New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1890-11-23
TO PREVENT WIRE-CUTTING.
ARGUING THE MOTION FOR AN INJUNCTION
AGAINST THE SUBWAY COMPANY.


LIGHT CONCERNS THE CAUSE OF THE con-
TRovERsY-EMINENT LAWYERS
on EACH SIDE
The Chambers room of the Supreme Court was crowd
ed with the legal lights of the city when judge sa
ham called the subway injunction case IL Is NOV
often that Joseph II. Choate. James Z. carter All"
Frederic Il. Coudcrt appear in court at inc same ,o
interested in the same suit. Yesterdays proceedhss
were still interesting for the reason u@' Mr'
Choate was opposed to Mcssrs. Carter and Coudert'
The motion which was argued yesterday was for an
Injunction to restrain the Consolidated Eecricai Ice
gsaph and subway Company from cutting the wires OF
the I've electric light companies now occupying tie
subways
The controversy arose about the amount OF rent
which was to be paid by the electric light companies
Cor the use Of the subways. The subway company
charged nj the rate Of 81 900 mile per annum for
each three-inch subway and lower price for smaller
ones The electric light companies objected to the
rate and at first refused to pay the amount required
they were obliged to put their wires in the subways
however and finally signed the applications according
IN the forms prescribed by the subway company, but
did so under protest. Finally tue companies asked
the Board of Electrical Control TO interfere and
IN fix fair rate. The Board had some meet
lnes and several rates were suggested but
nothing was finally decided upon. At the last
meeting the representatives OF the light COM
panies were told that they need not appear again until
they received notice from the Board. They had re-
ceived such notice up to yesterday but In the mean
time they were negotiating with the subway company TO
agree upon price for the rental of the subways No
agreement had been arrived at when the president OF
tho subway company gave the electric light companies
weeks notice that II the rent at the 81 900 rate was
not paid at the end Of days the wires would DO
removed from the subways.
That notice broke of all negotiation, and tho electric
hight companies secured njuncons to prevent the sub
way company from carrying out its threat Inc ar
gument to make that Injunction permanent pending te
decision of the suits brought by the electric light COM
panies has been postponed from time to time Tor
month until yesterday.
Mr.. Einsten, of Townsend Dyett d Emstein Will
lam B. Putney. Joseph H. Choate and Paul D. Cravath
appeared for the electric light companies and the
subway company represented by James O. Carter
Frederic r. Coudert, Edward Lauterbach and william
N. Cohn. All these lawyers made elaborate arguments
The was begun at 10 a. and was not finished
until after O'Clock In the afternoon. Mr. Choate
contended that the electric light companies had put
their wires into the subways because the Legislature
had ordered them to do and that under no crcuin
uances did the subway company have authority to cut
Them for the purpose Of forcing the collection OF rent
Il was specifically provided in the act which created
lhe subway company that If the rent was not paid
he Controller could issue attachment against the
property OF company for the amount of the rent
due They also had recourse to AN action at law
for their rent.
Mr. Carter took the ground that the contracts which
the electric light companies had entered into, whether
they were voluntary involuntary were still valid
contracts which neither the court nor the Board OF
Electrical Control could set aside Mr. Coudert made
his point upon the allegation that the electric light
companies had not offered TO pay anything upon ac-
pount although they conceded that they owed the sub
way company something. They had refused, he de-
clared pay the rent asked for, but they had not
made offer of any less amount. In consequence
of this failure he declared that the plaintiffs had
Standing in court
This allegation was met by Mr. EinStein who as
serted that the company had offered 70 pay 800 a
mile, and he renewed the offer in open court.
Mr.. Lauterbach said that the subways cost $4,000
o0o and that If every mile of them was occupied at
rental Of 81 900 year the income would be only
1888 coo, which would be only small return the
money invested, In view of the extraordinary ex-
penses which tho company was under. As matter
of fact however less than 40 per cent Of the sbways
were occupied and consequently the income was not
half the figure mentioned.
At the end Of the argument Judge Ingrabam said
that he would give the lawyers until day late
next week in which to hand in additional afdavts and
briefs.