city's relations to the street railways as a whole, therefore, is that New York has been more fortunate than most American cities; which is saying very little indeed. The revenue from this source during the year just previous to consolidation was $351,883.

In dealing with the elevated railway the city has been even less successful. The four lines now operated under lease by the Manhattan Railway Company were originally built by three separate corporations, only one of which was required to pay the city anything for the occupation of the streets. The West Side and Yonkers Patent Railway Company, afterward the West Side Elevated (Patented) Railway Company, which built the southern half of the Ninth Avenue line, had its franchise on condition of paying five per cent. of its net receipts, to be used in improving the streets in which its structure was erected. Its successor, the New York Elevated Railroad Company, built the Third Avenue line and the remainder of the Ninth Avenue line under an act of the legislature which provided that connecting routes might be built "with all the rights and with like effect as though the same had been a part of the original route;" but the courts held that this applied to powers only, and not to burdens, and hence that the percentage was payable only on the receipts of the original part of the Ninth Avenue line.1 This decision so complicated the accounts that nothing has actually been paid for many years.

But if the city has been more or less unsuccessful in dealing with its railways, its gas and electric privileges have been given away by the council and the State legislature with scarcely any attempt to secure compensation. When gas first came into use the franchises were limited to short terms of years, but this prudent custom soon gave way to grants of franchises limited only by the corporate life of the recipients, if at all, and without any return to the city. Only one company, which has but recently begun to supply gas on Manhattan Island, is required to pay a percentage of its receipts. Electric lighting companies, telephone companies, and other corporations using electricity pay nothing at all; though at some future time they 1 City of N. Y. v. Manhattan Ry. Co., 143 N. Y., 1.

may contribute indirectly through the subway companies whose conduits they occupy, for when the profits of these companies exceed an average of ten per cent. a year the entire excess is to go to the city.

Nor have the corporations enjoying municipal franchises made up to the public in reduced charges for the lack of adequate cash payments to the city treasury. The ferries, to be sure, which pay very well for their franchises, have also had their tolls reduced to a moderate basis. The elevated railway, also, which formerly had a ten-cent fare except at certain hours in the morning and evening, is now well content with a uniform charge of five cents. But the surface railways are still charging the same fare as in the middle of the century, when street railways were an uncertain experiment. Nor has the length of the lines increased materially, as it has in many other cities, for there were lines extending to the Harlem forty years ago; though to be sure the consolidation of the companies and the resulting free transfers have made some of the side streets accessible without the payment of an extra fare. The price of gas is less than in the days when gas was a novelty and a luxury, but the fall in price has by no means kept pace with the cheapening of production, and of late the legislature has been especially reluctant to reduce the rates further. Such reductions as have been ordered, including the piecemeal legislation at the last session which will bring the price down to a dollar by the end of the century, are probably no greater than a far-sighted self-interest would have led the companies to adopt of their own free will.

The reader will have noticed that the relations of the lesser New York to its monopolies of transit, lighting, and the like are fully as complicated as they are unsatisfactory; and he will be ready to believe, without proof in detail, that the local regulations and special legislation affecting Brooklyn, Long Island City, and Staten Island do not tend to simplify the franchise situation in Greater New York as a whole. The new charter, however, does simplify the law regarding future grants in two distinct ways; for it not only brings all five boroughs

under the same statute, but also prescribes a single set of regulations for all kinds of street franchises. The chapter on franchises is given a place of honor in the charter between the chapters on the Municipal Assembly and the Executive; and it opens with this significant sentence:

"The rights of the city in and to its water front, ferries, wharf property, land under water, public landings, wharves, docks, streets, avenues, parks, and all other public places are hereby declared to be inalienable."

The instrument then proceeds to limit the duration of all street franchises and prescribe the procedure necessary for granting them. No franchise or right to use the streets of the city may be granted for a longer period than twenty-five years; but provision may be made for renewals at fair revaluations covering not more than a second quarter of a century. At the expiration of every franchise the plant and the property in the streets belonging to the grantee are to become the property of the city, either with or without compensation, according to the terms of the original grant. When compensation is provided for, there must be a fair valuation of the property, excluding any value derived from the franchise itself; and the city must then carry on the business on its own account for at least five years, after which it may either continue municipal operation or lease the property and franchise for limited periods as it leases the ferries and docks. But if the property is taken without compensation, the city has a choice. between municipal operation and a renewal or new lease for not more than twenty years, as it may prefer. It is further provided that every grant shall make adequate provision for efficient service at reasonable rates and the maintenance of the property in good condition.

