New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1897-12-19
THE QUESTION or THE BOND.

Prolonged study of the rapdtransit decision
was not essential to n comprehension OF the
fact that its most embarrassing feature is the
requirement of stipulation on the part OF the
Rapid Transit Commission to exact an indem-
nifty bond of Sl50OO,OOO from the bidder to
whom the contract may be awarded. Commits
sioners. counsel and spokesman for capitalists
agree that this condition is an extremely serl-
Gus matter under the most favorable interpreta-
tion and that the court may give it meaning
which will be absolutely prohihitive. If a bond
to that amount covering only the period Of con-
struction is intended a contractor capable OF
furnishing it may he found Snch a bond run
ming through the term of the lease cannot pos
sibly be given 1t Is therefore OF the first i'm
portance 10 ascertain the meaning of the de-
cislon as soon as possible. and the Commission
will doubtless endeavOr to do so.
In the mean time il is question OF interest,
though perhaps not of immediate practical I'M
portance. whether the Court did not err in as
Stunning the right TO require such n stipulation
AS n condition precedent to Its approval OF the
favorable report. The law which precisely de-
fines the powers and duties Of the Rapid Tran
sit Commission provides that 'the person. firm
"Or corporation so contracting for the construc-
"tion, equipment, maintenance and operation or
"said road shall give bond to said city In such
amount rs said Board Of Rapid Transit Com
"missioners shall require, and with suretes 10
"be approved by said Board who shall justify
"in the aggregate in double the amount OF said
"bond" Thus the whole question of security
for faithful performance Of the contract Is
left exclusively TO the commissioners. to he
decided by them in accordance with their best
Judgment OF what the welfare OF the city re-
uuires The power so conferred Is an exceed
ingly important one inasmuch as upon its eXer-
else the success or failure Of their labors might
depend. as the general reception Of the Courts
decision forcibly suggests. There Is nothing in
the act to indicate that the Appellate Division
was expected to dictate 10 the Board in any
matter of detail. 1t was authorized to confirm
or reject, finally and as whole the report OF
its commissioners. That it has power to do
more than this we do not for the present deny
but we cannot believe that the Legislature in
tended that under a species OF compulsion the
Rapid Transit Board should be induced 10 re-
linqush the exercise OF a power specifically
conferred upon it and to exact bond when
It's best judgment disapproved as being pre)u
dicial to the interests of the city.
II the jurisdiction OF the court properly eX-
tends so far, it might apparently be held to
have no limit If the Court Is justified In fixing
the bond it might, for aught we see, have I'M
posed any other conditional maximum bid, for
example or the adoption OF particular motive
power. or the resignation OF an obnoxious Com
missioner Its construction of It's duty Is the
more ANNOYING as we may say with entire re-
spect for the Court, by reason OF the fact that
in general estimate the learned judges adj
miraby qualified as they are to determine ques-
tons OF law, not nearly so well fitted to
decide broad practical questions OF business as
are many Of the sagaclous and successful men
Of affairs whose judgment they dstr1lst