TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES 
 IN AND AROUND THE 
 CITY OF BOSTON 
 
 BEFORE THE 
 
 Railroad Commissioners and Transit Commission 
 
 (Sitting jointly) 
 
 Boston, Mass., Nov. 1, 1910 
 
 STATEMENT BY 
 
 MAJ. GEN. WILLIAM A. BANCROFT, President. 
 
 For the Boston Elevated Railway Co. 
 
 BOSTON 
 
 Geo. H. Ellis Co., Printers, 272 Congress Street 
 1010 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2018 with funding from 
 
 University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign Alternates 
 
 https://archive.org/details/transportationfaOObanc 
 
CONTINUED HEARING BEFORE THE BOARD 
 OF RAILROAD COMMISSIONERS AND THE 
 BOSTON TRANSIT COMMISSION, SITTING 
 JOINTLY, UNDER RESOLVES RELATIVE TO 
 THE IMPROVEMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 
 FACILITIES IN AND AROUND THE CITY OF 
 BOSTON. 
 
 Office of the Boston Transit Commission, 
 
 15 Beacon Street, Boston, November 1, 1910. 
 
 The Chairman (Commissioner Hall). We are ready to 
 proceed, gentlemen. 
 
 Mr. Snow. Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Joint 
 Board ,—This is the time which was assigned for hearing 
 the Boston Elevated Railway Company in regard to all 
 the matters which are now before the Joint Board for 
 consideration. General Bancroft, the president of the 
 company, is here to make a statement on behalf of the 
 
 Boston Elevated Railway, and I would like to have you 
 listen to him. He will now address you. 
 
 STATEMENT BY 
 
 GENERAL WILLIAM A. BANCROFT. 
 
 The Past. 
 
 Mr. Chairman ,—About fifteen years ago a group of 
 
 young men was formed for the purpose of meeting the 
 
 c* then existing situation with respect to the local transit 
 £ problems of this community. In many relations of life 
 £ it is not seemly to recite one’s achievements, but the 
 
4 
 
 achievements of that group of young men it is not only 
 proper to recite, but it is their duty to be heard. That 
 group was associated in their board of directors, for they 
 became an organized concern, with older men. The group 
 I have in mind consisted of two bankers, an able lawyer, 
 a capable and successful business man, a trained railroad 
 man, who had been in the service of the West End from 
 its inception, and for a considerable portion of the time 
 had been its general manager, an experienced engineer, and 
 a farmer. I, being the farmer, can speak with more pro¬ 
 priety of the achievements of the group than can the others, 
 who are more highly endowed, and who have contributed 
 more to those achievements. I also have the advantage 
 of a longer acquaintance with the street railway affairs 
 of this community, for it is now nearly twenty-six years 
 since I became superintendent of one of the horse railroads 
 in the not satisfactory days of active competition. For 
 three years I was superintendent of a horse railroad, and 
 for two years after that I was general roadmaster of the 
 West End. For a number of years following that I was not 
 in the street railway business, but was a practising lawyer, 
 whose duty it was to occasionally sue the West End, and 
 then for two years I was president of the board of aldermen 
 of the largest suburban city and mayor of that city for 
 four years, so I kept in touch with the doings of the street 
 railway companies. I saw the operations, in a way, from 
 the inside and also from the official outside, “the whole 
 of which I saw and a (small) part of which I was.” 
 
 I recall the days of the horse-car competition. I partici¬ 
 pated. I recall the intolerable situation at that time, 
 which the public seems to have forgotten, when, in 1887, 
 Mr. Henry M. Whitney came forward with his proposition 
 of consolidation and of electrical equipment. Mr. Whitney 
 had a proposition to make to the public. He made it, but 
 it was a venturesome thing for him to do in those days. 
 
5 
 
 He quickly cleared up the intolerable horse-car competition 
 and the bad situation. The provision for motive power 
 was not so easy. Indeed, at that time it was well nigh a 
 sheer hazard, but Mr. Whitney went to the Legislature, and 
 made his proposition, which was accepted, and Mr. Whitney 
 made good. 
 
 Ten years later another situation existed. The commu¬ 
 nity desired rapid transit. They didn’t have it. The free 
 transfer question was a political issue, and had been for a 
 number of years. The compensation for public franchises 
 was not in a satisfactory state. This group of young men 
 to whom I have alluded went to the Legislature with a 
 proposition to clear up the then situation. That propo¬ 
 sition was substantially unanimously adopted by the Legis¬ 
 lature, by both houses, and was approved by his Excellency. 
 
 I submit that that group of young men have made good. 
 We have been trying for the last six weeks, by advertise¬ 
 ments in the newspapers, to inform the community what 
 we have done. The result, I am bound to say, has not 
 increased our confidence in the much-lauded publicity policy 
 of a public service corporation. I understand that these 
 advertisements of ours, which have shown in the clearest 
 and simplest way, both by graphic cut and by succinct 
 recital, what we have done, have not been generally read. 
 I assume that those who have been concerned in local trans¬ 
 portation have read them; but I do think it important to 
 recall briefly just what I mean, by a map which has been 
 placed here, so it can be seen with sufficient clearness, 
 showing the situation as it was in 1898, and then the suc¬ 
 cessive steps which have changed that situation and led 
 down to the situation of to-day. 
 
 In 1898 the Tremont Street subway had been built and 
 was in operation. It performed an important function in 
 clearing up the congestion along Tremont Street and some 
 of the adjacent streets. Its relation to the territory now 
 
6 
 
 served by the Elevated you can see on that map. It was 
 a thing to be done; but, in so far as that group of young men 
 was concerned, it could not be said they did it, for they 
 found it. They immediately set about fulfilling their prom¬ 
 ises, and in 1901 the Elevated Road was opened. I will 
 not stop to say what it has accomplished. I will only say 
 it was intended to supply rapid transit, and that from 
 Dudley Street to Sullivan Square, where the running time 
 was forty-five minutes, if it could be made in that time, it 
 was reduced to twenty-one minutes, and six miles of double 
 track thoroughfare were built. It was necessary to use the 
 subway, which was not adapted for the purpose, but we 
 overcame the obstacles and used it. We furnished two rapid 
 transit thoroughfares through the business heart of Boston, 
 one almost through the centre, the other on the easterly 
 side. It involved a very large expenditure of money. It 
 involved at that time all kinds of opposition and condem¬ 
 nation. I remember that a worthy mayor of a neighboring 
 city said to me, “You and Gaston are lawyers, you are not 
 going to stay in such a thing as that.” But Mr. Gaston 
 stayed several years until after the elevated railway w^as in 
 actual operation and his promises fulfilled, when propriety 
 brought it about that he should withdraw, for he was nomi¬ 
 nated for the high office of governor. I have not as yet 
 “got cold feet.” Mr. T. J. Coolidge, Jr., one of the gentle¬ 
 men w T ho started with us, also withdrew. Both those with¬ 
 drawals were many years ago. We have since had the ad¬ 
 vantage of Mr. Snow’s advice and guidance, and more 
 recently Mr. James L. Richards, one of the ablest business 
 men and one of the most public-spirited mien, has become 
 a member of our board of directors and of our executive 
 committee. 
 
