New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1896-05-23
RAPID TRANSIT DELAYED.
ADVERSE DECISION OF THE APPELLATE
DIVISION OF THE SUPREME COURT.

THE MOTION TO CONflkM Iht hrf'hi w 80.
SPECIAL COMMISSION DENIED. ALL THE
JUDGES CONFERENCE.-THE QUESTION
OF COST NOT PROPERLY coNsIp-
ERED-No APPEAL POSSIBLE
All hope for underground rapid transit In TINS
city for a long time TO come was destroyer py
decision which was handed down yesterday oy the
Appellate Division Of the Supreme Court INC
Board OF Rapid Transit Commissioners faiied 10
get the consent OF property in Broadway
for the proposed underground railroad. and the
General Term Of the Supreme Court appointed
snec,aI commission consisting Of Frederic q.
coudert George Sherman and William H. Gel
shenen 10 take testimony and report upon the ad-
Visibility Of building the road according 10 the
routes which had been laid out and the plans
which had been adopted. The special commis-
sion some time ago reported In favor OF building
the road On the motion TO the Appellate piNi-
sion OF the Supreme Court to confirm the report OF
the special commission. A. B. Boardman ana Ed
ward NJ Shepard. argued the case Tor the Kappa
Transit Commissioners. and Elihu Root. franHhh
partle,t and other lawyers opposed the notion
In the decision announced yesterday the motion
was denied.
Two opinlons on the subject were handed down.
Presiding Justice Van Brunt wrote one opinion
all other Justices OF the court concurring' IN
which the report o. the special commission ~
criticised and disagreed with mainly on the
ground that questions Of the possible cost OK the
underground railroad were rot properly cohsiu-
cred. The other opinion written by Justice Rum-
sey all the other Justices OF the court concurring'
declares that the plans did not provide for com
plete system OF rapid transit while they would
raouire roo vast an expenditure OF money ana Tor
those and other reasons the Court cannot permit
the bulldng OF the road without the consent OF the
propery-owners
CITY officials. lawyers and members OF the
Board Of Rapid Transit Commissioners said yes
terday that there could be no appeal from the de-
c,s,or hec,use no questions Of law or constitu-
tional questions were raised in the opinions but
only questions OF fact. and a decision OF the Ap-
p,late Division Of the Supreme Court on ques-
ton OF fact cannot be reviewed by the Court OF
Appeals The Board Of Rapid Transit Comns-
sloners will meet on Monday to face the si'uauo"'
but they may not decide % turn their ateh'on "
other mans or other routes for some time. Some
~ the city officials said It was to be des"en ."a'
the elevated railroad lines be extended and their
facilities ncrea sed a. soon possible In order TO
r,ee, the growing demands u the public Tor rspo
transit one effect of the decision yesterday was
- send up the stock Of the Manhattan Elevated
Railway two points
THE DECISION.
The opinion OF Presiding Justice Charles H. van
Rrunt. which was concurred in by Justices George
r parra,, william Rumsey. Pardon c. Williams
and George L. Ingraham. was In part rs loNo"s'
THE Roara Of Rapid Transit Commissioners haVs
adopted a route and general plan. and having iars r
20 obtain - me he onseo.ed d wsys made application
70 the General Term FOR the appointmen, or com,
m'onSrs as pyogs5se IS iCr 1883 e the GeSsra Term
appointed three commissioners 70 aetsrm,ne v % ne
re6aor, after due heAring. whether the ralWay us
eep,ne9 upon by the said Board and mentioned n
their petition ought TO be eonstruelsa eH' th m.
hearing OF the matters referred 20 them. on MatSn
g. reported to mi. conr, ,hs III y yysnor,sd that
opinion and thereby determined ana ps tspTts'Tr, T,a,s
ne route proposed by the Board " Kappa RAM -
Commissioners ought TO be aaoRIe1R; Rosrd I'd oush, to
be constructed and operated -. a., 49,.
The commissioners at'sr sPenei's t hn question OF
the cost and the manner Of ouG.ns ana 9pess.,n5 ,,5
- Nor renort that any conclusion which trey s9ula
arrive AT in respect TO the probaDs cos mo't -,
~, ,t,ing aside entirely the question of cost ana
i5oking upor the questions reterrei 20 th.in sos
~, an1insaring problems II Il the hrst uhe' Ns
a. Az IN ,he history Of any great enterprise tnat
,"% Sn Guestion Of practlcabity dd not include ths
consdsraSn a. cST ss FSr H@rs WHEN oS You intending
10 bud tower siteth not d9wn rcsrf m, ~ ansh III
les, hapy after he hath lad me % =. "o S
not able finish Il. al ihat oeholn e s,d VAS moi,
/ n m. ~aNlhH,
abe - finish.
AN ALI.-IMPORTANr QUESTION
:, tho oues,ion Of cos, not 10 be considered oy
..asa commissioners Il Is difficult TO see "na'
question was before them. The Leslsa'uie "''' ~ nv
| -. had both spoken very emphaticaly upon 'no
question Of the desrabity Of rapid transit aha "
well known tn' conno, solve provided there are
ssnrars enough behind 1t to meet the ehpense q,
~ IL ia urged upon the part OF Nht IT,. IT,, ra,ss
bu home that the propery-owners cannot ra,s' ,n
the objection as 70 CO.,, on ~ Ina, question II IL
..n,r,r, that this a failacy. ne ohll 49,.
ton which can pr9ospy nse and ecsess of sbuiiins
owners 10 their property when the W ~, 4, an
5 Vii be completed within reasonanNse N MI, MI. .
after l,s commence cement. ~ tne.s t = "a 4 tbe can
Inat I,,ion ~ mis- road will drag its weary lehgt
along Tor time which no man can a
Ios,ss of the wreck OF the ciiys nnanees ana tns
Intervention Of Nan Te. IN TO the prop
ar,Y of abuting owners for which they can never
be eomrpbns The conclusion arrived the commits
.ioaers appointed by thi, court sex 20
Term when a former scheme OF rapll uins" & va VA
before IL In doing they seem 70 nAye lost s,sn,
S rars 9s a'' ia every very feature the which wa:
then before the court In re use ,o ,ss
Commissioners DO TO pro,ee, the ry ana ~
abutng owners was 20 take a'r sfeur as N ne
course OF the work IN case the contractor tssa ,s
10 comply with his contract me no1r' nnonciai
one and that Il might safely assume mat the com.
| missioners would take SUFFICIENT security az Ie"st
,n nnt the erect I'm s then present condition In
csse ~ the failure OF the contractor % complete the
S, u "a "a. n capitalists would their own
y,sk pndrrtake the enterprise they should be al
lowed t6 DO So
AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT CASE
In the case at bar. however the problem u an
solutely different. II Is the ctys money which ~
TO be spent And 1t IL 10 be observed that 10 view
OF the obligations already Incurred by the CITY TOT
work In progress It Is difficult 20 see how money can
bc nroyded 10 meet the engineers estimates OF
the cost o, this work. In consequence OF the con-
et,tntlona prohibition against the creation OF debt.
and II the work was commenced II would be Inn
possible for the city to raise funds necessary for