New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1896-05-23
THE RAPID TRANSIT DECISION.

Inpre seems 10 De no limit 10 the IPDuuS anu
embarrassments which NewYork is destined TO
encounter in trying to obtain its chief necessity
and ardent desire The latest obstacle and per-
haps the most serious. In the way of Rapid
Transit is the rejection by the Appellate d.
vision of the Supreme Court Of its commissions
ers' report in favor of the plan for underground
roads adopted by the Rapid Transit Commission.
There is no doubt that this decision was sur
prise TO the men who have been long and faith
fully endeavorng TO execute a great public task
committed to them in general terms by the Legis-
lature of 1894 and subsequently ordered to be
executed in a particular manner by the people
at public election. Nor is there any good rea-
son to suppose that popular opinion has so
changed as to make this sudden calling Of halt
agreeable to the community. We believe, on the
contrary, that keen and increasing dsappont-
ment will be caused by the conviction that the
Tammany- Manhattan combination has won an
important, if not a decisive, victory. OF course
we shall not be misunderstood as implying that
any vestige Of suspicion rests upon the learned
Judges of the Appellate Division. Beyond doubt
they have decided the grave question brought be-
fore them conscientiousy, and beyond doubt
their decision runs counter to public sentiment
as deliberately expressed by large majority OF
voters
As we understand the matter there Is nothing
TO appeal, and so far as it goes the Judgment just
rendered is final Failing to obtain the requisite
consent Of property holders to its plan Of opera
tons. the Rapid Transit Commission invoked the
alternative authority of the Supreme Court I'M
der law. The three commissioners of the court,
after a protracted and exhaustive hearing. unani-
mously sustained the plan In due order. but
fnrr Than off, Inst
it was supposed, their report went 10 the Appel
late Division, and its confirmation conf
IDENTIFY expected Concurrently some questions
of law We're presented, but they are not touched
in this decision by the court, which concerns it.
self exclusively with facts, or at least with facts
plus surmises. and upon them renders a judg-
ment of incxpedlency. fpoints Of law had been
involved, it would he cheerfully conceded that
the Judges Of the Appellate Division were pre-
sumptively qualified In a special degree TO deter
mine them. But because points Of law were not
involved there is no dlsrespect or improperly in
saying that Judge Van Brunt and his colleagues
possess only an accidental authority in the case
and are not better equipped to decide it than
thousands of other intelligent citizens. Indeed,
we think it may be acknowledged without dis
paraging these five distinguished occupants of
the Bench that their opinion as 10 the advantage
of using the city's credit In the construction Of
rapid-transt underground roads in accordance
with the conditions Of the law and the plans Of
the Commission Is somewhat less valuable and
convincing than the opinion Of men of long cX-
perience and conspicuous success In great az
fairs, who have an enormous personal stake in
the prosperity Of the city and It's financial sta
bility-of men, for example, like Mr.. Hewitt Mr..
Steinway and Mayor Strong. Or 10 come in
sense within the bounds Of the court itself. we
cannot concede that its decision has greater in
trinsic weight than that of It's commissioners.
Messrs. Coudert. Sherman and Gelshenen, who
investigated the projected undertaking with
scIupulOus regard to every right and interest az
fected and agreed that 1t ought to be authorized.
The jurisdiction OF the court Is undcnable. but
few persons supposed that ii would be exercised
TO overthrow conclusions so aborOusly reached
and so firmly founded on reason and public
opinion.
To us il seems an infinite pity that so much
money, effort and anxious care as have been de-
voted TO this project, In loyal obedience to a
mandate Of the Legislature and the people, by
citizens Of the highest reputc for recttude and
sagac.ty should be so largely wasted, when the
want which they have tried to supply is so dis
tressing and costly. or course the Rapid
Transit Commission Is not obliterated by the
decision OF the Appellate Division. Ii still pos
sesses all the original powers with which 1t was
invested, and must endcavor TO employ them for
the benefit Of the community. But 1t has prac-
tically been placed. without fault of its own in
an awkward and embarrassing position. 1t can
in theory proceed to make new plans, as if moth
ing of an unfortunate character had happened;
but il Is bound to consider what would presum-
ably occur II il should repeat on somewhat diff
ferent lines the process which has once come to
grief. At the best long delay confronts the
the worst. Moreover, there is this particularly
battling obstacle now in the way of further at
tempt that questions involving the constitution
atty Of the Rapid Transit act are pending and
that while they are kept open nothing can hope
fully or. perhaps properly be done Ii WAS cx-
pccted that n decision on these points would be
rendered at this time II not earlier and that the
validity OF the law would soon be settled on APP
peal The question Of constitutonality ought
not to be left undetermined as bar to every
mode of progress, merely because progress on
this particular line has been blocked.
In some quarters the Rapid Transit Commits
sion has been treated from the first too much
as II 1t were band OF adventures endeavorlng
to promote some private advantage by discredit-
able methods, instead Of public body laboring
unseAshly to promote the public welfare. The oD-