 The East Boston tunnel was provided for by the same 
 Act. John L. Bates was a representative from East Boston 
 and Speaker of the House. He advocated the tunnel. In 
 
7 
 
 fact, in the classic language of Hon. Albert E. Pillsbury, 
 “ Governor Bates found East Boston an island and left 
 it a continent.” The tunnel, we think, performed a very 
 important function: it certainly gave us an east and west 
 thoroughfare, so far as it is possible to have an east and west 
 thoroughfare in our geographical situation, and it added 
 greatly to the comfort and convenience of the people of 
 East Boston. 
 
 The subway was unsuitable for elevated train operation, 
 as I have said. The Washington Street tunnel was early 
 projected, and was built. 
 
 It still further reduced the running time between Dud¬ 
 ley Street and Sullivan Square to 18 minutes,—or 18J4 
 minutes, to be exact,—and gave the third rapid transit 
 north and south thoroughfare through the business heart 
 of Boston, together with an east and west thoroughfare 
 through the East Boston tunnel. 
 
 It has been said that we have had no comprehensive 
 design, no orderly method of proceeding. Well, I don’t 
 think it is important whether we have or not, or whether 
 anybody has or not. What I do say is this, and I am prepared 
 to support the assertion, that through skill and experience 
 there has been gradually developed an orderly and compre¬ 
 hensive design. I do not mean to say that the design has 
 been fully executed, or that it cannot be modified, or that 
 it cannot perhaps be altered in some of its details, but from 
 the very necessity of our geography it had to be adopted. 
 In shape we are essentially a wheel, with the business part 
 of the city as the hub; but like all coast communities the 
 wheel is not complete on one side, here because of the bay 
 directly to the east. But in other respects we are like a 
 wheel, and the design is so natural, so simple, and yet so 
 effective, that we cannot see how it can be substantially 
 altered. 
 
 The design is this: that every community shall have a 
 
8 
 
 direct and rapid approach to the business heart of Boston. 
 We have had another design which was perfectly natural, 
 that these rapid transit thoroughfares, which were provided 
 as the spokes of the wheel, should be fed by the surface 
 lines. The number of people who use any railroad, or 
 rapid transit station, who actually live near a station, is com¬ 
 paratively small. Even in the country people are driven, 
 unless they walk, for a considerable distance to the railroad 
 station. Here we provide the economical and convenient 
 surface car to carry people to the rapid transit stations. 
 It will become necessary, for one reason or another, to ex¬ 
 tend, as we have extended to Forest Hills, the Elevated 
 system, as the population increases enough to warrant it. 
 But the plan or the design of the thoroughfares to differ¬ 
 ent sections is as I have stated. Therefore we have built, 
 or are building, and have it well under way, the East Cam¬ 
 bridge Elevated extension which you see here. I will not 
 undertake now to enumerate all the advantages of that 
 extension to the people in a portion of Cambridge and of 
 Somerville, not to mention the relief of Sullivan Square, 
 but there it is. We are also building, and it is well under 
 way, a thoroughfare to Harvard Square, which will have 
 that as its terminal, as well as a station about a mile this 
 side, and another one nearer Boston. But the design is 
 there, and the provision is there. 
 
 I am speaking in terms of millions, because some of these 
 provisions have cost, or are costing, either the community 
 or ourselves, in the investment, and we have to support 
 the investment, some twelve millions of dollars, some 
 nine millions, some costing eight millions, and some costing 
 less, but all in the millions. 
 
 The Riverbank subway, which is shown here, is another 
 spoke which will be of great benefit to another portion of 
 Boston, namely, Brighton, as well as to a portion of Brook¬ 
 line, and will also serve the communities of Newton and 
 
9 
 
 Watertown; and beyond that, Waltham, which is not a 
 part of our system, but whose people ride in on our cars. 
 
 Here is another case [referring to the map] of extension 
 to the north, which is an extension from Sullivan Square to 
 Everett and Malden. The spokes of the wheel are appear¬ 
 ing. 
 
 We have made large contributions. We found less than 
 twenty-six million dollars of capital invested. There is now 
 invested upwards of eighty-one million dollars. We have 
 undertaken to expend in the next four or five years thirty- 
 one million dollars more, making a total investment, by 
 1914, of $112,000,000. Some one has told me that it is a 
 dollar for every $20 of the taxable valuation in the com¬ 
 munity which we serve. It is a large sum of money. 
 
 There are some of these things [referring to the map] that 
 we have helped to do. The provisions for the boulevards 
 are shown in green. The other lines are on the preceding 
 map. 
 
 We haven’t been idle with the surface system. We found 
 3043/2 miles, to be exact, of surface track. We have added 
 156 more in all parts of the community. These recitals 
 that we have printed in the newspapers state definitely, 
 succinctly, and correctly the cost of those provisions and 
 what they have cost us. I shall be glad to send the members 
 of the Joint Board copies of these when they are prepared. 
 I think that they contain useful information. 
 
 We have a map here showing the total contributions so 
 far on the work actually accomplished on the lines that have 
 not been built, like the. West End Elevated and the Malden 
 Extension; also on those unfinished, like the East Cambridge 
 extension and the Harvard Square extension; and, in a 
 different color, the surface lines. 
 
 We have added 180 miles of track (24 elevated) to the 
 3043/2 miles that we found. In twelve years we have added 
 60 per cent, as much in track mileage as had been done in 
 
10 
 
 forty-two years. We have supplied many cars (I don’t 
 have in mind exactly how many, but more than six hundred), 
 and 219 elevated cars at least. When I became superin¬ 
 tendent, we rode in a car that seated 22 people. The 
 last 191 cars which we have acquired for surface use seat 
 52 persons each. We have provided additional power and 
 new depots. These extensions have gone beyond our 
 former limits. The 5-cent fare has been extended, and 
 it has been extended to the health and comfort of the 
 community. 
 
