u ELEVATED RAILROAD. A RGUMENT OF HON. JAMES A. M'’GEOUOH. BEFORE COMMITTEE ON STREET RAILWAYS, January 23 , 1884 . BOSTON: WRIGHT & POTTER PRINTING CO., STATE PRINTERS. IS Post Office Square. 1884 . UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS LIBRARY Class Book Volume Ja G9-2®M ELEVATED RAILROAD. ARGUMENT ' 1 r, f / f \ or VI I ■ ; . :| : : I ; l 1 1 > I -I / HON. JAMES A. MCOEOUGH, BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON STREET RAILWAYS, January 23 , 1884 . BOSTON : WRIGHT & POTTER PRINTING CO., STATE PRINTERS/ 18 Post Office Square. 1884 . 4 A U GUMEN T. Mr. Chairman , and Gentlemen of the Committee: v? r- 0 O- - f\i- * 6 After the able and eloquent speeches of the gentlemen who have preceded me, with others to follow, it will not be necessary for me to enter into any detailed consideration of the evidence, and I shall endeavor to confine my remarks, so as to trespass but briefly on your patience. For six or seven years past our legislature has had before it this somewhat difficult and important question of Elevated Street Railways. The facts presented in evidence this year are, I presume, much like those of former years, and the parties in interest substantially the same. Capt. Joe Y. Meigs, with his associates, who are nameless here, ask for the extraordinary powers, privileges and immunities of a special charter, to construct and operate an elevated railway in the streets of the city of Boston. I know that “ cities and towns of the Commonwealth” is the language of the petition ; but Boston is the objective point. Such an expen¬ sive enterprise as this can be expected to live only in the centre of population, and the centre of population this side of New York City is here, in the metropolis of New England. They hope to get their location right here in the streets of Boston, and this they modestly ask without offering or in¬ tending to pay a dollar for the privilege. That such a structure erected in our narrow and crowded streets must necessarily be a serious damage to private property and the rights of individuals is useless to deny. The citizens of Boston, therefore, are directly concerned, and in behalf of -ft. 24379 4 some of your remonstrants I am here. A gratuitous loca¬ tion for their tracks right through our public streets, close by the doors and windows of our offices, stores and business houses, and invading the privacy of our very homes is what they ask; and this, too, for the purpose of testing and put¬ ting in operation a single-post, single-rail contrivance never' tried anywhere in the world before. This is their petition. Now, I am aware of no reason why this question of an Elevated Street Railway should not be tried and determined just as any other question coming before our legislature; and as a just and proper criterion by which it ought to be tried I submit to you this general proposition : The incor¬ poration of a merely speculative, experimental enterprise, affecting the rights of thousands of our citizens, is not wise legislation, unless there he some great public necessity to justify it. I think nobody will take exception to this proposition. It is very well to permit the easy incorporation of indi¬ viduals for the purpose of carrying on enterprises occupying their own premises, and which concern those only who inaugurate them — enterprises in which those, and those only, “ who invest their money, to profit by the undertaking if successful, to lose if a failure,” can possibly be the losers. But where the very initial step of a corporation, such as this, affects the public and interferes with the rights of private property, you ought to be exceedingly careful how you give it an existence. And when, in addition to this, the enterprise itself is problematical, there ought to be, I claim, some great public necessity to justify it. Right here, I beg you to remember, gentlemen, that it is not the ingenious mechanic and inventor that is before you alone. It is this embryo corporation, of which he is to be only a member, with which you really have to deal. Now, why does the State create corporations of any kind? What purpose has it in view? Is it in order that a few favored individuals may have powers and privileges not permitted to their neighbors? Not at all. Is it that men of capital may have an opportunity of safely investing their money and increasing their dividends? Not at all. Such is the object of the capitalists, and may be incidental to the corporation; but it is not the purpose of the State. Or is it for the pur- 5 \ pose of assisting some gifted and deserving citizen of the Commonwealth in the development of some great invention? Not at all. This is an argument that appeals to our sympa¬ thies and to the bounty of the State, but does not justify the powers and privileges of a corporate existence. “ Govern¬ ment is instituted, not for the profit, honor, or private inter¬ est of any one man, family, or class of men,” but for the ben¬ efit of all. There should be no favoritism. The extraor¬ dinary right of eminent domain and other powers of the sovereign authority should