New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1880-02-11
RAPID TRANSIT FIGHTS.

TWO DECISIONS AFFECTING THEM.
POWERS OF THE NEw-YORK CoMMIssIoNERs-l"o
IMPORTANT POINTS DEC1DED-THE KINGS CoUN-
TY ELEVATED ROAD ENCOUNTERS AN ADVERSE
DECIsION-AN APPEAL TO BE TAKEN.
Two decisions affecting rapid transit plans and
riobts in this city and Brooklyn were rendered yes
terdav. The General Term of the Supreme Court, in
New-York decided that the Rapid Transit Commas
sion appointed on the second application alone had
power to lay ont routes in the city, ana that tnls
Commission must, according to the statute, organ
ize one company to build and operate the roads
which 1t suggests. In Brooklyn the Generai Term
decided against the rights OF the Kings county
Elevated Railway Company to construct ITS ROAD on
the route proposed. An appeal will be taken TO the
court of last resort.
POWERS OF THE SECOND COMMISSION.
THE FIRST COMMISSION ExHAUsTED-DUTiEs OF us
srCCrssuR-ONE COMPANY FOR ALL THE ROADS.
The suit of the People OK rel Henry Steb-
bins against Richard NJ Hoe and Others was an action
brought to determine the relative powers and duties OF
the old and the new Rapid Transit Commissions under
the Rand Transit Act OF 1873 which provided that the
Commissioners having first decided as to the necessity
for steam transit in particular neighborhood were re-
ouired TO fix and determine the route or routes Tor
such steam railway or railways'
The plaintiffs claimed that these Commissioners had
the power 10 organize many corporations or railways
while the defendants insisted that they were limited To
The formation ~ n single corporation.
The General Term, banded down yesterday IN the
opinon which 10 written by Justice Barrett aud con
Cured IN by Justices Davis and Brady holds that the
latter contention supported by the latter and also by
the intention OF the act Having looked at the statute
in fits length and breadth" the opinion reads, we find
nothing TO ustify the plaintiffs contention There IL, on
the other hand convincing proof OF the correctness OF
tho oupo-ife view The plaintiffs cOncede what ~ I'M
doubleday the fact that the COMMISSIONS CHEZ purpose
Supply city OF NeWYOrk win Stcam transit
Tue Rapid Transit Commissioners are appointed Dy
local authority and nothing further eau bc done unless
these Commissioners determine that steam transit Is
needed. II they So determine, they nave exclusive
mower TO locate the routes, TO decide upon the
plan AMI time Of construction, 10 determine inc
maximum rates Of fare, the hOurs during when
specal cars snail be run at reduced rates and hnay
70 orrnuizee the company Up TO this point the pro-
moters OF the enterprise have no statutory voice. III
VIII be observed that the entire programme must DC
settled upon and completed before the company -
organIzed Thus We have q scheme providing for one
cnmplete aud comprehensive plan. covering all the
ground and be executed by single corporate enter
prise -. . 81, ,t,,
There a reasonable assurance 81 euccess and profit
while Others tn that regard dubious, Would seem
10 be wise pOicy include them al m an enterprise
comuepr the construction aud completion OF an by the
,,rontofers undrr some serious pcua Suudyidlug
Inc companies would insure the rapid completion OF tue
better line while the doubtful route, equally utcesaly
terbnps 10 a smaller class would probably anEulsh
The result OF exceedingly careful review 81 inc
en- ire subject IS That the rclatOls power was cNdaieu
upou fhe organization OF the West side ana Nonkers
RAILWAY Company and that the defendants. appointed
ne commissioners under the second apphcatOn. are alone
authorized to form the company In question. Ihefe
must therefore, be judgment for the defendant