All these franchises, including the extensions and renewals, are to be granted by ordinance, and only after due publication of all the terms and conditions, including the fares or other charges; and the passage of an ordinance granting a franchise will require a three-fourths vote of all the members elected to each branch of the Municipal Assembly, or a five-sixths vote in case of a veto by the Mayor. Moreover, no franchise may be granted without the approval of the Board of Estimate and

Apportionment, after an inquiry into the money value of the franchise with reference to the adequacy of the proposed compensation; and at least thirty days must intervene between the introduction and final passage of the ordinance.

An important part of the chapter on franchises, though its significance was entirely overlooked while the charter was before the legislature, is the little section which provides simply that section 93 of chapter 565 of the laws of 1890 and its amendments shall have no application to grants made under this title of the charter; for its effect is to repeal the provision of the General Railroad Law which preserved the principle of the Cantor Act by requiring street railway franchises to be sold at auction. The language of the section gives no hint of its purport, and in the hasty consideration of the charter by the public and the legislature there was no discussion of the point; indeed, it was not until after the adjournment of the legislature that the effect of the section was known even to Senator Cantor himself, and it was much longer before the secret was out in the City Comptroller's office. As if to add to the confusion and uncertainty surrounding the subject, it is provided in another part of the charter that "nothing in this act contained shall repeal or affect . . . the existing general laws of the state in respect to street surface railroads;" and so perhaps no one can say positively what the law really is. The unseemly haste with which the charter was rushed through the legislature without opportunity for amendment or free discussion, while it may have been necessary if there was to be. a Greater New York this winter, was, to say the least, very unfortunate. If there had been time for a thorough public discussion of the important provisions of the charter, as there ought always to be when a fundamental law is about to be adopted, the repeal of the auction principle certainly would not have passed unchallenged, and the advocates of competitive sales would have been able to make a strong showing in their favor. For while the provisions of the Cantor Act were far from perfect, they were excellent so far as they went; they instituted a much-needed reform by making bribery and collusion impossible, and they have added materially to the present

and future revenues of the city. The successful bids, it is true, have been seldom higher than one per cent. of the receipts in addition to the minimum which the law requires, and oftener less than more; but there have been some notable cases in which the intense rivalry of competing companies has forced the bidding up to most extraordinary and unexpected heights. Thus the franchise for a street railway through Fulton street was sold in 1887 for thirty-five per cent. of the gross receipts in addition to the legal minimum; but after six years the railway company submitted figures to show that it was unable to pay so much, and so the Sinking Fund Commissioners agreed to a "compromise" by which the thirty-five per cent. was reduced to one-eighth of one per cent. Another company offered twenty-nine and one-fifth per cent. for a cross-town line which it has not succeeded in operating. More recently the franchise for the Kingsbridge or so-called Third Avenue extension, which was desired by both the Metropolitan and the Third Avenue Companies, was sold to the latter for thirty-eight and one-half per cent. of the receipts besides the minimum required by law, and a cash bonus of a quarter of a million dollars; but this sale was set aside by the Court of Appeals on technical grounds: it was held that the route in question really consisted of two separate extensions, and that the provision for a cash bonus was unwarranted by the statute.1 Preceding this ill-fated sale by only a month was another even more remarkable, which may safely be said to be unequaled in the history of auction sales. It reminded one of nothing so much as of those famous book auctions at which fortunes were paid for single volumes; but the amount involved was much larger, and the payments were to be made every year so long as the successful corporation should endure. The route in question lay in the far northern part of the city, but it was considered necessary by at least one company as a connecting link with other proposed lines beyond the city limits. Three companies participated in the bidding at first, but one of them dropped out as soon as it appeared that the bids would exceed three or four per cent. of the receipts. The other two companies kept on bidding. The 1 Beekman v. Third Ave. R. R. Co., 47 N. E. Reporter, 277; 153 N. Y., 144.