New-York tribune., 1913-11-22
TAXI FARE LAW
FAIR, SAYS COURT
Appellate Division UphOlds
Right of Aldermen to
Fix Rate Schedule.
STREETS OPEN TO
ALL is DECISION
If Companies Object Let Them
Ouit, Justices Say-No
Private Stands.

The Appellate Division confirmed yes
terdav by a divided vote the decision or
Justice Seabury. IL the Supreme Court
unfolding the right of the aldermen to
enact the ordnance reducing taxicab
rates and imposing other conditions on
taxicab companies The higher court de-
cided that the companies and hotels that
sought 10 enjoin the city's enforcing the
new ordinance were not entitled to tile
restraining order pending trial of the ac-
ton in the Supreme Court.
At the same time the Appellate d.
vision reserved decision on the motion OF
the Yellow TaXica5 Company to dismiss
the Injunction obtained by the Corpora
ton Counsel to prevent the immediate
trial OF the suit The cons,itutionality OF
the ordinance was not passed on by the
Appellate Division; that will be deter
mined by the suits.
The effect Of the decision yesterday is
that independent owners may stand at
hotels and solicit business, even against
the wishes Of the management. ana that
no private stands may be maintained "
Is expected that some Of the companies
now ccntesting the validity Of the ordi-
nance will take advantage Of this con-
dition bv seeking business at the hotels
at the lower rates. as they declare theV
are losing money under the new law and
might as well enjoy half LOAF. Ire
Yellow Taxicab Company and some OF TIE
others will continue to do call busi-
ness from the garage and charge the old
rate. Two companies have quit the field
altogether.
The decision Of the higher court was
much involved Justice Dowling and JUS
tice Clark agreed with Justice Seaoury
that the ordinance must be reasonable.
but that the protestants had failed to
show that IL was not so. Presiding JUS
tice Ingraham and Justice Scott believed
that the ordinance was not reasonable
for even the city. they held. had no riEh-
90 give permission to vehicles to stand
in front OF property whose owner OBJ
jectcd
Justice Ingraham and Justice Hotchkiss
expressed the opinion that the city ha"
power TO fix any rate II chose ana that
tho companies must abide by II or quit
business.
As TO the motion argued yesterday, the
court wanted 10 know why the city had
enioincd all proceedings In Special Term.
The yellow Tax!cab Company was ready
10 20 10 trial on October 2, when the
CORPORATION Counsel obtained a restrain
lne order and another 10 examine al! rec
ords Of the company. The company -
irving TO have this Injunction dismissed
and bring the suit 10 trial. decision oy
the Appellate Division as to whether this
STAY shall be continued or dismissed Is oN-
pected next week.
Justice InEraham. holding that the AL
dermen had the power to fx the rates
| said:
II any particular kind OF vehicle In
use I'm the city cannot be prohtabiy op-
Grated et the rate Of fare prescribed m
the exercise Of this power. the ordinance
prescribing the rate OF fare TO De chars'h
IS not. ! ,hink. for that reason TO be de-
clared unreasonable or violation ot the
constitution or the laws Of the state. no
one Is bound 10 provide or operate any
particular kind Of vehicle or motor N'-
| hicle. and II the rate Of fare hNed ny the
Board OF Aldermen Is not suiiicient 10
ALLOW motor vehicles to be operated IN
the streets OF New York city prohtaoiy
70 the owners. then the owners can cease
| from such operation.
Justice Scott. in r. dissenting opinion
! said
.It is automatic that while the power
10 destroy implies the power TO regulate
vet the power TO regulate does not IN
yolve the power TO destroy or prohioit'
and while the Legislature Of the state
has the power 10 prohibit altogether 'he
use Of motor vehicles in the streets ana
highways. and perhaps even delegate such
power 10 a municipality. II is sufhcieh'
for the purpose OF this appeal to note
that IL has neither undertaken to eNer-
else this power itself nor to authorize the
Board Of Aldermen 10 do so. The so'e
row er given to the latter body is to regu-
late. and any ordinance which goes so
far as TO amount 10 practicable prohipi-
ton would be In excess Of the power oi
| tho hoard and consequently Noid.