The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1905-06-21
r. T. BOARD INTERVIEWS.
rs Counsel File Briefs in the Aidermen's
Injunction Suit.

The Board OF Rapid Transit Railroad
Commissioners, by leave OF the supreme
Court, yesterday interviewed in the SUIT
against George B. Mcclellan and others,
instituted in the name OF Clermont II.
Wilcox, not as party plaintiff or defend
ant, but a. dmicus curiR.
Permission OF this kind is granted only In
unusual cases involving great public in
terests on which the conscience OF the court
needs nlghtenment As this case OF Wilcox
is understood to be the case by which Tim
Sullivan and the Board Of Aldermen are,
(under the disguise Of testing the constitu-
tionallty Of the recent legislation deprving
them Of their holdup power to tie up the
development OF rapid transit in New YORK
city indefinitely and secure the present
subway monopoly as long as the litigation
can be kept alive. the court has granted
to George l.. Rives and Boardman. Platt
4 Solely. attorneys for the Board OF pid
Transit Railroad Commissioners. the I'M
usual privilege Of enlightening tine courts
conscience a. to what is really behind this
inoffensive looking taxpayers suit.
Printed briefs were handed yesterday
to Justice Blanchard, before whom is pend
ing the application Of Wilcox for an in
junction restraining the Board of Estimate
and Apportionment from acting on the
other things, the counsel for the Rapid Tran
sit Boacd say: AS the argument that the
law depriving the Board of Aldermen OF
power IL constitutional will be fully pre-
sented by the Corporation Counsel, 1t is
unnecessary for us to elaborate upon 1t.
Opinions have been rendered to the same
effect by Edward NJ Shepard, Elihu Root
Judge Charles F. Brown. William c. Dewitt
and others
The brief continues: Not only will the
interests of the city be injuriously affected
by the granting of an injunction IN TINS
case. but the interests OF the plaintlh VIII
be in no respect advanced. We assume
that the plaintiffs theory is that 1t is con-
trary to his interests as a taxpayer and to
the interests of the city that any roads
should be built until the constitutionality
of the act in question has been judicially
should be denied at the present time, there
ia not the slightest practical risk that any
final step can be taken toward the building
Of road until ample time has elapsed
for hea ring before the Appellate Court.
THE act which is in question in this action
Is either constitutional or Unconstitutional.
II it is constitutional, then the Board OF
Estimate and Appointment ought not
to he enjoined from dealing with the routes
now before Nhem, Such delay would be
terests of all the people Of the city.
If the act ia unconstitutional and it
shall ultimately be 80 decided, the fact
that the Board OF Estimate and Appor-
tionment may have acted in the meantime
would not injure the plaintiff in any way
Their act would be mere nullity. and no
rights whatever can possibly have accrued
to any third party. under it.
In conclusion, the counsel respectfully
make the significant suggestion that 1t
the court shall deny the motion for, an
injunction. thus refusing to hold the leg
isiation to he unconstitutional. and yet
grant stay pending an appeal to the APP
plaintiff in making this motion will have
been accomplished. The rest Of the volulp-
nous brief is taken up with citations OF
the law