New-York tribune., 1909-07-14
Observation-Disclosures
SERVICE BO4RD SET BACK.
Ordered to 4Uow Company to Oper-
ate Ouer Greensboro Bridge.

The AnreTIate Division ist Department. decided
yesterday that the Public Service Commission had
orerstepped it's powers in refusing to give IT'S ap
rsl 10 the franchise granted by the Board Of Esti
mat. snd suportionnent TO the South Shore Trac-
ssou Company because il believed the terms were
not best for the general public The commission
was ordered grant the application and pay $50
costs This r. the first adjudication Of this section
Of The Public Service commissions law. While the
commission would not discuss the ruling yester-
CAV Il is certain that the case will be carried TO
the Court OF Appeals by the commission. whose at
1itude the question was set forth when Its coun-
SCI said in arguing the case:
The commission would he nothing but rubber
stamp for the Board of Estimate and Apportion-
rnent II under this section it had option but had
give its sanction 10 franchises granted by- me
city officials. whatever the terms
The South Shore Traction Company. which opsT-
sfes surface lines in Queens. obtained franchise
30 operate over the greensboro Bridge. on terms
which gave H. the commission thought, monopoly
-f the Queens approach to the bridge. The com
pany let other transit lines use II tracks
but the terms on which this 10 be done were
deemed SO remarkable by the commission that 'he
franchise disapproved The commission con-
ceded that the transit scheme would he a ooi-
xenience for the public but could not approve tne
terms granted by the Board OF Estimate and Ap-
rcrtionment Commissioner McCarrou olSSelileL
from the position taken hy the other members OF
the board The commission having turned down
the franchise. Clarence LeXOw. for the conpahE'
obtained y rit of certiOrsri Corporation 'ouhSeI
Pendleton appeared for the city. which backed up
-he Board Of Estimate and APPortionn1ent IN d
rather hot contention that the commission had ho
l,over 10 disapprove the franchise
Justice Ingraham wrote the opinion IN me cast
Justice Houghton submitted a separate opinion III
which he held that the commission would mol De
absolutely bound in every case 10 approve an
franchises granted bv the city officials In his
opinion Justice Insraharl pointed that the law
granting q franchise must require as a coiloILoh
Of -he grant that the local authorities having con
troll Of the streets cn which Il was proposed u
build a railroad should consent TO the constFuC-
ZION.
Ia : obvious" said he that the Legislature
would have 10 power 10 dictate 10 the local au-
thor1ries the conditions upon which such consent
shall 6e given Ills opinion continues:
II Is cutie clear that the Legislature did not
intend 10. as II could not su6stltute ne 19t MY
Service Commission for the local althoTGleS- WIN
such oonditIons for the exercise OF "a 5ne T5 n
s15 40, der1a15 maj The local authorities add
or take from the conditions upon which theE were
willing to consent. The state. however. had me
power 10 say that no franchise should he acquired
- exercised unless il became necessary or con-
Tenient for the public service: ana 50 II lulposep
upon corporation or an individual bsIoIe I sue 81
= franchise could be acquired the obllsaIloh % %
1+fr 1s ~ The f4orosed Taroad Vas necessary
or convenient for the public service. .,,. ~
The Public Service Commission hsd nc TlsL.t q. q
btrarily 10 reject application because OF me
action OF the local authorities in granting or re
ee1[f IL 10 ,G ls s+b0r44iee as TO conditions which
i should impose on giving its consent 10 the op-
Grafton Of the proposed road. ,.-. -..5.
fact is hat commission DID not conCeQe
7har the exercise Of the franchise granted by the
--,fniciDsI authorities. upon the terms granted,
was for the public interest The comnlsslo9 II @ MeS
rot responsfbfe for such terms If q railroad over
-re proposed route required by the publC'
vas NECESSARY or convenient for the puonc service
then I think IL the duty Of the Pubic service
Commission grant Cle application, ana as IN.
Se-srsnd from the that II has oeterHhIleo
that the proposed railroad was required me oe-
risI oe the application was an error
Justice FIouzhton differed from Justice 1ngrahaIn
and the ether justices in regard 10 the limited
-,or-ers Of the commission. hut Concurreo WIN
- -Eer, IN ire decision in this case He said
concur N reversing the determination OF the
commission in the present case. with orecIlolls lo
e~sn5 TIE applicaton Of the relator, but tnlhk
fhe P5lnlir Service Commission mas a prueoeL
poxer withhold its permission ana aptIG ~
The exercise Of franchise than IS sta'eo oS NJ
lngr2han- ,---,-,s
70 grant certificate Of approval and perTllsst. @
N nu1ld and operate street railway IN al CaseS
vy1ere he pubic authorities have granied perIlls
sion AbiliTv 10 serve the public by FURNISHING
-ror.r -ra-sr0-ra ration Is element UhCh the
Is well necessity for the construction "I q Ian
tsr.r17rrfz the moment il starts cannot proper y
ee-,-e ri4e pu97lc Reasonable prosperity Is heCts
-, "a reas0nsble service. Such 4 corporation
80 Cr,-7-ters tie ground and prevents another
,-7rr,or.zrfan from occupying the same feo ahu
i,fre aroner service In its eaSerness 70 bulId d
-ars-ars-ior corporation might agree 70 PAY suCIl
: 575~f I,~ire for franchise and sili.llaIe 20
,s-rv rs 5senEers such low fare mat II No-!I
1,a rerfectlv manifest that It could never operate