 There has been a suggestion in regard to the population. 
 My impression is (it is not the last census, but as near as we 
 could calculate from what data we could get in the last 
 year) the East Boston and Chelsea section has a popula¬ 
 tion of nearly 92,000. The territory to the north is more 
 tributary to the Elevated, but will be in part tributary to 
 the East Cambridge Elevated extension. This contains 
 258,000. The Cambridge subway territory contains 150,000. 
 The Brookline and Brighton territory will contain at least 
 98,000. The territory to the south, which is largely served, 
 but not altogether, as you can see, by the Elevated Rail¬ 
 road to Dudley Street and Forest Hills, contains over 391,- 
 000. That is the largest section which has only a single 
 rapid transit provision. 
 
 Now we have done these things, and we think that we 
 have made good. Everybody who is engaged in street 
 railway transportation in Boston who has been responsible 
 has made good. When the horse cars came in, in 1856, there 
 was an uproar and tremendous opposition and some hard 
 things were said, but the horse cars made good, and the 
 “busses” gradually disappeared. When Mr. Whitney came 
 along in 1887 with the consolidation of the roads and the 
 electrifying of the system, he made good. Since Mr. 
 Robert Winsor and his associates came along in 1897 to 
 provide rapid transit and to clear up the free transfer and 
 
11 
 
 the compensation tax questions, we have made good, or 
 else those $55,000,000 and those hundreds of miles of track 
 in these rapid transit features on these maps mean nothing. 
 
 The Future. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, we want to go on. But the situation is 
 an embarrassing one. It is not so serious as it was in 1887 
 or 1897. This group of young men are still active. They 
 have had more than twelve years of service; they have had 
 the advantages of the wisdom of the successive governors 
 of the Commonwealth, of the successive legislatures, of the 
 important boards which I am now addressing; they have 
 had the benefit of their own experience in the business. 
 But we now meet a situation that is awkward and embar¬ 
 rassing. Never has anything, or can anything be done in 
 this community without its own co-operation. 
 
 Now, on the map of the population, and on this map [re¬ 
 ferring to map] a gap is shown, a gap which reaches a terri¬ 
 tory populated, I guess,—and I am willing to have my 
 guess revised, and the actual fact ascertained,—by 175,000 
 people, I guess more, I don’t care, we can find out what 
 the facts are from those who are interested. There is no 
 rapid transit provision to Dorchester. There is no rapid 
 transit thoroughfare, although one or both of your honor¬ 
 able boards have been directed to prepare a bill to show the 
 route for and cost of a rapid transit thoroughfare from Park 
 Street to the South Station. There is no rapid transit 
 provision to South Boston. 
 
 Now, will you help us? I wish to be absolutely frank with 
 this Joint Board and with this community. We need your 
 help. We want to extend this system. Never mind the 
 design; let it be improved, if it can be; we are willing to 
 extend this system. We want your help, and we want the 
 community’s help. Here is a situation where no one alone 
 
12 
 
 can so effectively do the thing as by the co-operation of all. 
 Our plan has been to give to this community a symmetrical 
 and orderly system of local transportation. We have 
 intended to give it to all parts of this community: the 
 design permits it. We want to build out here to Dorchester 
 via the South Station and South Boston. 
 
 Now, here is the awkward situation. Capital is needed, 
 and it must be interested if this thing is to be done. There 
 must be reasonably favorable inducements for capital. 
 Now, what, is confronting us? Everybody recognizes it. 
 There are these three leases, of the Tremont subway, the 
 East Boston tunnel, and the Washington Street tunnel, 
 expiring, the first one, in less than seven years. There is 
 the West End Railway situation which must be cleared 
 up if we are to be enabled,—and this is put in the frankest, 
 most co-operative, most kindly spirit, and I wish I had the 
 gift to do it more so than I am doing it,—but in order to get 
 results, this community must co-operate. 
 
 Extension of Leases. 
 
 Now, if the Commission pleases, may I say a few words 
 about these leases? This question has been referred, and it 
 is whether or not it is advisable, expedient, and in the pub¬ 
 lic interest to provide in advance of the expiration thereof 
 for extensions of the existing contracts for the use of the 
 Tremont Street subway, the Washington Street tunnel, and 
 the East Boston tunnel, and, if so, on what terms and con¬ 
 ditions, and for what period of time. 
 
 The lease of the Tremont Street subway was originally 
 for twenty years, and expires on September 1, 1917, or in 
 less than seven years from the present time. 
 
 The lease of the East Boston tunnel was originally for 
 twenty-five years, and expires June 10, 1922, or at the same 
 time as the West End lease. 
 
18 
 
 The lease of the Washington Street tunnel was originally 
 for twenty-five years, and expires November 30, 1933. 
 
 Two courses are open: (1) To wait until the expiration 
 of these leases, and then to take up the question separately 
 upon the expiration of each lease whether it shall be re¬ 
 newed, and, if so, for what period and upon what terms. 
 The other alternative is to determine at the present time 
 upon a renewal of these leases and fixing the peiiod of time 
 for which they shall be renewed. 
 
 Until these leases are actually extended it must remain 
 uncertain as to whether they will be in fact extended, and 
 also as to the terms upon which they will be extended. If 
 they have a long period to run, the matter is of compar¬ 
 atively no immediate importance; but in view of the fact 
 that the Tremont Street subway lease has but about seven 
 years to run, the East Boston tunnel lease eleven years, the 
 Washington Street tunnel lease twenty-two years, and in 
 view of the fact that these subways and tunnels are essen¬ 
 tial parts of the transportation systems, and in view of the 
 fact that the company is expected to lay out its plans and 
 provide for an increase of transportation facilities for from 
 eight to ten years ahead, it is imperative that no uncer¬ 
 tainty should exist as to the extension of these leases. 
 
 When the question comes before the company of incurring 
 large capital expenditures or assuming large additional 
 obligations for the purpose of furnishing additional facili¬ 
 ties, it must consider not only the question of the annual 
 cost of the capital required and the annual charge because 
 of any obligations assumed, but also the probability of any 
 increase or diminution in the cost of operating the prop¬ 
 erties as they now exist. It cannot fail to take into 
 consideration the question as to whether or not the annual 
 expense of essential parts of its system is likely to be in¬ 
 creased or diminished, nor can it forget the possibility 
 that these leases may not be renewed, in which case a sub- 
 
14 
 
 stantial rearrangement of its system might be necessary, 
 involving large additional expense and possible loss of rev¬ 
 enue. If the Directors are prudent managers of the prop¬ 
 erty, this uncertainty necessarily makes them less willing to 
 enter into undertakings involving additional capital expendi¬ 
 tures and additional obligations, especially where many years 
 must elapse before their completion and before the new un¬ 
 dertakings can show a fair return on the expenditure re¬ 
 quired. 
 
