New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1904-12-02
KEEP TRANSFERS BACK.
MORE SUITS TO FOLLOW
Passengers Call on Each Other to
Witness RefuSals.

"wiil it be cheaper to pay the penalty for
| every transfer refused or to give transfers"
According to the attorneys wko have kept
closely in touch with the transfer fight in this
city, il tine question: yvtIich CoufronIsS the
New-York City Railway Company. Those who
investigated Yesterday believed that the COM
pany had not yet decided what stand it would
take.
a Tribune reporter who boarded a crosstovn
car in Twenty-third-st, yesterday and demanded
transfer TO Broadway received this answer:
we don't transfer TO Broadway. but YOU can
have your nickel back"
A the reporte" not making test cases
and he had already ridden to Broadway on
the crosstown line, he walked down Broadway
2 few blocks and boarded an uptown car He
asked for a transfer to Twenty -third-st. The
transfer was refused. and when the reporter
asked for his nickel back the conductor enjoyed
q good laugh.
At other points in dispute the transfers were
likewise refused. The Third-ave. line did not
issue transfers to Twenty-third or Fifty-ninth-
st In Harlem the several points where the
public have insisted on transfers were as void
of free tickets before the decision of the
Court of Appeals.
That the continuation Of such policy is going
to be expensive 10 the New-York City Rail
way Company was evidenced yesterday by the
number Of passengers who boarded cars de-
manded transfers, were refused and called on
other passengers to witness this refusal. IN
each instance a suit will be brought against the
company for the $50 penalty.
Many of those who went through the necessary
formahties of a demand and Witnessed refusal
declared that they had read in The Tribune
that they had a right to bring at least one suit
a day, and that they intended doing so until
the company capitulated.
1t was evident that no orders had been sent to
conductors by President Vreeand or his super
lntendents. The conductors showed signs of
nervousness when passengers who demanded
transfers called for witnesses and took the num-
bers OF the conductor and the car. In several
instances which came within the notice of the
reporter, the conductors said that they would
give transfers if the transfers read right The
company which does the New-York City Rail
way Company's printing will have to strike off
new blocks of transfers before the company can
comply with the law, or order must be issued
that conductors disregard the instructions on
the face of transfers.
The full text of the decision of the Court of
Appeals reached the attorneys interested in the
case yesterday. One OF counsel for the transit
reform committee of one hundred said
Mr.. Vreeland says tina "for more than a year
that is, since the committees work had shown
that the free transfer right would probably ulti-
mately be establshed) his company has been
transferring almost point involved in
the recent litiga ton" He seems to assume that
a single transfer from TO another is
G! ough TO satisfy The statute, and that after
one transfer has been granted 10 passenger he
is not entitled TO any more, although one trans
fer may not be enough to carry him 10 his des
tination. The free transfer right estab-
lished goes far beyond this and transfers are
now being refused all over the city 10 which
the passenger is entitled.
For instance suppose that man wants to go
from Eightieth-st. and Broadway TO Eightieth-
St and La.Xington-ave. He must take the
Broadway car TO Columbus Circle transfer to a
Fifty ninth st. going east and then trans
fer again TO a LexingtOn-aVe. car going north.
He is entitled free transfers at both points,
but does not get them, because the company un-
lawfully refuses TO transfer man south. then
east, then north. The same man may want 10
go from Eightieth-st. and Broadway to Eigh-
t!eth-st. and Elghth-ave. He is entitled TO take
the Broadway car to Columbus Circle and trans
fer north in Eighth-ave., but the company does
not allow him to do IT,
This was recognized by all the counsel on the
argument OF the Griffin case. Mr.. CraVath. Tor
the railroad company. said that If the respond
ents contention is sound there is no limit TO the
continuous trips which passenger Would be
able to make over the lines owned by or leased
TO that company (the metropolitan company.
Our committees brief agreed that TINS was the
position taken. although conceoing that the trip
must be by some reasonable route. ana NOBODY
can demand ride about the arc of circle or
Continued second page