New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1897-12-18
TIE RAPID TRANSIT DECISION.

II seems fair TO conclude that the decision OF
the Appellate Division, confirming the report OF
the special commissioners. brings the CITY some
what nearer TO a realization OF rs nope Tor
rand transit through underground roads. How
much nearer It Is brought cannot be immediate
" determined that being question wmch
events will have 10 decide For the opinion
rendered By Justice Van Brunt, and concurred
IN by Justices Rumsey, Williams and Patter'
son. Justice Ingraham dissenting, Is not an ao-
solute confirmation Of the favorable report but
Is 10 have that effect only upon condition that
the Rapid Transit Commission supulate to ex
net for the protection Of the city bond or
s15 600 900 from the contractor to whom II may
award the franchise. That is a pretty heavy
penaltv. and the magnitude Of IL may seriously
disturb the calculations Of the syndicate which.
according TO general report. has prepared 10 bid.
Whether or not II will prove to be fatal OBJ
stacle remains to be seen. 1t IS doubtful II the
persons most closely concerned will be able TO
make up their minds on that point at once.
There Is another feature of the decision which,
while X does not directly impair the value OF
the confirmation, suggests the possibility OF n
formidable bar to progress Justice Van Brunt
and his concurr!ng colleagues hold that the as
sertion on the one hand and denial on the other
Of the city's constitutional competence to in
cur. in addition TO It's existing obligations an
Indebtedness equal 70 the cost OF executing the
plans of the Rapid Transit Commission involve
questions which ought to be decided by the
court OF last resort. and they add: "Thcse I'M
"certonties may upon some application in refer
"ence 70 the contract be cleared up, so that the
"exact truth in respect thereto may be known"
They were Of the opinion that these questions
should not be determined in the proceeding be-
fore them, inasmuch as no review OF an adverse
conclusion could be had. The implication
nevertheless appears 10 us 10 be that they in
cline to doubt the citys constitutional power to
increase It's Indebtedness to the amount pro-
posed. agreeing in that respect with Judge In
graham. but, unlike him. concluding that It was
not their duty to disapprove the report Of the
courts commissioners on that account How
ever thar may be. the opinion Enthusiastically sug-
rests the propriety OF further legal proceedings
and presumably. therefore, gives certain meas
ure of satisfaction to opponents of the rapid
transit scheme. But that Is not an extremely
important consideration, inasmuch as 1t has
been apparent Of late that the opposition would
emn,oy all available legal resources to embar
rass and II possible defeat the undertaking Al
that intention 1.-THE Brooklyn Eagle" which Is
likely 10 be we'll Informed on the subject d.
rectly pointed on Thursday IN the declaration
that the Court Of Appeals and the Supreme
Court OF the United States, II necessary, would
he invoked; though it is not quite clear how the
Jurisdiction OF the latter tribunal could be es
tablished.
II "a not now necessary to consider the dis
sent,nx opinion at length, since It belongs mere
II 70 the learned literature Of the case. though
a a mart of the ammunition Of possible future
proceedings IN the courts 1t may become o.
treat importance For the present 1t is enough
10 shy that the ruling opinion. though not en-