 The Board may say that in all probability these leases 
 will be renewed, and, while I agree that that is so, never¬ 
 theless, it is conceivable that they may not be. This is 
 shown by the fact that the representative of the city of 
 Boston in connection with the Elevated Holding Bill has 
 insisted that before it should take effect the existing leases 
 of the subways and tunnels should be renewed because, 
 as he claims, the passage of the Holding Bill might deprive 
 the city of another customer for these leases which it would 
 otherwise have, and, whatever the probability may be, both 
 the terms and the fact of such extension are uncertain. 
 
 The only reason that I have ever heard suggested why 
 these leases should not be extended at the present time and 
 renewed for a long period is that the rates of interest may 
 change, and that the rate of rental which might be fixed 
 now might not be fair at the end of forty years. I do not 
 think this argument is sound. If it had any force, it would 
 prevent anybody from making any arrangements for any 
 number of years. 
 
 The city issued its bonds to pay for these subways pay¬ 
 able at periods of, say, forty years from their date at a 
 fixed rate of interest. If there is anything in the argument 
 mentioned, it would have been better for the city to have 
 borrowed the money for short periods of time on the theory 
 that the rate of interest might be lower. No one will 
 doubt that the policy of the city in issuing its long-time 
 
15 
 
 bonds was a wise one, and it is a matter of common expe¬ 
 rience, in enterprises and undertakings requiring large ex¬ 
 penditures of money and the projection of undertakings 
 requiring years for their fulfilment, that arrangements must 
 be made for long periods of years so that the parties may 
 have a certainty as to financial requirements, and it is also 
 a matter of common experience that even then there may 
 be during the period changes in the rates of interest with 
 the certainty that the benefit arising from the certainty of 
 long-time arrangements more than offsets any possible gain 
 from any slight change in interest rates. 
 
 Neither is there anything in the suggestion that by mak¬ 
 ing contracts for the subways and tunnels for a long period 
 of years the State is in any respect depriving itself of the 
 control which it should exercise over the transportation 
 system. By the very terms of these leases the company 
 in the operation of the subways and tunnels is subject to 
 the jurisdiction and control of the State through its Board 
 of Railroad Commissioners to the same extent that it is 
 in the use and operation of its surface and other lines, and 
 no one doubts that that control is sufficient at all times to 
 insure a proper performance by the company of its duties 
 to the public. 
 
 Consolidation of Elevated and West End. 
 
 There is another awkward condition which confronts us, 
 and that also has been referred to you. The Legislature 
 has asked you to report as to whether or not it is advis¬ 
 able, expedient, and in the public interest to provide for 
 further modifications of Chapter 551 of the Acts of the 
 year 1908, The West End Consolidated Act, or to pro¬ 
 vide by any other method, and, if so, by what method 
 for continuing the advantage of a single control of the 
 systems of the Boston Elevated and the West End. 
 
16 
 
 On June 10, 1922, unless some other arrangement is made, 
 the Boston Elevated Railway Company is required by the 
 terms of its lease to surrender to the West End Street Rail¬ 
 way Company substantially the entire surface systems of 
 railways adequately equipped and fitted for operation as a 
 complete and independent system. 
 
 The two systems to-day are a unit, so far as equipment 
 and operation are concerned. The surface lines and the 
 elevated lines provide a single system of transportation, 
 each one supplementing the other, a system both convenient 
 and economical to the public. Of the passengers who pay 
 a cash fare it is estimated that not less than 35 per cent, 
 at the present time use both the surface and Elevated 
 systems to complete their journey, and with the completion 
 of the Cambridge subway and the East Cambridge Ele¬ 
 vated this percentage will be very substantially increased. 
 Neither system can, by itself, convey a substantial part 
 of the passengers from their point of departure to their des¬ 
 tination. Furthermore, up to the present time, in pro¬ 
 viding power for the operation of the cars the systems have 
 been treated as a unit, and the power is supplied either from 
 the station belonging to the Elevated, or from the stations 
 of the West End, indiscriminately, to surface and Elevated 
 lines alike. 
 
 I do not believe that it requires any argument to convince 
 the Joint Boards of the advantages from a public standpoint, 
 of a continued single control of the Elevated and West End 
 systems. These advantages are, in brief, well expressed 
 in the report of 1905 of the Royal Commission on the Means 
 of Locomotion and Transport in London. They use the 
 following language:— 
 
 “All large systems of mechanical traction can be 
 worked most economically and with the greatest ad¬ 
 vantage to the public when they are under one and 
 the same management. It is only by extensions and 
 
17 
 
 amalgamations that the great advantages arising from 
 unity of interest and unity of management can be fully 
 realized.” 
 
 Speaking of the Underground Electric Railways Company 
 of London, they say:— 
 
 “Though the various undertakings controlled by the 
 company have not been technically amalgamated, they 
 have been brought under single control with signal 
 advantage to the public, and it cannot be doubted that 
 an extension of the principle of amalgamation to the 
 whole of the Electric railways and tramways of London 
 would be attended with still greater public benefit. 
 It might perhaps eventually be carried a step further 
 so as to include the Metropolitan omnibus services, 
 so that all the public means of locomotion in London, 
 with the exception of the Trunk Railways, railroads, 
 and cabs, might be brought into one comprehensive 
 system under single management.” 
 
 The original lease of the West End Street Railway Com¬ 
 pany to the Boston Elevated was for ninety-nine years. 
 It was subsequently reduced to twenty-five years. I do 
 not believe the parties in interest would have consented to 
 a lease for that short period of time but for the expectation 
 that long before the expiration of the lease the two systems 
 would be amalgamated upon some permanent basis. 
 
 Everybody, so far as I know, agrees that the advantages 
 of a single control of the West End and Elevated systems 
 should be continued through some form of consolidation, 
 and the only question about which there has been any differ¬ 
 ence of opinion has been with respect to the terms of such 
 a consolidation. 
 
