson's appeal, the Assembly took up and passed the Vandenburgh bill. On April 4 it passed the bill providing for the construction of the Montgomery "corrugated" elevated railroad in Broadway, There were prospects, too, that the Broadway surface railroad bill would get the approval of the complacent Assembly. The New York Tribune of April 5 editorially condemned the granting of any more surface railroad rights, saying:

"We most earnestly protest against any more tracks being laid in our crowded streets until some one of the projects contemplating an elevated railroad and one of those intending an underground railroad shall have had a fair trial".

After the passage of the Vandenburgh bill by the Assembly the fight was transferred to the Senate, which killed the bill in spite of a favorable report by the majority of the Committee on Railroads. Before this result was reached, however, there were exciting scenes in the Senate, culminating in the mention of alleged charges of bribery.

Meantime the Senate Railroad Committee gave a public hearing on all bills affecting Broadway, and a large delegation of wealthy men from New York City attended. Among them were William B. Astor and A. T. Stewart. The latter argued against the giving away of franchises, and offered $3,000,000 for the rights which the pending bills proposed to confer for nothing. When asked to make a bona fide offer for the Broadway underground franchise, however, Mr. Stewart declined. In general the millionaire delegation opposed all railroads in Broadway, but especially the underground and elevated projects.

It was on April 14, a few days after the millionaires had been heard, that the Senate had the most thrilling day of the session. On the previous day Senator Folger, on behalf of the majority of the Railroad Committee, had reported in favor of the Vandenburgh bill and Senator Humphrey, for the minority, against it. The report had been tabled temporarily, and the next day Senator Humphrey, for the majority of the Railroad Committee, reported favorably on the Broadway surface railroad bill. Senator Low dissented from this report and moved to take the underground and elevated railroad bills from the table. The motion prevailed and a debate ensued.

After a few commonplace speeches, Senator La Bau electrified the Senate by stating that he had been informed two weeks previously that the majority of the Railroad Committee would report as it had done. He could tell the gentlemen composing that majority, he continued, that there were rumors about the porticoes and halls of the capitol and on the streets of Albany, to the effect that each of them had received $10,000 for their action on these bills. This action gave color to the foul rumors, and the gentlemen owed it to their own vindication to favor the reference of the bills to the Committee of the Whole.

Immediately the debate turned from the bills to the sensational remarks of Senator La Bau. The three Senators composing the majority of the Railroad Committee disclaimed having received anything for their votes against the underground and in favor of the surface road. Other Senators were "astonished" that such language should be used on the floor, while a few pointed out that Mr. La Bau had not made any charges but had simply stated that the ugly rumors were in circulation. La Bau himself, who hailed from the First District of New York City, disclaimed any intention of indorsing the rumors, but had merely stated them and pointed out to the Senators how they could disprove them by their votes on the pending motion.

On the vote the lobby was defeated, and the bills went to the Committee of the Whole, the Senate thus refusing to indorse the report of the majority of the Railroad Committee. On April 17 the Vandenburgh bill was considered in Committee of the Whole, when the motion to report it favorably was defeated by a vote of 14 to 12. The Senate later refused to order it to third reading by a vote of 17 to 12, and the President declared it lost. A motion to reconsider was made, but this too was defeated, 17 to 9. The elevated and surface bills went the same way, so that the Senate killed everything granting railroad rights on Broadway.

But the rapid transit idea would not down. On the last day of the session, April 20, 1866, the Senate received "a memorial and remonstrance from S. P. Ruggles", requesting the appointment of a commission by the Governor to report at the next session what accommodation was required in the way of railroads in New York City. Friends of rapid transit saw in this suggestion at least a promise of something in the way of progress, and at the afternoon session the following resolution was offered by Senator Andrews, of Otsego, and adopted:

"Resolved: That a select committee of three be appointed, to sit during the recess with the Mayor of New York, the State Engineer and the Engineer of the Croton Board, to ascertain and report to the Senate the most advantageous and proper route or routes for a railway or railways, suited to rapid transportation of passengers from the upper to the lower portion of the city of New York, having in view the greatest practicable benefit and safety to the public and the least loss and injury to property on or adjacent to said route or routes."

Before adjournment Senators Andrews, Low and C. G. Cornell were appointed as such committee by the President of the Senate. This action, together with the passage of a bill which attracted little attention at the time, gave New York its first rapid transit line-the elevated railroad. This bill was an amendment to the General Railroad law of 1850. It was passed by the Legislature of 1866 and authorized any number, not less than ten, persons to form themselves into a company to build a railroad to be operated "by means of a propelling rope or cable attached to stationary power." It also authorized such a company to charge fares not exceeding five cents per mile, with a minimum fare of ten cents. The bill was passed in the interest of Charles T. Harvey, the father of the elevated railroads, who had invented a plan for the propulsion of trains on an elevated structure by cables operated by steam power furnished by stationary engines along the route. In the clash of rival underground and elevated schemes, this amendment to the railroad law slipped through without attracting much notice and without its importance being generally recognized. How it gave New York the first elevated road will be told in a subsequent chapter.

Previous

Index

Next