New-York tribune., 1906-08-16
CORPORATE AND OTHER 1AwLEssNEss.

Our neighbOr The World" puts an extremely
pertinent and important question when it asks
with the emphasis of italics: rs New York to
be Law-ruled or Mob-ridden?" That is a uues-
ton which calls for the consideration not
merely of the Brooklyn Rapid Transit Com
pany, but of the passengers who are resorting
to disOrderly methods to establish supposed
legal right. The Borough President of Brook
lyn and some other officials, the great body of
writing and speaking demagogues and some
honest enthusiasts seem to be doing all they
can TO subject New York to mob rule. We are
told that the important issue of the day is
whether a lawless corporation can be made 10
"obey the law as laid down hy the courts"
An equally important issue is whether law
less crowd under the incitement of lawless Offi-
cials can be made to respect the law as laid
down by the courts. Is a perhaps laundering
and confused popular Interpretation of the con-
sequences of ii judicial opinion binding on a
corporation not party TO the litigation, and is
that Interpretation, whether right or wrong to
be enforced by mOb or by orderly admins
trative methods?
1t may be that the Court of Appeals will de.
eide that the legal fare to Coney Island is five
cents Perhaps the Appellate Division was
wrong in the Barnett case and Justice Cav
nors Obiter dicta i'll the MacFarlane case arc
sound. There seems TO be little doubt however
That at present the Brooklyn Rapid Transit
Company has the technical legal right to charge
10 cents, or at least that ii Is subject to no
court mandate not TO charge 10 cents The cor
porauon. whether right or wrong is not dis
obeying any law on the subject laid down nv
/ the courts, the COler view to the contrary not
Wlthstanding. The latest decision squarely in
VolVlng this exact question was in the Barnett
ease where the Appellate Division unanimously
held mat the street railroad company could
charge the extra fare for passage over leased
lines OF former steam railroad built on a
private right OF way. 1t is said that the COneV
Aslaud lines are no longer steam roads and
! that the law changes with conditions: never
theless, their rights persist despite new traction
methods, and the private right of way makes
rules prescribed by the law for holders of street
franchises inapplicable. At any rate the An
pellate Division has said that the lO-cent fare
! is legal since the abolition Of steam
/ Justice GaynOr thinks the Appellate Division
was wrong His thinking on the subject, how
ever, is not binding on the company excent in
the form Of decision of the exact question
That question not submitted In him ana
his opinion on the subject is of no more. Ieool
force than the similar opinion of Mr. CoIar
The point decided by him that n person
who refused to pay second fare committed
40 crime and was not subject 20 arrest Tint
is conceded 10 be true regardless of the legality
OF the double fare. There is no law warrant.
ing his arrest even if 10 cents is the legal fare
Therefore the fare question was not before the
court for decision. Indeed. the railroad was
not party to the case before Justice Gaynor
and certainly it's rights could not be determined
as a side issue in a proceeding where those
rights were not presented for adjudication.
But il is said. the Court Of Appeals in the
Griffin and O'Reiy cases has decided that only
Scent fare is legal. In those cases il decided
that single fare entitled passenger 20 trans
portatiOn over all street railway lines under a
single control. The question Of fares over for
mer steam railway lines with private right OF
way was not involved. So the Barnett decision
is the latest and highest on the point at issue
and the persons who forcibly resist the exer-
else OF the right so declared not the company
which stands on that right. in spite of side re-
marks from the bench by Justice Gaynor are
the expOnents OF mob rule. Even Justice Cav
nor himself now comedies that the company Is
not bound by his decision.
Notwithstanding it's technical position. how,
ever. the company has been almost equally at
fault with the preachers OF popular disorder
in its own violence In the enforcement of the
l0cent rule. The conduct of It's agents has
been brutal and dsOrderly and has tended 10
provoke passion. The directors seem 10 have
come 10 a realization OF their obligations 10
preserve peace and secure a speedy decision
They deserve credit for their acceptance OF the