 In 1908 the Legislature authorized a consolidation of the 
 two systems upon the basis that the preferred stockholders 
 of the West End Company in place of their preferred stock 
 should be given a first preferred 8 per cent, stock of the 
 Elevated Railway Company, and that the common stock- 
 
18 
 
 holders of the West End should receive a second preferred 
 stock of the Elevated Company bearing 7 per cent, divi¬ 
 dends. This legislation was advocated by the Boston 
 Elevated Railway Company without any previous expres¬ 
 sion of opinion by the West End directors or stockholders 
 as to whether or not the terms would be satisfactory to 
 them. It was not practicable at that time to obtain any 
 such expression of opinion. 
 
 After the passage of the Act it was found that the West 
 End stockholders did not regard the terms as satisfactory, 
 and would not consent to a transfer of their property to 
 the Elevated upon the terms mentioned in that Act. The 
 West End stockholders claimed in substance that under 
 the existing lease they had as security not only the entire 
 property of the West End Company, subject only to the 
 indebtedness of that company, but also, in common with 
 its creditors, the property of the Boston Elevated; that 
 under the form of consolidation proposed their rights would 
 be postponed to all the indebtedness of both the West 
 End Railway Company and of the Boston Elevated Rail¬ 
 way Company, and that they would be taking the risk of 
 the obligations which the Elevated Company had assumed 
 in the past and would assume in the future in connection 
 with the additional rapid transit facilities; that the fact 
 that they would be given, as they claimed, an inferior 
 security from what they already had should be recog¬ 
 nized, and that they should be allowed to divide certain 
 so-called “free assets” of the West End Street Railway 
 Company, and that the rate of dividend upon the second 
 preferred stock to be issued in place of the present common 
 stock of the West End should be fixed at 8 per cent. In 
 order to enforce their views, an organization was effected 
 and a Protective Committee was appointed. 
 
 Such has been the situation down to the present time. 
 After extended negotiations, I am informed through the 
 
19 
 
 counsel of the West End and through counsel for the Pro¬ 
 tective Committee that in their judgment the stockholders 
 of the West End are prepared to waive their claim to the 
 so-called “free assets” of the West End Company and to 
 consent to a consolidation on the basis of 8 per cent, divi¬ 
 dends on the second preferred stock, and the question, there¬ 
 fore, now before the Joint Boards has reduced itself to 
 this: as to whether or not it is expedient and in the public 
 
 * interest to authorize a modification of the Act of 1908 so 
 as to provide for the payment of an 8 per cent, dividend on 
 
 v the second preferred stock of the Elevated Road or to 
 
 • indefinitely postpone any consolidation. 
 
 It is of the utmost importance to the community that 
 this consolidation should be effected at once, and not post¬ 
 poned indefinitely or until the expiration of the lease. 
 
 The lease comes to an end in eleven years. In an under¬ 
 taking of this character for rapid transit in this community 
 eleven years is but a short period. Plans and provisions 
 must be made for many years ahead, and this cannot be 
 done in the face of uncertainty as to the future, especially 
 in view of the uncertainty as to whether or not the surface 
 system is to be separated from the Elevated system at 
 the expiration of this short period of eleven years. 
 
 The Washington Street tunnel was projected in 1902, 
 and was not completed and ready for operation until the 
 expiration of six years. 
 
 The Cambridge subway was projected in 1904, and finally 
 authorized in its present form in 1906, and will not be ready 
 « for operation for another year or more, or from seven to 
 
 eight years from the time it was planned. These facts show 
 how impracticable it is for the Elevated to enter into under- 
 * takings for promoting rapid transit when the entire system 
 
 may be disrupted in a little over eleven years. 
 
 The State recognizes the principle that one of the most 
 important matters in connection with public service cor- 
 
20 
 
 porations is to limit the amount of capital invested to the 
 necessary requirements of the service. To secure this it is 
 the duty of the Railroad Commissioners to supervise, in the 
 case of transportation companies, the issue of capital so 
 that no unnecessary amount may be issued. It is also 
 recognized as fundamental that the public service corpora¬ 
 tion shall operate its property in the most economical 
 manner with due regard to the requirements of the public, 
 and that all waste shall be avoided. 
 
 The cost of providing power for the operation of the Ele¬ 
 vated and surface lines, both because of the capital in¬ 
 vested and the cost of generating and distributing the power, 
 is a large item in the expenditures of the company. Under 
 the terms of the lease of the West End Company the Ele¬ 
 vated must return that company’s property equipped and 
 provided with its own power, so that it can be independently 
 operated as a separate system. That means that the power 
 supply at the expiration of the lease for each company must 
 be separate and distinct. 
 
 It needs no argument to show that to provide the surface 
 and Elevated systems which interlace each other with sepa¬ 
 rate and distinct power would involve not only a wasteful 
 expenditure of capital, but also a wasteful operating expense. 
 
 Messrs. Stone & Webster estimated in 1908 that with the 
 power requirements of the two systems increased to the 
 extent which would be necessary in ten years, or in 1918, 
 there would be an actual waste of $600,000 a year if the 
 surface and Elevated lines were separately equipped with 
 power plants and operated independently of each other, 
 and that the amount would be still greater at the expiration 
 of the lease in 1922. 
 
 It may be suggested that the two systems could be oper¬ 
 ated as one until the expiration of the lease, and that there 
 need be no waste until that time, and that the question of 
 consolidation can be indefinitely postponed. On the con- 
 
21 
 
 trary, unless a consolidation is effected at once, there is 
 bound to be in the near future a waste in operation and a 
 waste of capital expended on this account. 
 
 In the first place it is obvious that the construction of 
 power plants and the provision of necessary conductors and 
 wires to transmit the power to different parts of the system 
 is a matter of years to provide, and the Elevated cannot 
 wait until the expiration of the lease to provide power which 
 will be required for the separate operation of the two sys¬ 
 tems. Further, in providing for additional power at the 
 present time the company must know whether the two 
 systems are to remain a unit or whether they may be 
 separated at the end of eleven years. This is illustrated by 
 a question of large importance which is now concerning the 
 management of the Elevated Road. It has become neces¬ 
 sary to provide at once an additional power plant of large 
 capacity. For this purpose the company has purchased 
 property in South Boston at tide water at a cost of some¬ 
 thing over $300,000, it being believed that by locating a 
 station at tide water power can be more economically pro¬ 
 duced than if it is manufactured elsewhere. In order to 
 produce the most economical results it is found that this 
 station should be what is called an alternating station, and 
 that the current produced should be distributed through 
 sub-stations over substantially the entire systems and used 
 for surface and elevated lines indiscriminately. The con¬ 
 struction of this power station with its sub-stations and 
 connections will require an expenditure of nearly three and 
 a half millions of dollars. 
 