not be delegated to individuals, unless where it directly subserves the public welfare. In other words, the powers of the Commonwealth should be exercised only for the common good, and no corporation has a right to live only in so far as it serves the people. Especially is this so when, as in this case, the rights of thousands of our citizens are involved. I repeat, there must be an equivalent — there must be some resulting benefit to the people, to justify such legislation. Now, what is the public benefit promised by this corpora¬ tion? What the urgent necessity it proposes to meet? Look at it, gentlemen. From the models shown you here, and at the rooms of the inventor, you may easily imagine what this dark and dingy trellis-work sprawling through our city may look like. Is it a thing of beauty? Will it be an ornament to our streets? Not even the amiable and self- sacrificing mayor of Somerville, who would have it run right by his own door for the benefit of his people, went that far. Well, is the obstruction to light and air, which it must necessarily occasion, something to be desired? Is the snort¬ ing of a steam-engine, with the smoke and ashes and noisome odors, and the clatter of passing trains right by our windows from early morning till late at night, what the peo¬ ple are praying for? These, with many more that might be mentioned, are all positive injuries. The annoyance and danger to persons walking or driving beneath from the drip¬ ping of oil and iron rust, or the occasional falling of a broken wheel — we are told that the passengers would be safe ; and even if the train should take a notion to shed all its wheels, it could not be derailed. Perhaps so; but how about the people underneath ? Good business for the undertaker 6 would be apt to be the result. These, to say nothing of the widespread damage and destruction to our property and our homes, are all very positive and grievous injuries. What benefit, then, I ask, after inflicting all these injuries, does this corporation propose to give ? Oh, “rapid transit,” they cry. “Rapid transit” is the great necessity of the hour, and this they propose to supply. There is a charm about it. In these days of steam and electricity we need to travel fast. Besides, they say that at the close of each busy day, they will take the toiling people up out of the dingy, fretful, noisome city, — made more so by their unsightly structure, I submit, —and bring them out to the green fields, pure air and happy homes of the country. It is a beautiful idea. I desire to state it fairly ; I desire also that you have an exact measure of this benefit proposed, for by this must they be judged. The only trouble about it is, — the necessity does not exist. In New York, before the elevated roads, rapid transit was a necessity ; that, with nearly a million and a half of inhabi¬ tants living on a narrow strip of land, averaging not two miles wide and some sixteen or eighteen miles long, with the 700,000 people of Brooklyn, and the populations of Jersey City, Newark, Hoboken, and all the neighboring towns up the Hudson and across the bay daily flocking in at the ferries, and all left at the extreme southern point of the island,—to say nothing of the transient population from all parts of the continent and Europe, equal, it is said, in a single day to the whole population of Boston together, — amounting in all to about 4,000,000 of people, — with the one depot of the only steam surface railway within the city limits — the Grand Central — some three and a quarter miles from the City Hall, — we can easily understand the necessity for “ rapid transit” there. It was this necessity that made the elevated roads in New York without compensation to abutters (the greatest outrage ever perpetrated upon an innocent people) a possibility. But in Boston the conditions are all different. Some eight miles wide and nine or ten long, and spreading out “all over the dish,” as one of our witnesses described it; its population only 362,000, and having nine or ten surface steam railways, with their depots all within a 7 half mile of the City Hall, radiating like a star; leaving the heart of the city at every point of the compass, and, by means of their various branches and spurs, touching at every city, town and hamlet for miles outside the city in every direction, thereby affording an almost unlimited accommoda¬ tion to people who desire to live in the country. “Rapid transit” a necessity here! Why, the thousands who come into Boston daily don’t have to walk, nor are they confined to the accommodation of horse cars alone. We have rapid transit already. Therefore, the exact benefit they propose is, the difference between the rapid transit we have and the more rapid transit they offer. That is all. It is not a ques¬ tion as between rapid transit and no transit at all, as in New York. It is simply the difference between what we have and what they promise. What more is it, or can it be, than simply an additional steam railway penetrating farther into the city? Now, let me ask, will this in any way begin to compensate the