The sun., 1895-02-15
TR0LLEYS WIN IN ALBANY.
ATTORNEY GENERAL DECIDES
AGAINST Tine STRIK ERs.

The Application TO negin Salt 20 vscst,
the Charter OF the Road DeHicd, as .,
Also ths Appiicstion 90 BeRia Action.
te Remove Presidents Lewis aud Nortou
for vioIstio- OF the Tsn-hopr Law
ALBANY. Feb. 1I...In the matter OF the appli.
cation to the Attorney General to commence an
action TO vacate the charter OF the Brooklyn
Heights Railroad Company, Attorney General
Hancock in a long opinion, says;
II have examined with care the charges pre-
fsrred in this particular case for the purpose OF
determining whether the facts presented con-
stitute a cause Of action. or would Justify the
bringing Of suit to forfeit the corporate fran
chisc. IL is important to distinguish between
violations Of the law committed by individuals $
who are officers OF IA corporation aud Illegal acts
ehargeablo To n corporation itself 1t was
claimed upon the hearing that the officers Of the
corporation have required Its employees to labor
more than ten hours per day, in violation Of the
provisions OF the statutes regula. sing the hours
Of labor in street surface and elevated rail-
roads chartered by the state in cities
OF 100000 inhabitants and over. There
II fair ground for argument that 'cxCes.
sive labor exacted from railroad employees en-
gagged In the performance OF their important
and laborlous duties renders them less capable
of discharging tho tasks imposed upon them,
with the care which is necessary for the pro-
lection of the public, especially in the crowded
streets OF u large city, and tho officer OF II cor
poration who violates these provisions of law
is guilty of committing Gn offence injurious to
the public. the employees. and the corporation
itself. for which he is liable TO be punished by
both fine and imprisonment; and the public
interests In my judgment, require proper en-
forcement OF this statute. But such IA
condition of affairs constitutes no ground
whatever for bringing an action to annul the
franchise OF the corporation The law prescribcs
the penalty against the officer, ard not against
the corporation. In fact, this question has been
The Court says: That statute, by its terms, i'm
poses no duty on the corporation described in 1t.
stitute a days labor. and in its second section.
II max es 1t msdemeanor for any ofiice or agent
more than Che specified labor. both the pro.
hibition and the punishment are explicitly
Ha nat upon and the aFsns
acting in its corporate capacity. The remedy
for violation OF the statute is adequate and
enectual. since the corporation can only act
through officers and agents, and they are ut
once liable to punishment 4 the law is violated
II is plain that the prohibition and the punish
ment refer to the officers and agents OF tho cor
poraton, and not To the company acting in its
"hnother ground of the forfeiture suggested
ppon the argument was that the company cars
and assume greater than that prescribed by |
the ordinances of the city of Brooklyn. These
ordinances are common to every city. in the
State. and prescribe a penalty for their viola
tion, and much that has been said witt, refer |
snce to q violation OF the. ,Ten-horr law would |
be applicable to a failure 70 observe an
ordinance ordinance OF city regulating the rate |
within the bower % Of f't the oiiicias iMsS of " the b
city to protect the public by enforcing the laws |
power Of the Attorney General in the abs absence ie
OF some provision OF law establishing such
ground OF forfeiture to maintain an action 10
u, cars at what he may consider too great
1T has not been claimed upon the argument
that the mere non-user or failure to operate the
ears OF the defendant during the recent disturb
but II is urged thatthe officers of the corpoI alton
BY violation OF the provisions of ;he statute and
employees. resulting In the loss of the services
9f experienced men, and their places being filled
made itself susceptible to the charge Of wiliul
non-user. 1t was held by the Court in the case
@ IN sae sh les peS" MS%
one S.,.y year E is not sufficient ground for the
statute prescribes tie penalty against the offi.
GERS S who have violated the provisions OF the
Ten hour law. and limited the punishment to
Judgment It cannot be held that the corporation
saa f, be punished MS for any brief onnse result
OF the officers 1t seems to me that it would be
unreasonable to hold that while the corporation
statute itself it can be punished for the conse-
quences Of such aviolation.
franchise OF the corporation is that 1t employed
Of tho state in operating its cars
after the company had been deprived OF the
services OF its regular employees and my aiten-
tion has been called to the provision of section
41 OF the General Railroad law, which reads as
Any railroad corporation may employ any
lnhabitant OF the state of the age of u years.
not addicted to the use OF intoxicating liquors,
as car driver or conductor. or In any other ca
pacity, II ut and competent therefor
10 claimed that the Legislature meant in |
ana,y aea,sy 70 say IN using, the LANGUAGE above
Ploy only INHABITANTS OF the state 1t appears
% ns aas sne will mot permit Of such
.tantially In effect ever since 1865, and we be-
!ieve that this Is the first time that il has ever
tion shall be limited to the employment OF in
habtants OF the state of New York. No such |
provision was contained in the general railroad
act or 1880. and II was evidently intended to |
prevent cities from passing ordinances prohibit |
Ing street railroads from employing persons who
where the street car line was operated. The
law 10 neither mandatory nor prohibitory In its
While 1t appears from the statements made
2 me by the applicants upon the hearing that
The laws of the state and the city ordinances
m may =, have been violated by indiyiIuals. am
,atisned from consideration OF the facts pre- 4
tented by the petitioners that they are not suf-
icient to Justify the bringing of an action to
lnnul the charter of the corporation"
In the matter OF the application to commence
.ctions to remove the President OF the Atlantic
4 asea Avenus Railroad bur Company and the Pres;
Zen hour law. the Attorney-tienerai saws:
.erms violation OF the law. but the alIega- !
70 far as the Presidents are concerned, has not
appear from the Investigations now or here
lfter TO DO made that II can be established by
,omp mpanies have broken the law by exacting ex.
'esslve hours Of labor from their employees the
'ases will receive further consideration" {