New-York tribune., 1902-09-13
COMMENT ON HACK DECISION
HOLDERS OF STAND PRIVILEGES DIS
APPROVE JUSTICE STECKLER'S
RULING

The decision of Justice Steckler in the s1preme
Court on Thursday continued to cause comment
among stablemen and hack drivers Yesterday The
drivers of unattached cabs consider the interpreta
ton put upon the law most Illuminating of the
rights of individuals against holders of monopoies
Privileged stables look decision as in error
and against the plain meaning of city ordinances
the subject.
Justice SteCkler has not been careful in this de-
cison,' said stable manager Ito master the
rights allowed by the CITY, at least if he has been
correctly reported. The city allows private stands
for cabs. But Justice SteckIer says no such right
be granted. if I read his meaning rightly Now
that upsets the whole basis of legisla ton on the
subject. judge is not supposed to make law. but
to interpret it
At the offices of William H. Seaich No 50 East
Thirty-second-st. it was not thought that the de-
clson would affect Mr. Seach's privileges in front
of the Waldorf-Astoria The decision applies to
Rector's, not TO the city large" said an en-
ploye of the firm "Of course such decision might
be precedent for Others but this in itself will not
affect u.s. The bearing of the decision is hard to
understand, anyhow 1t seems to have been the
situation at RectoTs that the management had
given contract to some cab company to keep cabs
for the convenience of their guests. People go to
the restaurant, and after having a snack want to
go home. They step out and liveried attendant is
the sidewalk to put them into cab. Suppose
they are known-have account at the house.
They step into cab and are driven home. and
count. Any big hotel or restaurant ought to be
able to care for its guests in this fashion Now.
what is the result? Independent hacknen drive up
and occupy the entire space in front of the door.
calling for passengers The attendant is BILE to
get one of his own cabs up to the curb. If it is
bad weather, say. with snow on the ground that Is
all wrong. On the face of it that is injustice to
the restaurant management, which tries TO give its
patrons proper and satisfactory service and the
company which is under contract to supply such
service But the rights in the further
safeguarded than by general sense of justice.
for the company holding the contract obtains
licenses from the city to keep cabs standing in
front of that curb. and pays yearly charge of SO
for each cab so maintained Now. suppose a news
paper dealer gets license maintain a stand at
the edge of the sidewalk there many
throughout the city. and pays the required amount
for such license. and some other newsdealer
comes along and says he has right to the public
sidewalks. and applies u justice of the court for
an injunction to restrain him. Isn't that about the
same thing? Or. suppose you have shop and a
lot of fruit venders station their pushcars UP in
front of your door. that customers drive
That's the situation.
"Of course. the rowing hackmen want to have the
privilege of standing in front of large hotels or
restaurants If they can get IL. They pay some
thing like 81 year for their license and IT is less
expensive than taking a license for a private
stand. They have the right to stand in specified
public hackstands various parts of the city, and
they keep moving through the streets Offering
their services to paSsers by But there is no sense
in saying that they have the right on that sort
of license to stands that the city has granted
private stands to holders of different ana
higher priced license