Second, is that of Daniel Dodge, formerly alderman of the city of New York. He says:

"I concur fully in all the answers to these interrogatories given by Edwin Smith, civil engineer and surveyor.

"I desire to add to the answer to the 9th interogatory as follows, viz: Chatham street, which is about 33 feet wide between the curb stones, is the great thoroughfare for the eastern half of the city; the travel from all the main streets on that section, viz: Bowery, East Broadway, Division street, and others, converging into it at Chatham square in its course to Broadway. The cars of the 1st, 2d, and 3d avenue roads, pass through Chatham street. The tracks were laid in 185, and the project met with the most strenuous opposition, on the ground that the street was so narrow as to render it impossible for the cars to pass, without interfering with and obstructing all other travel, thus ruining the business of the street, and depreciating the value of real estate. The result has proved the entire reverse of these anticipations, and the railways have been of great advantage to the street, increasing its business and enhancing the value of its property. It still remains the great tunnel for all the travel of the eastern side of the city, and it is freely admitted that the cars do not inconvenience the other travel so much as omnibuses. The result of the experiment in this, conclusively demonstrates that railways may be laid and cars run in streets of thirty-three (33) feet width, without embarrassing the miscellaneous travel, or injuring the property or business of such streets, but, on the contrary, proving positively beneficial to both. One principal reason is, the regulation given to the other travel, by the cars being confined to certain lines in the middle of the street. The miscellaneous travel naturally divides on either side as the cars pass, and no clashing or collision occurs, because the course of the cars is fixed and well known. The travel is facilitated by this natural regulation, and the liability to obstruction of the streets, by a 'jam' of vehicles, greatly lessened. It is upon this demonstration, fully examined, inquired into, and admitted, that the authorities of Brooklyn relied, in adopting the system of railways now in operation in that city. I was a member of the board of aldermen of the city of New York in the years 1850 and 1851, when the discussion upon these various railroad projects came up, and thus have had my attention drawn particularly to the subject of the requirements of a large city in the means of the transportation of passengers through its streets. I was also a member of several committees of the common council having this subject under consideration, and heard nearly all the arguments and testimony presented for and against these roads previous to their adoption. They were opposed before the committee, in the most strenuous manner, by some of the most influential citizens of the city, and by influential property owners in the street through which they were destined to pass. Since the construction of the roads the most bitter of these opponents have admitted their utility, and that their property has been enhanced in value by the roads, instead of being depreciated; and my whole investigation of the subject at that time, as well as my observation and

knowledge of the result, has satisfied me that the street railway and car present advantages far beyond any existing method for the transportation of passengers through the streets, and that their tendency is rather to equalize the value of property, not by depreciating that at the centre of business, but by enhancing that more remote."

Third, is that of Edmund Griffin, formerly alderman of the city of New York. He says:

"I concur fully in all the answers to all these interrogatories made by Edwin Smith, civil engineer and surveyor. I desire to answer to the 9th interrogatory.

"I was a member of the board of aldermen of the city of New York in the years 1850 and 1851. It was at this time that the project of the various city railroads, since constructed, was broached, and the discussions, pro and con, before the city government, drew my attention to that subject. I have been familiar with these projects through their construction and operation, and am satisfied that in no other way could the requirements of a large city, in the means of the transportation of passengers, be fulfilled with so little inconvenience to other travel, or with so little hazard of injury to private interests. The operation of the railway on Chatham street has been considered a test, in regard to the question of inconvenience to other travel and damage to business and property, as that street is a great thoroughfare for the eastern portion of the city, and is but 33 feet wide between curbs. The operation of that road has been a conclusive demonstration that street railways are not only of great public utility, but that they do not inconvenience and obstruct the other travel and business of the street to any extent, comparable with omnibuses, and that their influence upon the value of property along their line is beneficial. The operation of the New York street railways was thoroughly examined by the authorities of Brooklyn city, before the adoption of the system. which has been constructed in the latter city. When the system was first proposed the entire city government, with but two or three exceptions, were totally opposed to its construction; but, after a year's examination of the New York city roads, the government of Brooklyn adopted an entire system radiating in various directions through the city.

"Their effect on that city has been to largely enhance the value of property, and they have become an indispensable convenience."

