The New York Subway | Page 6

the city, through the Board,
over the operation of the road under the lease.
One of the most attractive--and, in fact, indispensable features of the
scheme--was that the work of construction, instead of being subject to
the conflicting control of various departments of the City Government,
with their frequent changes in personnel, was under the exclusive
supervision and control of the Rapid Transit Board, a conservative and
continuous body composed of the two principal officers of the City
Government, and five merchants of the very highest standing in the
community.
Provided capitalists could be found to undertake such an extensive
work under the exacting provisions, the scheme was an admirable one
from the taxpayers' point of view. The road would cost the city
practically nothing and the obligation of the contractor to equip and
operate being combined with the agreement to construct furnished a
safeguard against waste of the public funds and insured the prompt
completion of the road. The interest of the contractor in the successful
operation, after construction, furnished a strong incentive to see that as
the construction progressed the details were consistent with successful

operation and to suggest and consent to such modifications of the
contract plans as might appear necessary from an operating point of
view, from time to time. The rental being based upon the cost
encouraged low bids, and the lien of the city upon the equipment
secured the city against all risk, once the road was in operation.
Immediately after the vote of the electors upon the question of
municipal ownership, the Rapid Transit Commissioners adopted routes
and plans which they had been studying and perfecting since the failure
to find bidders for the franchise under the original Act of 1891. The
local authorities approved them, and again the property owners refused
their consent, making an application to the Supreme Court necessary.
The Court refused its approval upon the ground that the city, owing to a
provision of the constitution of the State limiting the city's power to
incur debt, would be unable to raise the necessary money. This decision
appeared to nullify all the efforts of the public spirited citizens
composing the Board of Rapid Transit Commissioners and to
practically prohibit further attempts on their part. They persevered,
however, and in January, 1897, adopted new general routes and plans.
The consolidation of a large territory into the Greater New York, and
increased land values, warranted the hope that the city's debt limit
would no longer be an objection, especially as the new route changed
the line so as to reduce the estimated cost. The demands for rapid
transit had become more and more imperative as the years went by, and
it was fair to assume that neither the courts nor the municipal
authorities would be overzealous to find a narrow construction of the
laws. Incidentally, the constitutionality of the rapid transit legislation,
in its fundamental features, had been upheld in the Supreme Court in a
decision which was affirmed by the highest court of the State a few
weeks after the Board had adopted its new plans. The local authorities
gave their consent to the new route; the property owners, as on the two
previous occasions, refused their consent; the Supreme Court gave its
approval in lieu thereof; and the Board was prepared to undertake the
preliminaries for letting a contract. These successive steps and the
preparation of the terms of the contract all took time; but, finally, on
November 15, 1899, a form of contract was adopted and an invitation
issued by the Board to contractors to bid for the construction and

operation of the railroad. There were two bidders, one of whom was
John B. McDonald, whose terms submitted under the invitation were
accepted on January 15, 1900; and, for the first time, it seemed as if a
beginning might be made in the actual construction of the rapid transit
road. The letter of invitation to contractors required that every proposal
should be accompanied by a certified check upon a National or State
Bank, payable to the order of the Comptroller, for $150,000, and that
within ten days after acceptance, or within such further period as might
be prescribed by the Board, the contract should be duly executed and
delivered. The amount to be paid by the city for the construction was
$35,000,000 and an additional sum not to exceed $2,750,000 for
terminals, station sites, and other purposes. The construction was to be
completed in four years and a half, and the term of the lease from the
city to the contractor was fixed at fifty years, with a renewal, at the
option of the contractor, for twenty-five years at a rental to be agreed
upon by the city, not less than the average rental for the then preceding
ten years. The