New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1908-09-12
GERARD AT P. S. C. AGAIN
SAYS TRACKS. SHOULD GO.
Thinks Corporation Counsel Dilatory
about 18th 4Uenue Case.

Justice Gerard. in the Supreme Court. had few
words 10 say yesterday about the Public service
Commissions inactivity in regard to eoncenlfihe
The New York Central tracks in Eleventh avenue
I,eopold Hellinger, who owns four lots OF iaho
with the buildings thereon. at Eleventh avenue
and eorh street asked Justice Gerard through ms
counsel Thomas j. O'Neill, for a mandainuS 10
compel the Public Service Commission and the Cor
Jooraticn Counsel GO institute condemnation Pi'
oeedinss for the removal of the tracks The SAKE
LAW nassed in 1896 provided that If the Rapid
Transit Board and the New York Central could nor
agree on plan fer the removal of the tracks anu
ire building of a subway at the company eA
,ense the board should institute the condemnation
pr,ceedings The board held conferences with
representatives of the railroad company, at which
an agreement was reached plan to oulid an
elevated road from Franklin street TO Ssth street
the rest Of the 10 Spuyten Duyvh TO De party
by subway and partly at grade the Fuetlc 0eiN-Ue
Commission later approved the change in plan 10
change the plan for subway over the ennre route
it was found that the Law would have to be amend
ed A bill TO allow this introduced in the Legs
lature IN lso7. but defeated
For Mr. Hellinger his counsel insisted that, as
she Public Service Commission had failed TO carry
out the subway plan provided for by the act OF
1905 il was the duty Of the Corporation Counsel 10
institute the condemnation proceedings provided Tor
in the same Law. Mr. O'Nein said he believed the
commission had done what it could in the matter
for in November last il had directed the corpora
ton Counsel to begin the condemnation proceedings
but he attacked the Corporation Counsel for his
sflatoriness in rendering his opinion on matter OF
such vital Interest TO so many citizens
For the Public Service Commission George .
Coleman opposed the application. as did William
H Burr for the Corporation Counsel Both urged
that the building Of the subway as provided Tor
and the condemnation proceedings connected with
It were too important matters 10 be entered into
hastily M Burr contended that plan entirely
different from that provided the law OF 1906 had
been decided upon. We calm this law was never
complied with, and for this reason we cannot in
stitute condemnation proceedings he said.
Then remarked Justice Gerard. your con-
struction Of the law that if the Public Service
Commission never did anything TO carry out the
law but looked of q window for a year or two,
then these tracks TO remain in our streets for
ever and that the people for whom this law was
passed cannot obtain the remedy for the existing
state Of things which provided for them by the
Legislature The Rapid Transit Commission certi-
fed that it was unable TO come to an agreement
with the railway company and did not that end
the natter
The commission did not say that" replied Mr..
Burr. but said the law required 70 he amended by
remedial legislation
But said Justice Gerard. ennphatically, that
was not their province It was their duty to com
ply with the law made and obey the mandate Of
the Legislature
Mr. Burr insisted that the condemnation proceed
ings would entail enormous expense, and, in
view Of the decision Of the commission and those
interested that the complete subway plan not
the best one IL would be unwise the part Of the
Corporation Counsel TO begin the proceedings. In
giving the opposing counsel time to submit briefs
Justice Gerard requested Mr.. 0'NeiH to confne
himself chiefly 10 the point TO whether the neg
lect Of the Rapid Transit Commissioners to comply
with the law justified the Corporation Counsel in
declining ask for the appointment of commits
sioners TO condemn the property.