Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1895-01-24
Brooklyn Heights Railway Company
Must Run Its Cars.
It's RIGHTS And DUTIES TO THE PUBLIC
How 1t Differs From Private
Business Concern.
PROGRESS OF THE STRIKE


his decision on the application of Joseph
| Loader, for a mandamus to compel the
| Brooklyn Heights railroad to operate its
| cars in sufficient numbers to accommodate
| the travelling public on the Fulton street,
| Putnam avenue. Greene and Gates and
| the Tompkins avenue lines He signifies
| his intention. of granting a mandamus. the
| form to be decided on the argument Of
| counsel in court tomorrow.
| Justice Gaynor's decision is as follows:
ut is my duty to declare the law of this
| 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
temporarily or permanently at pleasure.
| On the contrary, it has a dual relation; a
public relation to the people of the state
| and private one to its stockholders.
| 1t must not be forgotten here, though it
/ may seem to be growing dim, if not wholly
forgotten elsewhere, that in its chief
| pect it is a public corporation, having du-
ties to perform to the public which tran
scend any obligation which in its private
aspect it owes to its stockholders. 1t has
| received franchises of great value from the
state. and had conferred upon 1t the states
| transcendent power of eminent domain. In
return Ii took upon itself the performance
| Of public duties and functions. in the per-
| formance of which it is in law and in fact
| not an Independent individual or entity,
| but the accountable agent of the state.
| Though the principles are old and inherent
| in the idea of the sovereignty of the people
| it would seem that in the recent rapid
! growth of corporate power and Of the ten
| dency to use public franchises for the ag-
| grandizement of individuals first and for
the services and benefit of the public sec
! ond, they have come to be somewhat over
| looked and need to be reStated. They have
often been declared by the highest courts
| of this state and the Supreme Court OK
/ the United States.
Duty of the Company.
THE duty of the company is to carry pas
sengers through certain streets of Brook
| lyn and to furnish, man and run cars
enough to fully accommodate the public.
| 1t may not lawfully cease to perform that
duty for even one hour. The directors of
private business company may, actuated
| by private greed or motives of private gain,
1 stop business and refuse to employ labor at
| all unless labor come down to their oondi-
| items, however distressing. for such are the
existing legal Industrial and social condi-
tionS.
How n RAILWAY Differs.
but the directors of railroad corporations
may not do the like. They are not merely
accountable to stockholders, they are ac-
countable to the public first and to the
stockholders second. They have duties to
the public to perform and they must per-
form tnem. IL tney cannot get i1DOE 10
perform such duties at what they offer to
pay then they must pay more and as much
as is necessary to get it Likewise, If the
conditions in respect of hours or otherwise
which they impose, repel labor, they must
adopt more 1enient or just conditions.
They, may not stop their cars for one
hour much less one week, or one year,
thereby to beat coerce the price OF con-
ditions of labor down to the price or con-
ditions they offer For them to do so
would be defiance of law and of govern
ment, which. becoming general would
inevitably, by the force of example, lead
to general disquiet, to 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 rublic franchises for the per-
formance of public duties.
The law of this was too clearly
stated by Mr.. Justice Cullen to be inisun-
derstood in an application similar to this
| a few days ego. That learned judge held
that the company had made no adequate
| answer to the case presented against 1t,
and only withheld the granting OF the writ
to give the company more time to con-
form to the law which he so clearly enun-
ciated, probably in the reasonable scope
that would suffice without resort to the
coercion power of the people of the state
lodged in the court.
Freight Hnndlers' Case.
I'm addition, however. shall quote from
a case decided, upon appeal. b: the su-
preme court in this state in 1883, afte9' ma
ture deliberation, and which is an autnori-
ty which I am bound to follow, even
though 1 were not of the same view, and
which, l need scarcely say, the corporation
now before this court is bound to ecquiesce
in, aid which. 1 doubt not, it will imme-
diately acluiesce in for examples sake, IL
for To other reason. That case arose out
Of The. failure of the New York Central
ard Hudson River Railroad Company to
receive and forward freight as common
carrier. The language of the court is as
follows:
According to the statements of the
case q body of laborers, acting in concert,
fixed a price for their labor and refused to
work at a less price. The respondents
the railroad company fixed price for
the same work, and refused to pay more.
In doing this. neither did an act violaeive
of any law. or subjecting either to any
penalty.
The respondents had a lawful right to
take their ground in respect to the price
to be paid, ard adhere to 1t. if they chose.
but if the consequence of doing so were
an inability to exercise their corporate
franchises to the gre eat injury of the pub
lie, they (the railroad company cannot
lie heard to assert that such consequences
must be shouldered and borne by an in
nccent public, who neither directly nor in
directly participated in their causes.
THE court in that case allowed writ
of rlandamus to compel the corporation to
do its corporate duty.
The Writ to De Allowed.
THAT a private citizen has sufficient
standing to make this application, which
could unGuestionably be made by the at
torney general of the state, has heretofore
been decided by this court, and I must ac-
cept it as law. And it being admitted that
the company is not fully operating its lines
or road feel it my duty to allow the writ
prayed for, either in its perenptory or
alternative form, unless a sufficient answer
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 question of fact, and only refused
the writ in order to give the company more
time. with admonition to it that 1t
should not longer delay.
The Question of Violence.
II do not think the present answer of the
company is sufficient to prevent writ
from being issued. The claim of violence
amounting to a prevention is not legally
made out Instances of violence generally
by other than the former employees of the
company are shown. but 1t is also shown