 Now, the difficulty is this: if the West End system is 
 hereafter separated from the Elevated system, a very con¬ 
 siderable part of this expenditure will be w*asted, because 
 the West End under the lease must be furnished with its 
 own independent system of power supply. The alternative 
 of this development is to provide separate power plants for 
 
the surface lines and for the elevated lines at a very con¬ 
 siderable increase in capital expenditure and in operating- 
 expense. 
 
 Further, there are now before your Boards propositions 
 for several subways to be built and leased by the Boston 
 Elevated. It would at best take several years to complete 
 these subways ready for operation. They will be either for 
 surface cars or elevated trains. At the expiration of the 
 West End lease it is provided that those which constitute 
 an essential part of the surface system shall become the 
 property of the West End, and those that are part of the 
 Elevated S3^stem shall belong to the Elevated. 
 
 It is not clear, however, how far the West End Company 
 could be compelled to take over any of the subway leases 
 against its will, especially as it may claim that they were 
 not an essential part of its system as long as the company 
 was left with a complete system of surface tracks as required 
 by the lease. The Elevated would then be left with sub¬ 
 ways for surface cars without any surface cars to run in 
 them, or with subways for elevated trains without any sur¬ 
 face car connection. 
 
 In any event, these new subways are likely to be a serious 
 loss for the first few years after they are constructed. The 
 Elevated could hardly be expected to assume them during 
 the short period prior to the expiration of the West End 
 lease,—only to turn them over to the West End Company 
 at the time when they might possibly begin to show a profit. 
 
 Demands for improved facilities in the transportation 
 system in Boston have increased far beyond the increase in 
 revenue, and the Elevated Company is in no position to 
 assume new burdens with the uncertainty existing as to the 
 future of the surface lines and in view of the unnecessary 
 expenditures to which it will be put in the near future if 
 such a consolidation is not provided. 
 
 It occurs to me to say that in 1888 the percentage of 
 
revenue to capital investment was 42. It is now, I think, 
 17J4 and of course it is growing less. 
 
 The change of the rate of dividend on the second pre¬ 
 ferred stock from 7 to 8 per cent, means an additional charge 
 of $125,000 a year. The unnecessary expenditures of capi¬ 
 tal and the unnecessary expense of operation, if no consoli¬ 
 dation is effected, ought in the near future to more than 
 offset this annual payment, and the additional capital from 
 time to time required by the company should be obtained 
 on more favorable terms if this question of consolidation 
 is settled. 
 
 The Elevated has no desire to pay more for the West End 
 than it has to. It is a plain business proposition. The 
 Elevated believes that it is much better to take over the 
 West End property on an 8 per cent, basis for the second 
 preferred stock than to further delay consolidation. If 
 it is a good proposition for the Elevated, it is equally so for 
 the public. The question is not what the purchasers, or 
 the public who stand in very much the same shoes as the 
 purchasers, think the West End ought to do. The question 
 is what is best to be done. 
 
 The West End stockholders are sincere in their belief 
 that they are fairly entitled to 8 per cent. There is no 
 evidence or suggestion that they are using their position 
 to obtain anything which they believe to be unreasonable, 
 nor can it be said that what they claim is unreasonable 
 from their point of view. 
 
 In itself the dividend rate of 8 per cent, is not unreason¬ 
 able. It is the rate which was earned and paid by the 
 West End Company prior to its lease to the Elevated Com¬ 
 pany, and is recognized by the General Laws of 1906 as 
 reasonable in so far as they provide for a division with the 
 State of any excess earnings in excess of 8 per cent, divi¬ 
 dends. 
 
 The actual amount paid in by the common stockholders 
 
24 
 
 of the West End Street Railway Company, the par value 
 of the stock being $50 per share, is $61.24 per share, and a 
 dividend at the rate of 8 per cent, upon par means approx¬ 
 imately only 6J4 per cent, on the cash actually paid in. 
 Nearly one-half of this stock has been paid in since 1891, 
 or during the last twenty years, at an average price of 
 $76.23 per share, and 8 per cent, dividends on par mean 
 only a trifle over 5 per cent, on the actual cash paid in for 
 the stock during the last twenty years. 
 
 As to the stock which was paid in before 1891 at par, 
 this money was invested at the time the West End was 
 being electrically equipped, when the success of the enter¬ 
 prise was problematical. Certainly 8 per cent, is not an 
 unreasonable return upon the investment in an undertak¬ 
 ing which was so hazardous as was that of the West End 
 at that time. 
 
 Further, in the case of this company no interest or divi¬ 
 dends are being paid upon any franchise value or upon any¬ 
 thing but actual cash invested in the property, which fact 
 has an important bearing upon the reasonableness of any 
 rate which is proposed. 
 
 The whole question is whether it is better for the public 
 that a consolidation should now be authorized on the basis 
 of 8 per cent, for the common stock of the West End Com¬ 
 pany, or whether the whole matter should be indefinitely 
 postponed. There is no other alternative, and we believe 
 that there can be but one answer to the question. 
 
 The West End Loop . 
 
 Gentlemen, there has been referred to you the question of 
 acquiring the property and rights of other companies by the 
 Elevated. I understand that your views on that subject 
 were reported to the Legislature, and that they were re¬ 
 ferred back because of the question of the extension of the 
 
25 
 
 leases. Now, assuming that the attitude of the Joint Boards 
 is not changed, I have nothing to say on that subject. 
 
 There is a question as to a subway provision, under the 
 Act of last year, which I think was approved in April,—I 
 have forgotten the number of the chapter,—it is commonly 
 called “The West End Loop,” which, as I understand it, 
 contemplates the provision of a subway under the exist- 
 
 * ing Tremont Street subway from Park Street to Scollay 
 Square, under Scollay Square to Court Street, under Bow- 
 doin Square and some portion of Cambridge Street to a 
 
 * connection with the Cambridge thoroughfare at or near 
 the entrance of that thoroughfare to Beacon Hill. I 
 regret to say,—because my good friends whom I see here 
 are interested, and it is a natural desire that in the expendi¬ 
 ture of these millions about which we have been talking 
 they should get some share,—I regret to say that the scheme 
 does not commend itself to our judgment. 
 