people, the tax-payers and citizens of Boston, for the great public nuisance it must be in our streets, and the endless damage it must occasion to business and real estate? No, gentlemen, the very statement of the question shows the absurdity of the claim, and the palpable injustice of such legislation. But there are other reasons why this legislation should not be granted. Supposing this corporation gets its charter and a location for its tracks; it can’t live in the city of Boston. * It is too expensive for the trade. Capt. Meigs and his witnesses tell us it will only cost $82,000 per mile to build. But this doesn’t take into account the extra cost of a double row of posts necessary all through our city streets, where the sidewalks are so narrow that a train cannot safely pass on a single row. The posts must be set in ten inches from the edgestone by ordinance to avoid the hubs of passing wheels in the street, thereby compelling them to put up a double row of posts and bridge the street. Nor does this sum take into consideration the interference with the sewers, water-mains, gas-pipes, etc. ; the setting of the posts through the cellars occupied by our business houses under the sidewalks ; the driving of piles in the filled dis¬ tricts of the city to reach hard bottom, and the crossing of 8 tide waters — difficulties with which the New York road had not to contend—all of which add largely to the expense. Then reckon the cost of stations and rolling stock, the paying of employees and maintaining the road after it is built. Add to this the cost of taking property necessary for station pur¬ poses and the turning of short corners, together with the still greater outlay for damages to business and real estate all along the line, and you may have some faint conception of the enormous amount of money necessary to such an enterprise. It will be remembered that the New York roads paid no consequential damages. They stole their location. But this corporation promises to pay all damages. Now, one of our witnesses, an assessor of the City of Boston for twenty years and a competent expert, testified that the damages in one short block on Congress Street, between State and Post Office Square, would be as much as twenty- five or thirty per cent. And it was stated on authority upon the floor of the House in 1879, I remember, that In case the road should run down Washington Street, the damages there, from Corn hi 11 to Essex Street, to real estate alone, would be no less than $10,000,000. Then, how many miles of railway think you would it require to accommodate the people of Boston as New York is accommodated? There four lines, running north and south, and only eighteen miles in all, serve the purpose. Just think. A line towards Quincy, for instance, in a southerly direction, would be no accommodation for the people of Somerville, and these two lines could be no possible benefit to a man living in Brighton, nor would any of these lines be any accommoda¬ tion to citizens of Boxbury. You see, in order to accommo¬ date the whole population, and to get the patronage , they would have to cover the territory, and, to secure speed and safety, double tracks would everywhere be necessary. So that, instead of having a cheaper road, it is far more likely to be at least fully as expensive an undertaking as the New York system, which, it is said, cost $500,000 per mile to build, and—allowing for watered stock — 50,000,000 of dollars altogether. It can’t be done, gentlemen. Such a road as this cannot be built in the City of Boston, and live. Why, it has been demonstrated by the 9 commissioners, that the elevated roads in New York can¬ not afford to reduce the day fares to five cents. Last year, you remember, the legislature passed a law com¬ pelling them, and the governor vetoed the bill to save them from bankruptcy. And yet they have, as I have shown, 4,000,000 of people to feed them. Now, there are not 2,000,000 in all Massachusetts together — some 1,800,000, I believe — so that, if all the people of Massachusetts flocked into the City of Boston daily, it would be insufficient for their support. Besides, the surface steam roads, powerful and fully equipped, are not going to discontinue their pas¬ senger service, nor will the people living on those roads desert them, unless better and more conveniently accommo¬ dated elsewhere. Now, then,—here, in a city of only 362,000 people, — when you add to the plentiful lack of travel and population this competition of nine or ten surface roads, to say nothing of the horse car railways covering our city in all directions like a network, can anybody figure out how this elevated road is going to live? Impossible, gentle¬ men. As an enterprise it lacks the elements of success. It is far too expensive for the trade; no necessity exists for the trial, and they make out no case to justify this special legislation. But another objection remains. I have spoken of this Meigs railway thus far as if it were a mechanical success, while the fact is, it is as yet, but an untried experiment. You remember a gentleman of the