The record-union., 1895-01-25

certain streets in Brooklyn, and to fur
nlsh men and operate cars enough to
fully accommodate the public. 1t may
not lawfully cease to perform that duty
fer even one hour. The directors OF
private bus company may, actuated by
private greed or motives of private gain,
stop business and refuse to employ labor
at ALL unless labor come down to their
conditions, however distressing; for such
are the existing legal, industrial and So
cial conditions. But the directors of a
railroad corporation may not do the like.
They are not merely accountable to their
stockholders; they are accountable to the
public first and to the stockholders Sec
ond. They have duties to the public to
perform, and they must perform them.
If they cannot get labor to perform such
duties at what pay they offer, then they
must pay more and as much as is neces-
sary to get it. Likewise. ii the condi-
tlons in the respect of hours or otherwise
| which they impose repel labor, they must
adopt more lenlent or just conditions, as
they may not stop their cars for one hour,
much less one week or one year,
or conditions of labor down to
the price or conditions they offer.
! For them to do so would be a de-
fiance of law and of Government, which,
| becoming general, would inevitably, by
the force of example, lead to general dis
quiet, to the d1sintegration of the social
order and even the downfall of the Gov
! ernment 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
duties The law of this case was too far but
too clearly stated by Justice Cullen to be
! misunderstood, on an application similar
to this. few days ago. The learned
Judge held that the company had made
no adequate answer to the case presented
against it, and only withheld the grant
! ing of the writ to give the company more
! time to conform to the law, which he so
| clearly enunciated, probably in the reas-
| enable scope that would suffice without a
resort to the coerciye power Of the people
OF the State lodged in the court.
In addition, however, | shall quote
| from a case decided upon appeal by
! the Supreme Court in this State
| in 1883, after mature deliberation,
and which is an authority which
L were not of the same view,
and which | need scarcely say the
corpOrrtion now before this court
is bound to acquiesce in, and, which
doubt not, it will Immediately acquiesce
in for examples sake, ii for no other rea-
son. That case arose out of the failure OF
the New ork Central and Hudson River
/
ward freight as a common carrier. The
circumstances of that strike were re-
viewed, and the court said: The court in
| that case allowed a writ of mandamus to
compel the corporation to do its corporate
duty
That a private citizen has sufficient
standing to make this application which
could unqUestionably De made by the
Attorney General of the State has hereto
fore been decided by this court, and
must accept it as law. And it being ad-
mltted that the company is not fully
operating its line of road. l feel it my
duty to allow the writ prayed for, either
| in It's peremtory or alternate form, unless
| sufficient answer has been made in law.
LAS | have said, the learned Judge who
heard the previous application decided
that the answer then made was even Suf-
ticent to raise question of fact and only
refused the writ in order to give the COM
pany more time, with an aGmonition to
1t that it should no longer delay.
81 do not believe the present answer of
the company is sufficient to prevent a
writ from being issued. The claim of
violence amounting to prevention is
not legally made out. Instances OF vio-
| lence, generally by others than the
former employees of the company, is
shown, but it is also shown that not only
the police force of the city, but
over 5000 soldiers are preserving order
and l cannot believe that this company
is not protected in its rights, nor do
think any question OF fact is fairly raised
on that head.
Besides, the persistence of the COM
pany In enacting to run its cars, except
as it may gradually get employees to ac-
cept its terms, is in itself unlawful, as |
have shown, and must necessarily by its
bad example tend to public disquiet, If
not to some disorder.
in respect 10 thequestion Of hours and
OF wages between the company and its
employees, its duty was to have gone on
with its full complement of employees
having the right gradually and from day
to day to supersede its employees if it can
by new employees who will work on its
terms, or to supersede them all at once
| when it had obtained sufficient mum Der
OF employees for that purpose, but in such
| controversy it has not the right
to stop its cars while 1t is thus grad
| ualIy getting other men. 1.-THE people of
! the State were running this road, they
! would not thus incommode the damage
! themselves, and it must not be forgotten
that this corporation is entrusted
with the running of the roads as the
servants Of the people OF the State. 1t
therefore remains for me to determine
the form of the writ, whether it shall be
peremptorily or alternate.
''In 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 me to al
low an alternative writ, which has the
effect of reserVing side issues of fact to
be tried by jury, or by the court, if so
agreed upon.
T AT one place in it's answer the COM
pany AYERS that the reason why its en-
/ ployes would not continue working for
/ il, was that it refused to run its cars as
/ required by said employees in respect to
! the frequency with which cars could be
/ run and the number of cars to be rum
The number OF cars or trains which a
/ railroad shall run is left 10 the sound dis
/ cretion of the directors, subject to review
/ by the court upon an application or a
writ Of mandamus to make them run
I more if the purpose of convenience re-
quires it. Its employees may not assume
! TO determine the number of cars TO be
/ run. Ii, however, this allegation in the
answer refers to the controversy in re-
! spect of which are called trips, then it
! has no force. for the controversy is In its
essence one in respect of hours and
wages.
Il concur in what Justice Cullom in the
other case in that respect says, namely:
, That | do not regard the alleged attempts
10 abolish trIppers as interfering with the
running or management of the road, be-
! cause Imagine the company would be
allowed 20 run as many trlppers as it
chooses if it would only pay 81 day for
running the trips. In that case l imagine
| there would be no trouble, so there is
really question OF wages at issue. Each
! party has the right to obtain the best
! terms IL can, and, as was said IN the
| irelght-handlers' case, if the company
cannot get men at a price that it thinks
ialr, 1t is bound to get them with a
price that they may deem eXorbitant, be-