The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1895-01-25
THE people HAVE RIGHTS.
Justice Gaynor Decides the Conn
nanies Must Oneraie Their Lines.


the Supreme Court, to-day handed down
his decision on the application of Joseph
Loader for mandamus TO compel the
Brooklyn Heights railroad to operate It's
cars in sufficient numbers to accommodate
the trave ing public on the F'uiton-streel'
Putnam-avenue, Green and Gates and the
Tompkins lines. He signifies his In
tention of granting a mandamus. the form
to be determined on the argument OF coun-
sci In court Tomorrow. Loader, upon whose
application the writ of mandamus IL issued.
is merchant. who alleges that his ousi-
ness suffers by reason of the failure of the
company to operate its lines. Justice Gay
nor's decision follows:
1T is my duty to declare the law of tiis
case. This railroad corporation is not in
the position of mere private individual
or company carrying on business for pri-
vate gain, which may suspend business tenn
porarily or permanently at pleasure. On
the contrary, it has dual relation-a pub
lie relation to the people of the State and
a private one to its stockholders. 1t must
not be forgotten here, though it may seem
to be wholly forgotten elsewhere, that in
its chief aspect it is public corpora
ton, having duties to perform to the pub
lie which transcend any obligation which
in its private aspect II owes TO lss ssock.
value from the State and had conferred
upon 1t the States transcendent power OF
eminent domain. In return 1t took upon
itself the performances of public duties and
functions, in the performance of which 1t
is in law and in fact not an independent
individual or entirety, but the accountable
agent of the State.
Though the principles are old and in
herent in the idea of the sovereignty of
the people, it would seem that in the rapid
growth of corporate power and of the ten
dency to use public franchises for the ag-
grandizement Of individuals first, and for the
service and benefit OF the public second,
they have come to be somewhat over
Of 'S this ssS State sdu and tSs Supreme Court Of
the United States. The duty of the COM
pany now before the court is to carry pas
sengers through certain streets of Brook
to fully @ "a occommodate s e the the public h It may
not lawfully cease to performs that duty
for even one hour The directors of
by private greed or motives of private gain,
stop business and refuss to employ labor
conditions however distressing, for such
are the existing legal Industrial and social
corporation may not do the like; they, are
not merely accountable to stockholders;
they are accountable to the public first, and
to the stockholders second. They have du-
must perform them. If they cannot get
prices they offer to pay, then they must
pay more, and as much as Is necessary to
spect of hours or otherwise which they inn
pose repel labor they must adopt more
lenient or just conditions They may not not
one week, or for one year, thereby TO beat
or coerce the price conditions of labor
For them to do SO would be defiance Of
law and of government, which, becoming
sxape Moaa iead to general dIsaulet 10 the
disintegration of the social order, and even
the downfall of government itself
Experience SHOWS the wisdom of our
fathers in retaining at least some control
of corporations to whom are given public
franchises for the performance Of public
ly stated by Justice Cullen to be misunder-
stood in an application similar to this few
days ago. That learned judge held that the
company had made no adequate answer to
the case presented against it and only with
held the granting of the writ to give the
company more time to conform to the law
which he clearly enunciated, probably
in the Reasonable scope that would suffice
without a. resort to the coercive power Of
the people that lodges in the court. In
addition, however, I shall quote from case
in this State in 1883, after mature delibera-
ton and which is authority which / am
bound to follow, even though / were not of
the same view, and which, | need scarcely
say, the corporation now before this court
IS bound to acquiesee in and which, /
for examples sake, if for no other reason
That case arose out of the failure of the
New York Central & Hudson River Rail-
road Company TO receive and forward
freight as a common carrier. The circum-
stances of that strike Were reviewed and
the court said The court in that case al
lowed writ of mandamus to compel the
corporation to do its corporate duty
THAT private citizen has sufficient
standing to make this application, which
could, unquestionably, be made by the At
torney- general of the State has heretofore
been decided by this court and I must ac-
cept it as a law. And it being admitted that
the company is not fully operating it's lines
writ prayed for either in its peremptory or
alternative form, unless sufficient an
swer has been made in law. AS | have said
the learned judge who heard the previous
application, decided that the answer then
made was even insufficient to raise a ques-
ten of fact and only refused the writ in
order to give the company more time, with
an admonition to it that it should not long
Il do not think the present answer of the
company s sufficient to prevent writ from
being issued. The claim of violence amount
ing to a prevention is not legally made out
Instances of violence. generally by other
than the former employees of the company
the police force of this city, but also over
seven thousand soldiers are preserving or
der and cannot believe that this COM
rany is not protected in its right nor do
think any question of fact is fairly raised
on that head. Besides, the persistence of
the company in failing to run it's cars, ex-
cept as it may gradually get employees to
accept its terms being in itself unlawful.
/ have shown, must necessarily by it's bad
example. tend to public disquiet if not to
some disorder.
I'm respect to the question of hours and
ployes its duty was to have gone and
is to 20 with it's full complement
of emnloyes having the right gradually and
from day to day to supersede it's employees,
If 1t can, by new emDloves who will work
on its terms, or to supersede them all at
once when it has obtained sufficient num-
ber of new employes for that purpose. but
I'm such a controversy it has not the right
TO stop it's cars while it is thus gradually
getting other men If the people of the
State were running these roads they would
not thus incommode and damage them
selves; and it must not be forgotten that
the corpora tion is intrusted with the run
ming of these roads as the servant of the
people of the State. 1t therefore only re-
mains for me to determine the form of the
writ. whether it shall be peremptory or al
tentative
I'm one ASPECT Of the case there seems
to be an Issue of fact presented and if
such an issue be presented the law does
not permit me to decide it, and allow a
peremptory writ, but REQUIRES to allow an
alternative writ which has the effect of
reserving sTlch issue of fact to be tried by
a jury, or by the court if so agreed upon
At one place in its answer the company
ayers that reason why it's employees would
not continue working for il was that il
refused to run its cars required by said
employees in resnect to the freuuency with
which cars should be and the number.
of cars to be run. The number of cars or
trains which railroad shall run is left To
the sound discretion Of fs diraetorc c,,biaot