New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1911-08-10
AN ALL-DAY ARGUMENT
But Court Reserves Decision IN
Subway Injunction Case.
CALLS CONTRACT ILLEGAL
Petitioners Counsel Says the
Mayors Vote Was Neces-
sary in Awarding 1t.

Justice Ford. OF the Supreme Court. re-
served decision yesterday after an all Gay
argument on the application OF the Aom'a
Realty Company. OF No. 10 Liberty street
for an Injunction to restrain the Bradley
Construction Company from building four
sections OF the Lexington avenue subway
work on which was recently begun. and
also to enioin the Public Service Comnis-
sion and the Board OF Estimate from au'
thorizlng the construction under those con-
tracts.
Louis Marshall who appeared as coun-
sci for the petitioner, argued that the con
tract giving the Brooklyn Rapid Transit
Company the right to operate the new SUD
nav and the contract with the Bradley
Construction Company were illegal ana 10
these two points the court asked counsel
to confine their arguments.
All the interests involved in the proceed
ing except the Brooklyn RAPID transit
Company were represented by counsel
In the case of the Brooklyn company Mr..
Marshall said the contract was not Of legal
force because the Board Of Estimate when
Il voted on the awarding OF it was not
properly constituted. adding that II re-
valid.
The lawyer said In the absence OF the
Mayor President Mitchell Of the Board OF
Aldermen took II upon himself TO act as
Mayor. and calling in Vice-Chairman Bent
Of the Board Of Aldermen, the Board OF
Estimate got a ma iority vote for the con-
tract Justice Ford seemed to think that
the vote Of the Mayor was not necessary,
but Mr.. Marshall insisted that the contract
could be approved only by the Board OF
Estimate and the Mayor.
The objection was made that the contract
as originally drawn had been changed so
that II made a difference OF $4,000" in
favor Of the contractor The contract in it's
new form was awarded without being re-
advertised. said Mr. Marshall. which also
made IT Of doubtful legality.
Justice Ford said that he believed that
It would have been better TO readvertise for
bids after the changes in the plans had
been made
Mr. Marshall went on to say that he
thought the report Of the McAneny COM
mittee few in the face Of the constitution
of the State of New York and statute
laws OF the state. He said the persons
who presented the plans for the operation
Of the subway disregarded Section 10 of
Article VIII Of the state constitution,
which provided that 10 city or county
should bond itself for the purpose Of build
ing and operating a railroad.
Under the existing contract, said Mr.
Marshall, the Brooklyn Rapid Transit is
to receive $4,000 before the city collects
cent.
lie Roy r Hardness, who appeared for
the Public Service Commission, followed
Mr. Marshall, 10 argue against the grant
ing of the Injunction. In his argument
was made the first mention of the Inter-
borough Rapid Transit Company in the
proceeding before the court. although the
lawyer did not say that the latter was In
terested in the Injunction proceeding. Mr..
Hardness said that the contracts were be-
fore the Board Of Estimate from July 5
TO q, when 1t was predicted that the In
terborough proposals would prevail But
the moment these proposals were rejected
the application was made for the injunc-
ton.
Mr. Hardness said the action was largely
tased on the prophecy that the Brooklyn
Rapid Transit was going to be the only
beneficiary from the contract with the city.
He said that questions of operation could
be taken up later. The important work
now IS the building Of the subways
The only issue before the court, he main
tanned. was the validity OF the contracts
with the Bradley Construction Company
for Sections s, S, 10 and H. Mr.. Hardness
contended that the approval of the Mayor
was unnecessary.
Mr. IIaho, Assistant Corporation Coun-
sci, for the Board OF Estimate said that
no great public work like the building Of
the subway should be held up because of
any possible technical error in the award
ing Of the contracts. 1t would be against
public policy, said Mr. Hahlo, to grant an
injunction.
Counsel for the Bradley Construction
Company also argued against the injunc-
ton.