New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1903-02-20
FINES FOR N. S. R. CRUSH
COSBY WILL PROSECUTE.
old Ordinance Says s1OO for Each
Offence of Poor Service.

The committee on law and legislation of the
West Side Citizens Transit Reform Committee
of One Hundred has advised that committee
that under a city ordinance passed in 1870 the
street surface railroads are subject to penalty
of S1o0 recovera pIe by the city through the
Corporation Counsel, for each failure 10 run
sufficient cars to accommodate the public
Arthur F. Cosby, Assistant Corporation Coun-
sell said yesterday that if the committee would
collect evidence or if any reputable citizen
would make Il complaint and provide witnesses
he would prosecute the company. He added
that he would be glad to do al in his power to
aid the committee in the matter.
This ordinance said Mr. Cosby, covers the
overcrowding of cars. and 1 will push any COM
pIaint that is made.
The ordinance cited as passed January 3. 1890.
is as fellows:
The several city raiIrt nd companies now
running cars or of any the
streets in the city of Nev-Nork hereby
directed and required &c cause their cars to
he end operated On their tracks rs fire.
auentIy public COM -entence may require.
and than one eyery twenty min
ates between the hours of IL midnight and
q o clock ~. each and every day, both
rvays. fer the transportation of passengers
Each and ever, company VIII" shall neglect
refuse comply with the provisions of
Section Of this ordinance shall thereby in
penalty of SiD for each and every
sEch neg Siect or EeIDsCts va ne EeCbFeFtn DN
the Corporation Attorney, as ir the case of
other penoltie>-
The report OF the committee says further:
This ordinance is stiu IN force and effect We
find that this ordinance has been passed
upon by the courts n two cases. one. Mayor
gt. the New YORK and Harlem Railroad. where
in it was held that its provisions applied to the
cars run on Madison ave. between Eighty-sixth
and Nfpety-sixth sts
In the other case, that Of the Mayor agt.
the Dry Dock and East Broadway Railroad
Company. the franchise o6 the Dry Dock and
East Broadway Railroad Company contained
provision similar to that contained in the
Eighth-ave. franchise. The Court of Appeals
held that there was no doubt of the power Of the
city To pass such an ordinance The court fur
ther held that the fact that such an ordinance
was passed ny the municipal authorities was
in itself presumptive evidence Of its reason
ableness. and that the burden was upon the
railroad 70 show wherein its application to ex-
ising conditions was unreasonab BILE
The committee decIeres that this ordinance is
applicable to the E;ighth-ave. road. and its n-st
point of attack will be that line. 1t has under
taken 10 obtain evidence of neglect of the Inter
urban Street Railway Company 10 accommodate
the public. particularly on Sunday mornings
and Sunday afternoons.
The executive committee in its report says
also:
"As is well known. the present Interurhdn
Street Railway Company is the hnal comhiua-
tior of P series of mergers that brings into one
various franchises and charters, dat
ing from periods as far back as 1890. The char
ters and franchises are to he found in single
place We have found no place, no bureau. no
board no separate department in our city
charged with securing and preserving informa-
,ior sucb az vour committee required concern
ing the street surface railroads We urge the
creation of such a branch of our local city gov
ernmert . If.
-Tba' committee then submits long list Of pro
visions cuIIed from city ordinances ana state
laws compelling. found. the running or cars
as oftan as nossibIe and requiring the full ac-
cornmodation of the public