The morning journal-courier., 1908-05-09
WHAT THE DECISION MEANS
New Haven Road Seriously Affected
 by Adverse Opinion.

In the absence at New York today of Preeldent Mellen of the New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad com pany and other high officers of the cor roration no direct official opinion could he obtained on tho subject of the de- osion of the Massachusetts supreme court against the validity of the com pany's holdings in five of the Massa- chusetts trolley companies, The de- cision however Is regarded as of very great importance here in its bearings on the trolley policy of the company in Massachusetts especially as the Massachusetts co nnanies fin the exist ing period of depression have been showing better earning power than the New Havens system of traction com panles in both Connecticut and Rhode Island. A very interesting question that arises fin connection with tho terms of the decision Is how far the Springfield exception bears upon other trolley holdings in Massachusetts apart from the Ave mentioned In the finding
 If the decision should finally be ex- tended to all the Massachusetts troll leys held by.the company it would af- feet very seriously the financial plane of the New Haven corporation, The total number of it's trolley companies In Massachusetts numbers l6 This to- tal capital stock Is sl1 ,6o6 200 This Is ss, Ss0 oo0 of funded debt and s3.23i. a2i of loans and notes payable represent Ing a total capitalization of over s21, = 100000 and moro than jf5 miles of street railway. They represent about one | fifth of the total mileage and nearly one-slxth of the total capital of all the street railways In Massachusetts, reaching 56 towns in the state with an aggregate population of 2iS.435.
 | Tn the suit Just decided or decided In part, the New Haven company insisted | tfat It's action was legal because It's l Connecticut charter permitted the pur- chase and by the terms of the Massa- chusetts act, which merged the Massa- chusetts and Connecticut corporations the Consolidated companies had all the rights and privileges previously vested | in either of them.
 Should the decision of the court hold as against the Massachusetts Trolley companies the next question that arises Is as to the disposal of the trolley interests of the New Haven corporation. Such questions as the disposal of the stock of sixteen rail- way companies representing s1100O,- 900 or more at forced sale or the sale of them separately with the result of depressing the stock becomes a seri- ous problem as well as the proposition of the states taking possession. If the decision is therefore sweeping only tho beginning of serious snarl Is reached in view of the great size of the property involved.
 railroad authority here familiar with the policy of the New Haven Railroad company in the matter states that the decision apparent ly opens several alternatives for the New Haven company. It can sub init unqualidedly to tho decision and absolutely dispose of It's Massachu- setts trolley holdings; it can probably appeal Its ease to the United States courts on tho question of It's consti- tutionality, It can seek new and modified form of holding device pos sibly suggested by the exception made by the court ir the Springfield Street railway case or 1t can apply to the Massachusetts legislature for a heal ing act or seek a compromise through that body.