New-York tribune., 1906-04-27
CHICAGO ROADS APPEAL
ASK FOR 4 REHEIRING.
Traction Com panies Ask Supreme
Court 10 Reopen Case They Lost.

washington. April GA petition for rehear-
.-r in the Chicago traction cases was filed to-
A. ia The SUPREME Court OF the United States
!, hebolf 81 The streetca- companies.
rrs,er reasons are given for seeking an oppor-
.,s,- 10 present the case again. The first is
.ts+ -be courts construction OF the words CON
.,,,ss ~ force during the life hereof IN the
.,,o-s section of the act Of the Illinois Legis-
,,.u-s 3f 1865 s. contrary 10 The Interpretation
-,,,er 70 that act for forty years by the city OF
,-eiosro Another criticism il based the
.,s,ernert that I'm constituting the act in ques-
.,or --he court has enormously assumed that
-. mower Of the Common Council 20 establish
.i,,s limitations Of street occupancy involves
20, merely the power 10 limit the duration OF its
own r7r--acts but also the power TO exclude
,rs s1arr!sa by The General Assembly Of Illinois
~ ,re reusry authority conferred upon IL by
ne constitution Of the state"
,-,r.errior is made that the court entirely
r-,sarprs hended the public policy surrounding
.hs s-sctnert ~ the state laws OF 1859 and
rSes cha~re-fuc -he streetcar companies and the
,-s3Dsrcos of tho city Of Chicago bearing on the
s,h,elr. O-he- reasons given are: That the court
o,.-lookea IRE third section of the act OF 1865;
,As. the words rights and privileges" are con-
fre5 ~ -rose rights and privileges granted by
l,rv ordinance: that the court held that legisla-
,io- was needed I'm transferring franchises: that
q. Was held that contracts made under the com
,,s-ias. charters contained in themselves time
limits and that il held that the uinety-nine-
,sa- tern had not been recognized before nor
sr,sr 1855
TIE petition is signed by John G. Johnson.
John s NtIe- Joseph s Auerbach and Breinard
ToUes. counsel for the companies. IN their brief
In support ~ their contention they say.
Only st rar, intervals does a case involving
such vast financial interests as the present con-
t-oversy come before even the Supreme Court
- the United States, and rarely, IL ever. has
such complete disaster resulted from one 81 its
DECISIONS
hasn Interested in these corporations time out OF
mind bur investments lately made upon the
fsi,h o. what had been recognized for nearly forty
years TIE sole possible Interpretation Of the
aCt a 1865, amounting 10 scores OF millions OF dol
lars are 10 al intents and purposes obliteTa ted
without opportunity afforded TO counsel ot
being heard on the precise point upon which the
court has based its conclusions.
The decision Of the court in this case rests
up0n theory Of construction Of the statute Of
1865 NOT advanced OF opposed either in briefs
or IN 0Tal argument by any OF the counsel. and
arrived ar therefore without being subjected 70
'he test ~ Argument and discussion outside Of
the council chamber of the court
Thev sav that the court has ruled against
them only as 70 the application Of the words in
the a., y 1865 and not as % their meaning
They say
We are not only % the opinion but We are
convinced that the conclusion thus arrived al
fz The court has arisen from a serious misap-
-shersiou n the facts contained in this Toun-
iu1Es record
II under the original charters of 1889 and 1851
.re right - pass exclusion ordinances and 10
rescuate streets 70 the future limits Il the city
was nor within the delegation of authority from
me LEGISLATURE 10 the rGunlCips liJy as might be
ls sfr~ed 4 WIS not. The act of 1855 ratified and
.0urrrned the sets n the agent as completely
rs z Original authority therefor had been eX-
I~assly conferred.
For The furu-P nothing was left IN doubt
The s~r uct only operated 70 extend the life
~ the corporations. but also 10 vest IN them
during their extended sife al the powers and
authority expressed in their charters and which
had become vested IN them under the terms of
their charters