Fourth, is that of James S. Libby, proprietor of Lovejoy's Hotel, in the city of New York. He says:

"I concur fully in the answers to all these interrogatories made by Edwin Smith, civil engineer and surveyor, and adopt them as my own. I desire to add in answer to 9th interrogatory, as follows: I was one of the original projectors and constructors of the Sixth avenue railroad, and president of the company. The project met with great opposition, as it was the first street railway designed exclusively for city uses. The Harlem Railroad Company had used small cars between the park and 27th street, but their road was constructed with the ordinary T rail, and was inconvenient to ordinary vehicles in crossing. The project was opposed on the ground of this inconvenience. It was argued that it would interfere with

and incommode the ordinary travel, and thus prove detrimental to the business of the streets through which it passed, and consequently depreciate the value of the property. The adoption of grooved rail removed the one serious difficulty. The railway has proved a great public convenience-has enhanced the value of property along its entire line, and the arguments of the opposition have been shown to be entirely groundless.

"The operation of the railroad in Chatham street has been the most perfect refutation of all the arguments of the opposers of strect railways, as that street is the thoroughfare for a large portion of the city, and is but thirty-three (33) feet wide. I consider it to be perfectly demonstrated by the operation of the street railways of New York, as well as Brooklyn, that, properly constructed, they are a great public convenience, and that they enhance the property in their vicinity and along their line, and that the cars inconvenience ordinary travel less than omnibuses.

"I own valuable real estate facing directly on the line of the Third and Fourth avenue roads near their termini, opposite the Astor House, and consider its value greatly enhanced by the roads, notwithstanding the street, 'Park Row' (being the connexion between Chatham street and Broadway,) is the thoroughfare for all the travel of the eastern portion of the city.

"The property upon the Sixth avenue has advanced fifty per cent. in value since the railway was constructed, whilst that upon Seventh avenue, directly alongside and parallel with it, has not advanced ten per cent.'

Such is the effect of railways in cities, and such is the universal effect of all facilities of intercourse and transport, whether between separate cities or separate and distinct points within the same city.

The memorialists disclaim asking for any grants which can be considered in any way as a monopoly. Usually, the grants in New York city for street railways have been for periods of fifty years, and have been without any compensation to the city. The railroad companies only undertake to keep their tracks in repair, and to clean them. The memorialists here ask the privilege of running, for a period of twenty-one years, convenient, ornamental, and comfortable carriages, for the conveyance of passengers through Pennsylvania avenue, confining themselves to straight lines in the centre of the street-subjecting themselves to the ordinances of the city government in relation to the rate of fare and speed, in the same manner that all public vehicles are regulated and governed.

They do not ask that other public vehicles should be driven off. They do not ask to run in every direction, wearing out the pavements, which are laid and maintained at the expense of the government, but they propose to lay down, at their own expense, the grooves upon which their carriages are to run, and for less privileges than are given to any line of omnibuses without compensation, but at a positive cost to the government in the maintenance of the streets, they propose to keep the whole pavement in the avenue in repair for the duration of the privilege; and at any time, during that period, they propose that the city may take possession of their railway upon paying them the

value of the unexpired term, and purchasing the real and personal property pertaining thereto.

There would seem to be nothing in the proposition of the memorialists which by any construction could be considered as aiming at or asking for a monopoly. If the grant gave them the privilege of carrying passengers through Pennsylvania avenue to the exclusion of other public vehicles, and for a fixed period of time beyond the control of the government or city, then it might be considered a monopoly ; but this is not the case. They may be dispossessed at any time, upon the payment to them by the city of the value of the property they have created, part of which would be immovable, and all of which would be worthless to them for any other purposes. At the expiration of the twenty-one years they propose to convey to the city, free of charge, the railway in good order, the authorities merely paying them for the real and personal property which they may have acquired pertinent to the operation of the railway.

The plan proposed seems to meet in all respects the requirements of a great and progressive city in carriage pavements and vehicles of public transport, and its adoption would, we believe, perfect the original intention of the founders of the city, and make Pennsylvania avenue one of the finest streets in the world, and worthy of the capital of the nation.

While the result of the examination which the committee has given to the subject induces them to entertain a favorable opinion of the iron pavement, thus expressed, they are not prepared to recommend at this time the repaving of Pennsylvania avenue, and report adversely thereto; still, as it may become necessary to pave anew said avenue or other streets, and especially in the vicinity of the Capitol, the committee have given a careful attention to the whole subject, and would respectfully recommend that a single square of eight hundred square yards be laid with the new pavement and tramway for the purpose of more thoroughly testing its utility, durability, and general advantages, and that an appropriation be made therefor.

The committee, fully impressed with the importance and advantage of a railway through Pennsylvania avenue, for the reasons before stated, report the accompanying bill.

H. Rep. Com. 356-2