The Jersey City news., 1906-03-15
Decision Of the United States
Supreme Court In the
Chicago Street Railway
Cases Does Not Alter
Their Status
P. s. LAWYERS OPINIONS
FRANK BERGEN SEES NO MEN
ACE TO THE FAGAN BJEfr-
MENT SUIT AND LINDABUR4
DISCUSSES STREET oocUPAN
CT

Ra;Jroad men were busy yesterday dig
eussing the effect the decision OF rne y.
s supreme Court in the Chicago street
railway cases will have on the trolley
situation in Newark and other citfess
notably Jersey City. The highest court
in the land has ruled chat the actaon Oh
the Illinois Legislature in extending lhe
life of street railway charters ninety
nine years was legal, but holds that tne
charters do not carry with them the raght
10 operate the railways under later oful-
nances. for any period longer than che
contracts entered into between the roads
aud the city. In other words, while the
existence of the companies is continued
Their right to run cars is not The opin-
ion was delivered by Justice Day. and
was agreed in by the Chief Justice and
other judges. Justices Brewer, Brown
and McKenna dissented.
There is a suit in ejectment now pend
ing, in the New Jersey Supreme Court
in which Jersey City is the plaintiff, and
the North Jersey Street Railway Com
pany on which the decision has consider
able bearing The city claims that the
railroad company is operating the tracks
originally owned by the jersey City and
Bergen Railroad Company under an ex-
tension certificate issued in 1876, but
which, it claims, eonfezs no present fran
chise by rtason of such extension. jersey
City, In effect, declares that the North
Jersey is merely 'ssquatter." 1t was in
this case that Attorney General McCar-
ter refused his consent to the desire of
Jersey City to institute quo warranto-pro
ceedings TO have the question settled.
Frank Bergen, general consul of the
Public Service Corpora ton, lessee of the
North Jersey, was asked this morning
what effect the Chicago decision would
have on the Jersey City case, but was
inclined to think that il would not change
the present status of the suit. He said:
The decision of the Supreme Court of
the United States in the Chicago case
anEDu.rces nothing new in street railway
Law. 1t has been held repeatedly that
where q corporation with a limited peril
Cd OF existence. say twenty-five years,
obtains permission from a municipality
TO construct q street railroad without
Emit in point of time. that permission is
perpetual. and when the corporation TO
which it was granted expires by lapse of
time the right to continue to use the
transferred to q new corporation and
that corporation may continue TO operate
the road
s.The converse of this proposition Is
equolly clear. That where corpora tion
with period Of existence Of say 100
years obtains permission from q mCnici-
paIity to operate a sereer railroad for a
company must yacate the street AT the
expiration of twenty-five years. notwifh-
standing the fact that ri1e company may
hive seventy-fiye or more years of life
still before it. That was announced the
other day by the Supreme Court Of the
United States
The decision in the Chicago case Will
having no bearing at all upon the Itiga-
tion between the Jersey City and North
Jersey Company.
In Chicago the existence Of the street
railroad company was extended for a
period Of ninety-nine years, but the ex-
tension Of the charter was held not to
have the effect Of extending the period
for which the city had agreed that the
company might use the streets.
In Jersey City there was no limit in
mission to the company and conse-
quentiy the Chicago case has no appli-
cation to the Jersey City and Bergen
com pary. which is involved in the Jersey
zG@ss litigation"
Richard Y. LindabuFy. of counsel for
the North Jersey in the Jersey. City dis
pnte also could not see how the decision
affected that case. He said.
Apparently the decision ID the Chica-
60 case ahirms the power of State Iagiss
iatures 70 extend corporate franchises in
the manner IN which such fraueh ;ses
have been extended by the New Jersey
Legisla ture. 50 that, 50 far as / can reIl
from newspaper accounts Of the decision
1t upholds legislation Of this character.
As TO the part Of TIE decision ff, tho
effect that such acts do not extend CON
tracts between the roIIey Companies
and the municipality. It il enough +, sav
that so far as | understand the sffuatiou
There are no such contracts involves Z.
the New Jersey cases. Ia other words +.
50 tar as the occupancy Of the streets
Of Jersey City depends upon the crr,~ere
OF the municipality. This consent Z vrsfb-
ont limitation. and viii run dur5ux fhe
life Of the corpora tion as originally lfraffs
ed, or as constitutionally extended bv tie
Legislature" s''e
fFf1TTen Tesfhfne.
ARE gvs,s1nvvsz croet.,-- s.