New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1897-11-28
WAITING To HEAR FROM COURT
IF TIE APPELLATE DIVISION FAVoRs
UNDERGROUND TRANSIT ITS DE-
CIsfON NOT LIKELY TO BE
DELAYED LONG

Tho question Of constructing underground rail-
ways I'm New-York having been presented 10 the
Appcllaie Division. many thousands OF people are
waiting with keen interest for the opinion OF the
Court 20 be handed down How long the Judges
will need TO MAKE UP their minds no one can sur
mse but r. Will require some time II they under
take to examine even cursorily. the voluminous
testimony taken by tho special commission. The
Rapid Transi, Commissioners and the large num-
her o, citizens who are convinced that the city's
only hope Of rapid transit lies In underground con
sirucon arc hopeful OF an carly decision. In case
tho court determines 20 approve the favorable re-
port Of the commission.
According 10 q man who Is In n position 10 be
welt Informed II the decision % the Appellate D'vi-
sion Is held back ,or some time II will indicate one
~ two thiugs-either That an advers" ruling II to
bc made requiring tho preparation OF an elaborate
opinion or that the judges have not been able TO
gree and that opinions. both affirmative and dir-
.ruting. are being prepared
CO., unanimous opinion Is OF course. what We
should Ike" said this man. but a majority oP'"-
ION I'm favor OF the construction OF the proposeu
roads VIII T.. a good deal better than an opinion
on the other side II the Court II unit In FAVOR
- On. rand Transit commissioner PLAN II Is n"t
uk.l- IN take great deal Of time before an
rounrlrg the decision, hut n II u on the oth''
-d. OF " tho Judges ar" divided, they VIII nave
I'm .o oy.r IA. testimony with good DEAD ~ care
i'm ur,.,riug their opinions. so a good many OF
s rrrc honing FOR an early decision, and II II does
mo-, come our hope Will gradually decline:
is the decision OF IN" Appellate DIVISION NM
or can there be appeal TO the court OF last re-
sort asked. -. - a.,
so far ns the facts are concerned" was the
reply The decision Of the Appellate judges WIZ De
anal bat on points Of Law an appeal would lie.
1h,f q, 10 say the Court of Appeals could not 70
ylrN "A finding by the Appellate DIVISION IN FAVOR
- underground construction. nor could an appeal
A.. made ON the ground that such construction
might involve an expenditure 80 large as 10 pass
beyond the constitutional dept limit or me cly.
.c~, az facts. to which IA" Appellate DIVISION
In no las II ~ nv hut sIcn an appeal
would not prevent the RPpd transit COMMISSION
from going on with the awarding oi Inc contract
rnr would II prevent the contractors from btElh-
ming theIr work a decision 10y tn" Court or APP
m,,Is bowcvcr that the law had not been com.
,i,cJ With Al some stage OF the proceedings would
uuility although 1t might not touch the merits or
Is soon as the expected favorable decision Is
handed down the Rapid Transit commissioners
arc fulIy prepared 10 push things ana no time
an n. ost i'm ADVERTISING for bidders for the iran
hisn From tho Information that has come 20
,ben they are confident that NJ least one Dlu VIII
no made and Il Is not unlikely that thete may p
more than one Some people near IN" INSIDE
nro however inclined to the opinion tnAt thoSs
who contemplate putting In bids VIII not procevu
9th the policy Of cutting each other tnroats put
viii pooi their Issues" with the result thht only
single bid Will be forthcoming iheE POM out
,hat the undertaking will be OF such masnituue hs
70 enlist the efforts OF several concerns " ln'. =
arc 40 many considering the question or Trying 10
secure the contract and that ~ VIII pe WIS.,, 'u
hem 10 work In harmony. The RuDnc VIII pe
nnrofected i'm any case, since the Rapid transit
commissioners will not accept any bld tha' ~ not
reasonable.