April 5, 1890





Record  and  Guide.





473





Iron and Steel Association reported prices "so low asto wan-ant
the impression that tiiey can be no lower." Pig iron, which sold
for $53 per ton in 1872, sold for $16,50 in 1878. In 1878 the depres¬
sion of business and the decline in prices was made the subject of
an investigation by Congress. In 1876 the cost of mining 100 bushels
of coal was $2.50, whereas in 1883 it was $4, aud the iirice of the
same quantity of coal on the dates given was $5.50 and i)l7.50. The
years 1873 to 1879 were years of low prices and low wages iu tbe
United States, and, years of relatively large exports of manu¬
factures to Gieat Britain, Austria, France, the Netherlands, Russia
and other countries. In 1878 and 1879, but more especially in 1878,
there was a marked increase iii our foreign trade in agi-icultural
implements, bricks, manufactures of cotton, glass, India mbber
goods, machinery, railroad iron, locomotives, stoves, leather goods,
manufactures of wood, etc. In none of these waa the increase
remarkable, but it was marked. In 1879—the beginning of better
times, higher prices and wages—our exports of manufacturing
goods declined, though the total value of our foreign trade was
greater than in 1878, due to abundant harvests and the large amount
of agricultural produce that in consequence was sent abroad. With
the return of higher prices and a more prosperous domestic market
we lost the ground we had gained abroad, and since then our export
trade in manufacturing goods has grown slowly and increased but
little. Strange as it may seem, a continuance of hard times at
home ten years ago would have greatly improved our positiou in
the markets of the world.

To all appearances, another opporfcujiity such as that which arose
in 1878 presents itself to-day. The increase in the price of goods
abroad is equivalent to an increase in our import duties, so that our
manufacturers are surer of the home market than they have been
for years ; indeed, the advance in prices in Europe in the last twelve
months is probably equivalent to a 10 per ,ient. higher tariff ; and
this has been accomplished without the aid of politicians. Wages
in Europe will not be so easily reduced as formerly, owing to the
completer organization of labor that exists to-day and the fact that
the "unions" have more support aud sympathy from the public
and legislators than ever, so that a continuance of these conditions
for a longer period than in 1878 is certain. The probability, how¬
ever, is that om- own labor organizations will ere long be following
in the footsteps of " labor" abroad and will demand liigher wages,
so that any advantages that the American manufacturer now pos¬
sesses over his competitors will be lost or neutralized. But our
manufacturers should afc once recognize the opportunity that is
theirs aud make the most of it.    Will they do it?





fight it out. If the Manhattan Company adopts a wasteful course
of procrastination, why it will have to bear the consequent losses.
Meanwhile the public suffers becauae of the squabble, which binds
the couipany'a hands, and prevents it from taking more vigorous
measures to extend its system. In the end, the property-owners
will have been put to a good deal of unnecessary trouble, and the
Manhattau Company to a good deal of unnecessary expense ; but,
as is generally the case in legal contests, fche public will be the
greatest losers and fche lawyers the greatest gainers.





It is quite obvious that the Investigating Committee have pretty
well sifted out all the iniquity there is to find in the ^Sheriff's office,
and a very creditable showing it makes—for the Investigating
Committee, Mr. Ivins has announced that he will next turn his
attention to the Police Department, where he also expects to reap
a rich harvest. It is very much to be doubted, however, whether
anything of interest to citizens who like to read of the misdoings
of their rulers wil) be elicited by the Fassett Committee, simply
because the Republican organization of this city lias in part con¬
trolled the Police Commission, and it is no part of the duty of Mr.
Fassett'a Committee fco show any wrongdoing in offices where the
Republicans have a footing, In fact, we are very much afraid that
the present investigation has been productive of just about as much
valuable information on the inner workings of our City Depart¬
ments as we can expect, simply because Mi-, Platt has, or thinks
lie has already accomplished his purpose, Tammany has certainly
received a staggering blow, and that presumably was all that Mr,
Piatt has been aiming at. The equilibrium of the city organizations
has been restored ; the Republican nominee for Mayor nest fall
may very well slip into the office, and iu that case it is perhaps just
as well that the nooks and crannies of most of the depnrtments
should remain unexplored. It may seem unjustifiable to assume
tbat there is anything fco conceal in the other departments, but we
are sorry to say that the dishonesty aud incompetency which is
being continually brought to light in every direction places the
burden of proof on the man, not who wished to show fchafc au office
is badly adminisfcered, but on him who desires fco prove the reverse.
The real contest, after ali, is not the Tammany machine vs. fche Re¬
publican machine, bufc the politicians vs. the taxpayers. And wo
very much fear tbafc the contest is onesided to an extreme.