Committee yesterday asked if the road could not be tested at a stone quarry some¬ where by building a short piece on a steep incline, and Mr. Clark, their attorney, answered, “No, as that would only test its climbing capacity, and they had many other points to prove, such as the turning of short curves through narrow streets, the passing over different kinds of ground and foundations, the varying strains on the different parts of their machinery, etc., — and that they would have to bring every piece of the machinery to the experimental works at Somer¬ ville and have it smashed before they would be satisfied of its safety.” An admitted experiment — untried and proble¬ matical. Now, I want to say emphatically, with Mr. Allen, f one of their own witnesses, and one of the proposed incor- 10 porators too, I understand, “ it first ought to be tried in some place where it would not interfere with property and the rights of the people.” They ought not to have the streets of Boston as an experimental station in which to test their patents. They have no right to experiment on the public. For Capt. Meigs, himself, the inventor, I have the greatest respect. Every one admires him for his genius, persever¬ ance and enthusiasm. He would not be the great inventor that he is were he not enthusiastic. But he reminds me of an old doctor who spent much valuable time in compounding a certain cure for Asiatic cholera. It was going to be a great blessing to the human race — only he had nobody to try it on. So with Capt. Meigs, his invention may be all right, it may prove useful somewhere else, but like the old doctor, there is no demand for his medicine here. The necessity does not exist. Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen , I fear I have taken more of your time than I at first intended. I know the difficulties that surround you in settling questions of this kind. I know how pleasant it is to do pleasant things for pleasant people, especially when they put their claims in a friendly, and very often, personal manner. One naturally likes to consent. It is not the worst side of human nature by any means; but it needs watching. I speak from experience. Last year the legislature voted a large sum of money out of the treasury to a certain individual, a great engineer, thought to be de¬ serving of some consideration on the part of the State. He had no legal claim, but there was some equity in it. I thought so myself, and we voted him the money. But the Commonwealth was fortunate in having a governor to super¬ vise our work who wielded a vigorous veto pen, and upon reflection, we corrected our mistake aud sustained the veto. But, as I have said before, Capt. Meigs is not the real party here before you. It is this proposed corporation, which (if it gets an existence) may yet rise up and defy the people and the power that made it, just as the Elevated Rail¬ way Company of New York did last year, though the gov¬ ernor’s timely veto postponed the conflict. It is this corpo¬ ration with which you have to deal, — these capitalists and V 11 incorporators. Others have rights as well as they. Before fastening upon our city this public nuisance, reflect, gentle¬ men, on the consequences. Boston is justly proud of the beauty of her buildings and the cleanliness of her streets. She is entitled to protection from the unnecessary encroach¬ ment of this unsightly structure. The people have a right to light and air, and to the free, unobstructed use of the highways. The hard earnings of those now dead, confidingly placed in the hands of trustees for the benefit of surviving widows and children — represented by many a noble building throughout our city — should be sacred from the dangers of mere speculation and adventure ; and the owners of little homesteads as well as the proprietors of large estates all equally appeal to you now in time against this threatened invasion of their property and their rights. If, after years of petitioning, the moneyed friends of Capt. Meigs have not confidence enough in his invention to build a half mile of full size track and equipment somewhere, why compel Bos¬ ton to pay tribute? Why place our citizens and taxpayers at the mercy of a merely experimental enterprise placed under the control of a clique of capitalists with all the dangerous powers and authority of a heartless corporation? and this too, without any public necessity ! It is not fair; it is not wise; it cannot be just legislation. Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Committee .* If I have succeeded in presenting to you the objections to this bill and proposed legislation according to the facts and my own con¬ victions, as in the time allowed me I have endeavored to do, then my duty to those whom I here represent and to you, is ended. I recognize that there your more serious duty only begins. It is for you, gentlemen, under the obligations of conscience and official oaths to finally determine this ques¬ tion by your votes; and I feel that the important interests of so many thousands of our people, both rich and poor, will not suffer at your hands.