New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1897-12-18
PRICE THREE CENTS.
TRANSIT PLAN APPROVED
DECISION OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
OF THE SUPREME COURT.
BOND OF $4,000 600 REQUIRED oF rHK c"~-
TRACTOR QUESTIONS AFFECTING rHn
CTTYs DEBT-INcURRiNG POWER LETr
TO THE COURT or APPEALs-A
DISSENTING OPINION uY Us
TICE rNGRAHAN

TO THE COURT or APPEALS
DISSENTING OPINION nY Us
rIcE xGRAHAN
The Appellate Division Of the aurrsns -
yesterday handed down = decision affallrr
report OF its special Rapid Transit fnluH
mission. with one disssntns frfs
frmation is made dependent .suf'
films Of stipulaiion hy fff
Commission thA, III c.aiaZ .'''s
bond shall be liked a. flAo 'e'
gives as ts opinion .tsi -...., .''s.''.'N u.
cesded nv ~. 80 sr.t improvements No
ohu,.,,., .,..,. p to ths oity for such
s,csss IA, 80 = er'niop further states that
%. -. u ia sraer,ake and carry out
a.. -. ral'd transit have been well
s,..,s, /en. although The enterprise might
a., - cripple the city In other improve
Hrf
ne paint upon which the scope and immedi-
~ erect ~ the decision hang. in the opinion
oi ne counsel representing the Rapid Transit
Commission deals with the $l5000000 bond
stipulation. Edward VI. Shepard, one Of tho
counsel. In an interview printed in full further
on and had with him after he had consulted
with A. r. Boardman, also counsel Of the Com
mission. points out that doubt exists whether
the Court Intends 10 stipulate that the S15.0OO.-
600 bond shall be given for the period covering
the construction OF the road or for very much
longer period Of time covering the operation Of
the road II the latter Is intended. 1t seems In
MT Shepards mind, TO put end to all the
plans OF the Commission, since he believes that
no company or individual could furnish so un-
precedentedly large bond for such length Of
time. Mr.. Shepard. however, thinks the Court
intends the bond to cover only the time Of con-
struction. believing that the Justices do not re-
quire what is seemingly an impossblty
The Commission will meet to-day at noon. Il
seems unlikely that in view Of the existing doubt
1t will do more than to approve the form Of
contract drawn up by its special committee and
submit 1t to the Corporation Counsel for his
approval On Tuesday or Wednesday next the
Court will enter the usual order carrying its
decision into effect The counsel for the Com
mission will on that occasion submit to the
Court for its consideration form Of order en-
bodying their views as to the interpretations
of the stipulation regarding the bond. and it Is
expected that the Court will settle the terms
OF the order in such way 10 clear away all
uncertainty existing as TO this highly important
point. Another important point in the prevailing
decision tha; brings TO mind the possibilities OF
further litigation is the statemen: that the con-
tention that the city has no constitutional power
to incur obligations equal TO the cost OF con-
struct!ng the proposed road involves questions
that ought to be passed upon by the court Of
last resort"
THE COURTS DECISION
The prevailing opinion is written by Presi.
ing Justice Charles H. Van Brunt. Justices WILL
lam Rumsey Pardon 9 Williams and Edward
Patterson concurring Justice Ingraham wrote
rirgor
ion reads as follows:
transit in the city OF New-York has long been rec
1898 the people determined that there seemed 10
be i39 no other s means for rs accomplishment. Il
pledge OF the credit Of the city This necessity
TO to- have va addressed Itself 50 strongly to the
ment OF this end should be attained though the
proveynents IN might be ,hsre6y @ V I'M
IT. has been sais ID ina, nat tie peo5e nave no. BY their
G9gri bn, that +; was snolher scheme which
nn now IN unar many s SnS .ne
that reference 70 the history Of the rapd-transit
ther vote to any particular deta BY which m rapid
transit was to be obtained. but rather IN favor OF
a result to be reached in any manner which might
be found TO be practicable.
GRAVE QUESTIONS OF LAW INVOLVED
The presentation Of the plan now before tho
Court and the proofs and developments surround
Ing 1t constitute striking evidence Of the correct
ness OF the conclusions of this Court in condernna-
ton Of the previous scheme which was submitted
10 II. This plan however calling. as IL does for
IN expenditure OF from s2o.Ooo.oo0 10 slocc.ooo
ess than the scheme presented TO the Court before
'ti involves grave questions OF law the pos
bility OF its completion.
The report of the Supreme Court commissioners
oncedes and the arguments OF counsel in favor
# the application seem 10 admit that II the total
@ @ost Of the building OF the proposed rapid transit
this is ali the indebiedness Of the S city % OF New New.
% Is sssssloa e s;:u%s q sq sSs rs 9? Jaasa
Ssr:sr; the limit q indshSedhess VIII be exceeded:
asy as e the esa Of Oe ny %
sh;ch the Rapid Transit commissiopsr. might
Dad present serious questions OF law. which. in
ought i b not to be upon
n this application should come to conclusion
ch proposed Contract no reye% could be- hsd 81
3 discrimination. although involving only Ques-
1t is stated in the report OF the Supreme Court
commissioners that the susgestion that no contract
estimated i cost is not reasonable The % question IN
not open to dIscussion. and an examnation Of the
lthorites In this State upon the question OF what
lat this unreasonable proposition has very re-
Er S1 BE- cG 0 IN
rnsf , and
,ud from time to time be entered into for the
ason that every contract OF construction must
,cessariy embrace contract for the operation OF
e line by the constructing contractor. and TO have
e operation Of the rapid-transt system controlled
divers and various operators would OF itself
,cessarly absolutely condemn the scheme. Il
ould SEEM therefore. that the contract Initiating
g work must also contain provisions for its com.
elton and final operation IL Is proposed by de-
rrng construction and payment 10 throw (as Il In
ated) the indebtedness into future years and thus
vlate the constitutional objection
BY THE COURT OF LAST RESORT.
Il is further urged that considerable amount
the apparent indebtedness OF the city OF New.
,rk Is only imaginary. and not real: that for ex-
1ple. assessment bonds are outstanding which II
anticipated will in the future be paid by thu "a.
nt nr assessments for henehf lauIoA ma. -,