The representative. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1893-1901, 1895-01-30

his decision on the application of Joseph
| Loader, for a mandamus to compel the
Brooklyn Heights railroad to operate it's
| cars in sufficient numbers to accommodate
the travelling public in 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 determined the argument Of
| counsel in court tomorrow. Justice Gaynor's
| decision is as follows:
1T is my duty to declare the law Of this case
| This railroad corporation is in the position
| of a mere private individual or compaony carry
| ing on business for private gain which may sus-
| pend business temporarily or permanently at
| pleasure On the contrary, it has dual rela-
ton 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 growing not
| wholly forgotten elsewhere than in its chief as
| pect, it is public corporation having duties to
| perform to the public which transcend any OBJ
| legation which in it's private aspect it owes to
| it's stockholders. 1t has received franchises of
| great value from the state and had conferred
| upon it the states transcendent power of emil
! domain.
I'm return it took upon itself the performances
| of public duties and functions, in the perform
| ance of which it is in law and in fact not an
| Independent individual entirety but the ac-
| countabe agent of the state Though the princi-
pals old and inherent in the idea of the SOW
ereignty of the people, it would seem that in
| the recent rapid growth of corporate power, and
| of the tendency to use public franchises for the
| ACKNOWLEDGMENT of individuals first and for the
| services and benefit of the public. Second. they
| have become somewhat overlooked and need to be
| Yestated
They have often been declared by the highest
| courts of this and the supreme court OF
| the United States. The duty of the company
now before the court is to carry passengers
| through certain streets of Brooklyn. and to FUR
| nish, man and run cars enough to fully accom-
! modate the public 1t may not lawfully cease
| to perform that duty for even one hour The di-
rectors of a private business company may. actu-
ated by private greed or motives of private gain,
stop business and refuse employ labor all
| unless labor down to their conditions
however distressing for such the existing
| legal, industrial and social conditions. But the
directors of railroad corporation may not do
the like. They not merely accountable to;
| they are accountable to the public hrst and to
| the stockholders second They have duties to
| the public to perform, and they must perform
| them If they cannot get labor to perform such
duties, at what they offer to pay, then they
| must pay more and 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 lenient or just con-
| ditions. They may not stop their cars for one
| hour, much less week year. thereby
! to beat or coerce the price the conditions of
| labor down to the price conditions they offer
| For them do would be defiance of law
and government, which becoming general would
| inevitably, by the force of example. lead to
! geAeral disquiet to the disntegration of the
| social order. and even the downfall of govern
| ment itself.
| 'Exoerience shows the wisdom of fathers in
| retaining at least some control of corporations
| to whom are given public franchises for the per-
| Torrance of public duties.
A PREVIOUS DECISION.
| ''The law of the too clearly stated by
| Justice Cullen to be misunderstood in an appi
| cation similar this few days ago. That
| learned judge held that the company had made
| no adequate answer the presented against
it, and only withheld the granting of the writ
| to give the company more time to conform to
| the law which he clearly enunciated, proba-
bly, in the reasonable scope that would suffice
without a to the coercive power of the peo-
! pie 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 1882
| after mature elaboration and which is
thority which bound to follow, though
| were not of the same view and which, |
need scarcely say the corporation now before this
| court is bound to acquiesce in, and which |
| doubt not it will Immediately acquiesce in for
examples sake, if for other reason That case
| arose out of the failure of the New York Cen
trail and Hudson River Railroad Company to re-
ceive and forward freight as common carrier
The circumstances Of that strike were reviewed
and the said:
| The court in that allowed a writ of man
damus to compel the corporation do its cor
porate duty.
| That a private citizen has sufficient standing
| to make this application, which could unques-
| tonably be done by the attorney general of the
state. has heretofore been decided by this court,
and must accept it law. And. it being ad-
mitted that the company is not fully operating
| its lines of road, l feel it my duty allow the
writ prayed for, either in its peremptory al
ternate form, unless sufficient answer has been
made in law. AS l have said, the learned judge
who heard the previous application decided that
| the then made insufficient to
raise question of fact and only refused the
writ order give the company more time
with an admonition to it that it should not
longer delay. l do not think the present answer
of the company is sufficient to prevent a
| from being issued. The claim of violence
amounting prevention is legally made
out Instances of violence generally by other
| than the former employees or the company is
shown but it is also shown that only the
police force of the city but 1000 soldiers
| are preserving order and l cannot believe that
this company is not protected in its rights
| do 1 think any question of fact is fairly raised
| that head
Besides the
PERSISTENCE OF THE COMPANY
| in failing run it's except it may grad
| uay get employees to accept its terms. being in
| itself unlawful. as | have shown, must neces-
if not to some disorder In respect of the question
| of hours and Of wages between the company and
its employees it's duty was to have gone on. and
| now is to go with it's full complement of en-
| poves having the right gradually from day
| to day to supersede it's employees if it can by new
| employes who will work it's terms or to SUI
| narseda them all a when it has obtained a
| sufficient number of new employees for that pur-
| nose: but such controversy it has the right
| other men If the people of the were run
| ming these roads they would not thus incommode
| and damage themselves, and it must not be for
gotten that this corporation is Entrusted with the
running of these roads the servant of the peo-
ME of the state. 1t, therefore, only remains for
mo to determine form of the writ, whether it
| shall be peremptory alternative
I'm one respect of the case there seems to be
on iseua of fact presented, and if such issue
eide il and allow peremptory writ, but requires
| me- 70 allow an alternative writ, which has the
effect of reserving such issue of fact to be tried
| nv a iurv or by the court II 50 agreed upon.
| At one place in its answer the company AYERS
| that a reason why its employees would not con-