 In the first place, when the Legislature provided for a 
 rapid transit thoroughfare from Cambridge, the provision 
 was made for a choice of routes. That choice was given to 
 the Transit Commission. Hearings were had, the matter was 
 carefully considered, and the decision was for Park Street 
 as the terminus. We do not think it would be fair to re¬ 
 quire us to build what is not only another thoroughfare 
 
 of the same extent, but even much more. I am told by 
 
 our engineer, who has not made a careful estimate (and I 
 have never seen a careful estimate made of anything of 
 this magnitude yet which was absolutely accurate in the 
 event), but he tells me that the expenditure would be four 
 millions of dollars. However, if that is not a just esti¬ 
 mate, there are grave operating difficulties and a great 
 interference with the general design. For instance, if the 
 Cambridge subway is to be extended to the South Station, 
 
 » that undertaking would be inconsistent with the provision 
 
 „ of this subway around and under the existing Tremont 
 
26 
 
 Street subway, or, at the very best, it would be extremely 
 unsuitable. 
 
 When we get to Scollay Square, Scollay Square is needed 
 for something else. I have listened to, or rather I have 
 read with much interest, the remarks that have been made 
 about the congestion at Park Street. Well, if there is 
 congestion at Park Street, there is no spot in the business 
 heart of Boston, with the exception possibly of Dewey 
 Square,—and not that even, when the entire area is taken 
 under consideration,—where there is such an expanse of 
 territory for the distribution of human beings as Boston 
 Common, or that corner of it at Park Street, because we 
 have Tremont Street, which is a broad business street, 
 out of which lead cross-thoroughfares, like West Street, 
 Temple Place, Winter Street, Bromfield Street, and Park 
 Street, up the hill, and the Common itself. If there is 
 congestion there, it should be relieved by the enlargement 
 of the station facilities, and that is about to be done. But 
 Scollay Square will also be needed. What for? The East 
 Boston tunnel has been built, and there have been various 
 methods suggested as to its use. And here is a case where 
 experience is a much better teacher than foresight. The 
 company thought at one time, against the wisdom of the 
 Transit Commission, that the East Boston tunnel should 
 be brought into the Tremont Street subway. Well, obvi¬ 
 ously, if that were done, the Tremont Street subway north 
 of the junction would be reduced in capacity, because, if 
 the East Boston tunnel cars were coming in there, too, 
 there would have to be a corresponding reduction of cars 
 in the Tremont Street subway. What should be done? 
 Why, obviously, the East Boston tunnel,—and I think, we 
 understand at least we agree, without forestalling any 
 official action,—should have a loop under Scollay Square. 
 I cannot conceive of any more important or essential pur¬ 
 pose in the general design to put Scollay Square to than 
 
27 
 
 that. It will at least increase the capacity of the tunnel 
 from 60 cars to 180 an hour, with some diminution, of course, 
 in the rate of speed. But there is another use to which 
 Scollay Square is sought to be put, and I am astonished— 
 not here, but in the community in some quarters—at the 
 lack of appreciation of the function of the East Cambridge 
 elevated extension, of which very little has been said in 
 public. This East Cambridge elevated extension will 
 furnish a direct approach to the city from a large section 
 of Somerville. The cars which enter upon it will come 
 from the very backbone—Highland Avenue—of Somer¬ 
 ville. It will also serve a large portion of the city of Cam¬ 
 bridge, the largest of the municipalities in the suburbs. 
 It will be much more direct, much quicker, much shorter, 
 for those people to come in than to go around, as they do 
 now, and crowd Sullivan Square. And those people—and 
 the number is augmented by the people who come from 
 beyond—are the people who ought to have Scollay Square 
 for their use. 
 
 Moreover, there are operating conditions which are not 
 pleasant to contemplate, under this proposed new scheme. 
 I do not comprehend, perhaps, clearly, how this is to be 
 operated, but the plans I have seen show a double track 
 thoroughfare all the way around. I assume that it is 
 intended that some of the trams shall come in from Cam¬ 
 bridge and go through to Park Street on our track, and 
 circle around through Scollay Square, Bowdoin Square, and 
 Cambridge Street, and return; and that other trains will, 
 in some way, go the other way. Now, either there is 
 going to be a very unsuitable series of passages created 
 under the Hill to avoid grade crossings or very uncom¬ 
 fortable grade crossings will have to be created. 
 
 I do not comprehend how we are to get the revenue 
 to which we are entitled. A person gets in at Park Street, 
 and he wants to go to Cambridge via Scollay Square. 
 
28 
 
 Others are on the train from Cambridge, and they ought 
 not to go back. What is to prevent them? We ought 
 not to be subjected to that condition, where we cannot 
 separate the “just from the unjust’’ Altogether, the 
 provision is not one which we can approve. 
 
 I was interested to find, too, from observations which 
 our company made that, while we are providing to-day a 
 large number of cars, the largest number of cars that were 
 ever provided to Bowdoin Square, the use of those cars in 
 Boston is not as large as I had supposed. That community 
 is an interesting one, to all Cambridge people, of which 
 I am one. I remember, and gentlemen on this Commission 
 remember, the time when we were not thought of conse¬ 
 quence enough to be taken any further than Bowdoin 
 Square. Bowdoin Square has more cars now than it had 
 then. But of the 28,792 people who, on the 24th of last 
 month, used the lines passing over Cambridge bridge into 
 Boston and through Hanover Street, only 1,628 left the cars 
 at Bowdoin Square, and only 10,534 left the cars at Hanover 
 Street. In other words, of the total amount of people 
 carried on those cars, nearly 29,000, only about 12,000 of 
 them got as far as Bowdoin Square. The rest used the lines 
 in Cambridge or elsewhere. 
 
 On the next day the figures— 
 
 Commissioner Crocker. General Bancroft, did you 
 state that correctly? 
 
 Gen. Bancroft. Yes, sir. 
 
 Commissioner Crocker. These people were coming in 
 or going out? 
 
 Gen. Bancroft. Coming in over the Cambridge bridge, 
 all lines coming to Hanover Street. 
 
 Commissioner Crocker. Now, what is the statement, 
 28,000 in all? 
 
 Gen. Bancroft. The total number registered was 28,792. 
 One thousand six hundred and twenty-eight left the cars 
 
29 
 
 at Bowdoin Square. Ten thousand, five hundred and thirty - 
 four left the cars at Hanover Street. In other words, out 
 of 28,792, a little over 12,000 in all came into town as far 
 as Bowdoin Square. 
 
 Now, the next day the figures were a little different. 
 One thousand, four hundred and ninety-one left at Bowdoin 
 Square; ten thousand, four hundred and sixty at Scollay 
 f Square, and the total number registered was 24,600 persons. 
 