The following is a letter from a prominent legal firm of this
city, and opens a question which is of interest to our readers ;

Editor Recokd akd Gdide :

I iuelose a suggestive extract from a daily paper. Many or our clients
are property-owners who have been grievously damaged by the "L"
structures. Vice-President Hoyfc of the original " L " road tells us that in
1873 the " L " directors knew that they ought to pay the abutters. They
made an issue of bonds at the rate of ^00,000 per mile for that purpose.
Later, Mr, Hoyt says, they concluded to change tbeir construction contract
so that these bonds were absorbed, and did not reach the property-owners.
I cau tell you of casea where one-third of what the .Manhattan Company
pays goes ia legal expenses to its lawyers and detectives and experts and
printers, etc., etc., and whei-e flnally it haa had to pay the prop erty-ownera
double what they would have accepted if they could be relieved of litiga¬
tion aud detectives aad the other annoyances to whicii the "L"road
thinks it policy to subject every property-owner.

Does not The Record think that au boaeat policy of settlement would
pay the company, and be but justice to the property-owners ?

L4WYEK.

The extract to wliich our correspondent refers is the report of
the decisions in nine cases handed down by the General Term^iu
regard to the rights of properfcy-owners on Soufch 5th avenue
and Greenwich street, in cases where they had acquiesced without
objection to the construction of the road—the Judges holding that
the property-owners could nofc be expected to know that they had
a legal remedy for the damage until after the Court of Appeals
had so decided. In reply to the question with which the
"Lawyer" winds up his letter, we return an unqualified affirmative.
Our only interest in the matter is that strict justice should be
doue to all parties interested, including the general public. When¬
ever any property is injured by the elevated structures, the Man¬
hattan Company siiould pay for the injury ; it can afford to do so,
and, aa we understand, ifc would not object to doing so, provided
the damages are fairly assessed, and due allowance is made for any
concurrent increase of value which has resulted from fche construc¬
tion of the road. Undoubtedly, also, much money has beeu
unnecessarily spent by the prolonged litigation in wliich the com¬
pany has beeu involved ; and much confusion lias resulted from
the conflicting decisions rendered by the Courts, It would be well
if the whole business could be taken out of the region of legal
technicalities, and jui-isdiction given to a competent Commission;
but efforts in that du-ecfciou have beeu as unsuccessful as in the
other.    There is no alternative but to let the parfcies   interested





Although in its result fche annual contest between Governor
Hill and the Legislature on the question of ballot reform is just as
fruitful, as it has been hitherto, that is utterly sterile. Yet we
judge that this year our Governor has escaped from the fray wifch
less wear and tear than usual. To many simple-minded people
who are not versed in the devious ways of politicians to whom
electioneering devices are of no importance whatever, and who
can see nothing but waste of time and material in casting iron on
tbe water in the apparent expectation_that it willjfloat, the question
wiil doubtless arise how far our Republicanpoliticians are sincere in
their professions and actions in favor of ballot reform. It is one
thing to pass a bill wliich they know will be vetoed, it is another
to pass one which is sure fco become a law, and we shall have no
fcest of then- sincerity in tbe matter until this legislative tinkering
produces a pot. Be that as it may, tbe Governor has stood his
ground this year better than ever before. There was a superficial
fairness in his offer lo submit the question of the bill's coDstitution-
aJity to the Court of Appeals; but he knew very well that the com¬
promise could not be accepted by the Republicans, because it would
be au admission that fchere was some doubt in their minds as fco fche
valitidifcy of such an objection. As an honest man he had no
alternative but to veto the bill in case he considered it unconstitu¬
tional, with or wifchout a favorable brief from the Justices of the
courfc, and iu spite of any popular opposition to hia course. This
proposal was simply an electioneering trick; it gave the^Dcmocratic
orators a more or less plausible excuse to " talk back," and call the
Republicans insincere. Now that it is all over, ballot reform is as
far off as ever. The spectacle with a few circumstantial variations
will doubtless be repeated next session.    Why nofc?





A gentleman well kuv^wn iu,New York financial cii-cles, who
went to England recently on an errand that brought him into
close contact with many English financiers, expressed upon his
returu his surprise at the number of men^in that country who con¬
ducted large businesses from tUugy offices and who afc any mo¬
ment could draw their check for a hundred thousand pounds.
And, indeed, it would be difficult to realize the number of mod¬
erately wealfchy Englishmen were it nofc for the enormous
extenfc of fcheir loaning operations to other countries. One reason
ia, doubtless, tliat a very wealfchy man in that country, uuless, like
Col. North, he forces himself on tbe public, or, like the Duke of
Westminster, unites a title with his,money, is uot brought before
the public by the newspapers in the way the wealthy men are on
this side. Furthermore, it is quite possible fchat wealthy men
there are satisfied with less. We seldom hear of a rich Americam
retiring   after    he    has   accumulated   a   few    million    dollars.