New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1895-01-25
BOUND TO RUN ITS CARS.
JUSTICE GAYNoR GRANTS WRIT OF
MANDAMUS.

THE COMPANY HELD TO BE THE AGENT Or Ihn
PEOPLE AND MUST NOT STOP THE OPERATION
OF IT'S IINEs-IF ITS EMPLOYEES WILL NOT
WORK FOR THE WAGES OFFERED IT
MUST PAY MORE OR GET OTHER MEN
TO HEAR ARGUMENT TO-DAY AS
TO WHETHER THE WRIT
WILL BE PEREMProRY
OR ALTERNATIVE
Yesterday morning Justice Gaynor handed
down a decision granting a motion Tor man
damus TO compel the Brooklyn Heights Raiiroao
comnanv to operate its cars Whether the writ
shall be peremptory or alternative will be de-
clded after argument this morning. II an
alternative writ be issued the case Will have 10
be tried before jury. Following is the opinion:
II 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 pus,vSs @
for private gain which may suspend business .esr- en-
trary Il has a dual reiaton-a public relation to the
peope OF the State and private one 10 rs SUI n,
may seem to be growing dim II not wholly forgotten
elsewhere that in its chief aspect IL Is puoic SJi
which transcend any obligation which IN Its private
aspect 1t owes its stockholders II has received
frauchises OF great value from the state ana hau
conferred upon It the States transcendent power
OF eminent domain In return IL to9k n1a,s upon IN
the pert9rmance OF which it is in law and in fact
not an Independent indiyiaIa' gh or bas a' nrn
ciples are Old and Inherent In tne luea pl 'ie ne
sovereignty Of the people II would seem 'aad ma ~
the tendency 10 public franchises Tor the ag-
grandzcmeni OF indyidua.s trst ahu ipr ve % ~
be somewhat overlooked, ana need 70 De restatea,
Of this state and the supreme Court Of the rnitsd
states (Olcott vs. the supervisors 10 wall. os,;
FapI O. ne PEOPLE y \. G. and h. H. H. H.
Co, 2S Hun, 5is)
THE COMPANY'S PUBLIC DUTY.
The duty Of the company before the court is
to carry passengers through certain streets OF
Brooklyn and furnish man and run cars enough to
fully accommodate the public II may not lawfully
cease to perform that duty for even one hour. The
directors OF private business company may. actu-
ated by private greed or motives OF private gain.
stop business and refuse employ labor at all
unless labor down to their conditions, however
and social conditions. But the directors OF rail-
road corporation may not do the ike they are NOT
merely accountable TO stockholders; they are ac-
countable the public first and to their siockhold-
ers second. Thcy have duties 70 the pubic 10 per
FORM and they must perform them. III they cannot
get labor TO perform such duties at what they
offer to pay then they must pay more ana as ura
In respect OF hours or otherwise which they impose
repel labor. they must adopt more lenent or JUST
conditions They may not stop their cars lor one
hour much less week one year. TO thereby
beat or coerce the price or or aofh he To
do so would be a defiance Of law and OF government
which. becoming general. would inevitably py me
force OF example lead TO general dsquiet. 70 we
dlsintegration OF the social order ana even, tne
downfall of government Itself. Experience SHOWS
the wisdom OF fathers IN retaining al least sVne
control OF corporations 10 whom are given puohc
franchises for the performance or pubnc uutles'
The law of this was too clearly etated ny
Mr. Justice Cullen to be misunderstood, IN an aP.
plication similar to this. few days ago Ihat
learned Judge held that the company nad inaue no
ADEQUATE answer to the case presented asaihst
IT, and only withheld the granting or the VIII 20
give the company more time to CONFORM, 20 the
law which he so clearly enunciated probably IN
the reasonab BILE hope that that would sunlce with
out resort to the coercive power OF the people
however. / shall quote from a case decided upon
aDneal by the Supreme Court In this State In
isss after mature deliberation. and which Is
authority which am bound to follow. even though
I we're not of the same view, and which, need
scarcely say the corporation now before this
court Is bound to acqulesce In for examples
sake IL for other reason That case arose out
of the failure Of the NewYork Central and Hud-
son River Railroad Company to receive and for
ward freight common carrier. The language
Of the court Is as follows According to the state
mont of the case, a body OF laborers, acting In
concert fixed a price for their labor and refused
10 work a less price. The respondents (the rail-
road company fixed a price for the same work
and refused to pay more. In doing this neither
did an act vioative OF any law, or subjecting
either to any penalty. The respondents had law
fu right to take their ground In respect OF the
price to be paid, and adhere to 1t. II they chose;
but II the consequences OF doing 50 were an ina