 * Now, gentlemen, I thank you for your patient indulgence. 
 
 f 1 I can only say that we are willing to do what I have outlined, 
 
 * and that we ask the co-operation of the community to en¬ 
 
 able us to do it. 
 
 Questions. 
 
 The Chairman. Is there anything further on behalf of 
 the Elevated? 
 
 Gen. Bancroft. I think, sir, that is all we have to 
 submit. 
 
 The Chairman. Is there anybody else who desires to 
 say anything? 
 
 Mr. Whiteside. I want to ask General Bancroft a ques¬ 
 tion. 
 
 The Chairman. Very well. 
 
 Mr. Whiteside. I just wanted to ask during what 
 hours of the day did these figures relating to the passengers 
 coming in over the Harvard bridge and getting off at 
 Hanover Street refer? 
 
 Gen. Bancroft. The Cambridge bridge. 
 
 T Mr. Whiteside. The Cambridge bridge? Yes, the 
 
 Cambridge bridge. I beg your pardon. During what 
 hours were those figures taken? 
 
 Gen. Bancroft. Mr. Chairman, the statement handed 
 me by Mr. Sergeant recites two days’ count of the pas- 
 
 # sengers coming in over the Cambridge bridge, across and 
 
 ^ over Hanover Street. I assume they are all figures for the 
 
 % 
 
30 
 
 day, but whether they continue during the night I don’t 
 know, but that would be negligible. I understand it was 
 twenty-four hours. 
 
 Mr. Whiteside. That they were the actual number 
 during the twenty-four hours? 
 
 Gen. Bancroft. Yes. I think there can be no doubt 
 about it. 
 
 Mr. Whiteside. Well, if there is any doubt about that, 
 if you find out later it is not correct, will you let me know? 
 
 Gen. Bancroft. Certainly. 
 
 The Chairman. Then we will understand it is a car day, 
 unless you notify Mr. Whiteside to the contrary? 
 
 Gen. Bancroft. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Whiteside. And I suppose the figures were taken 
 by inspectors on the cars. 
 
 Gen. Bancroft. The registration was taken from the 
 register. 
 
 Mr. Whiteside. The total number registered was taken 
 from the register on the cars? 
 
 Gen. Bancroft. Yes. I cannot tell you whether it was 
 a conductor’s return or an inspector’s return at this moment, 
 but I should be glad to supply you with that information. 
 
 Mr. Whiteside. 1 should be veiy glad to have that. 
 Perhaps the easier way would be for me to send to your 
 office for it. 
 
 Gen. Bancroft. Or I will send it to you, as you please. 
 I wfill arrange that you get it this afternoon, and I will 
 send the information also to the Board. 
 
 The Chairman. Now, Mr. Tinkham. 
 
 Mr. Tinkham. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to ask a ques¬ 
 tion of General Bancroft. I think General Bancroft is 
 under some misapprehension, from his statement, as to 
 just what controlled the Legislature in referring this matter 
 back to your Board. He stated that he assumed that the 
 Legislature approved of the holding device. There were 
 
31 
 
 two reasons why the Legislature—and I think I speak with 
 authority—referred this matter back to this Joint Board. 
 One was that because the extension of the leases had not 
 been considered, and no recommendation had been made 
 by your Board. The other reason was because in the 
 reference last year to your Board of the question you were 
 limited in your advice to the Legislature to the question of 
 a holding device for the Elevated to acquire the stock and 
 control of contiguous railways. In your report at that 
 time you stated back to the Legislature,—upon which the 
 last year’s bill was framed,—you stated that you, being 
 confined to that narrow question, made the following recom¬ 
 mendations. The resolve which you now have before you 
 is broad and liberal in its terms, as the subject deserves, 
 and it allows you,—I believe the Legislature intended you 
 should take up the question of whether the acquisition of 
 contiguous railroads should be obtained by the Elevated 
 by the holding device as originally proposed, or by an ex¬ 
 tension and an increase of the powers of the company’s 
 present charter. I believe that that is, next, perhaps, to 
 the extension of the subways, perhaps as fully vital as that; 
 one of the two questions of importance, and one in this 
 matter that was to be considered by your Board, and I 
 would like to ask Mr. Bancroft why he believes that the 
 holding device with regard to the acquiring of stock in these 
 contiguous railways is superior both to the public and to 
 his corporation, to the extension of his charter so that real 
 consolidations could be effected, provided of course that 
 in the new charter, if one was given them, the 5-cent fare 
 limits were protected as they are to-day? I have under¬ 
 stood, although it is merely unofficial, that the Elevated 
 has been afraid of the touching of their charter, because of 
 the 5-cent fare limits and rights they had in it; that there 
 was no other reason why they would not be willing to ac- 
 
32 
 
 3 0112 0619 
 
 cept fair amendments and extensions providing that was 
 not changed; and I want to ask him now, providing the 
 5-cent fare limits were not changed,—that is, the rights 
 under the charter in relation to 5-cent fare limits were not 
 changed,—why wouldn’t it be better to amend the charter 
 so that real consolidations would take effect between his 
 railroad and the roads he desires to acquire, rather than, to 
 acquire those railroads by the stockholding device? 
 
 Gen. Bancroft. Mr. Chairman, I made no compari¬ 
 son, as you recall, as to the superiority of one measure to 
 another; and this is rather a long question and opens a 
 good deal. I do not undertake to answer questions of that 
 sort without careful consideration and conference with my 
 associates. One thing, however, occurs to me now: that 
 the East Boston tunnel rental is % of 1 per cent, of our 
 gross revenue, which would pay for the East Boston tunnel 
 loan pretty quick, if we made very extensive consolidations. 
 This, of course, we never undertook to do, and of course 
 could not do. That is one reason, surely, without going 
 any further into the question. The point is, the bonds are 
 pledged, I believe, to all the revenue that is received. I 
 am sorry I can’t help you. 
 
 Mr. Tinkham. Do you see any other objection than 
 that, Mr. Bancroft, that is, except the East Boston tunnel 
 situation? 
 
 Gen. Bancroft. Why, Mr. Chairman, our people have 
 considered this question at length and carefully, and our 
 conclusions have been stated in our public statements. I do 
 not think I can help the gentleman any further at this time. 
 
 Mr. Tinkham. Thank you. 
 
 The Chairman. Gentlemen, if nothing further is to 
 come before the Board at this sitting, we will take an ad¬ 
 journment to the 8th day of November, at ten o’clock, 
 discharging the assignment of November 3. 
 
 (Adjourned.)