New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1904-11-30
PREVENTS BIG MERGER.
j. S. Lehmaier Says Decision Blocks
Unifcati0n of Traction Interests.

James s. Lehmaier. chairman Of the executive
committee of the Transit Reform Committee Of
One Hundred. which for the last two years
has been making the fight for free transfers in
this city, said last evening in relation to the de
cisions of the Court Of Appeals in the transfer
cases:
These decisions are of far reaching importance not
fers at intersecting points OF the multiplicity or
lines owned or leased by the New-York City or In
terurban Railway Company and the Brooklyn Rapid
Transit Company, well as street surface lines
in other cities of the State but also because these
DECISIONS agk the ch=eShng = OF %paT WoGI onnpeiv
controlling the entire system OF surface railways IN
The fight for free transfers has been a long one
the part of committee. and the opposition on
treey bitter The victory is especially gradf{{ng {g
a body of men actuated only by a desire TO serve
the public, and compelled TO raise all OF us own
funds. can conduct successful and rational cam
pagn against corporations with abundant means to
present their side Of litigation to the best ad-
vantage and in such fight can secure the services
of able and public spirited members Of the bar WITH
In reply to the brief submitted to the Court OF
Appeals by committee counsel for the Brooklyn
results OF decsion aqteTse 20 Sne
a combination OF Manhattan and Brooklyn railroad
The decision undoubtedly accomplshes this result,
and II Is doubtless subject for congratulation that
there is immediate prospect of the greater city
of New-York being in the control of one gigantic
railroad combination. except at the price OF free
transfers from Brooklyn to Manhattan and vice
versa II the railroad corporations are willing 10
pay such price there may be some alienation in
such combination.
/ have not seen the entire text of the court
opinions but it appears that the court has held
that only penalty may be sued Tor ana re-
covered in a single action and that the bringing
Of such action is waiver of all penalties that
NAV heretofore have accrued because OF previous
refusals This of course. will cut down very
materially the sums of money which plaintiffs in
speculative penalty suits expected to recover and
incidentally will doubtless affect the compensation
which number Of lawyers expected.
our committee work has been confined to estab-
fishing the principle and securing the result for the
public generally-not for any specific individuals
It NAV however, he said that there appears to be
nothing in the courts decision which will prevent
an individual from brin ging action one day
in future for refusal of transfer and another
action upon the succeeding day for another refusal
The only way in which the railroad corporation
prevent multiplicity of actions hereafter Is to
obey the law. The law declared is clear and
compels the giving of transfers. Further dis
obedience of the law will be costly TO the railroad
corporations
Henry A Robinson. Of counsel for the New
York City Railway Company, would not talk
about the effect of the decision last, night be-
cause he had not seen the opinion handed down
by the court.