New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1913-02-12

/
graphical Society. and although they
persisted Almost in sight of their relief
| camp, I cannot lay too much emphasis
upon the splendid example Of heroism
sion to issue these bonds should be granted.
! and that determination cannot be re-
| viewed in this action. This contract has
nothing 10 do with the terms upon which
| the Jnterborough Railroad would borrow
| its money. II is entirely immaterlaI. SO
| far as the city is concerned, what the
| Interborough PAYS for the money that IL
| is 10 obtain, so long as the contributors
| for interest and amortization TO be paid
| out OF the receipts are calculated upon
| the amount of the bonds issued. which IS
the plain provision OF the contract
The second point taken up was dis
missed as frivolous. II was that no
public hearing was granted after the
/ changes made as a result Of the first
plfblic hearing. The fact that the COM
mission had made some changes suS-
gested at the statutory hearing did not
make the contracts new or require
then1 TO be submitted TO a further pub
/ lie hearing, the court held.
Commission Ruling Supreme.
The other point taken under consider
alton by the Appellate Division was
that the amount-S6, 335, rco-fxed as
the annual net earnings Of the present
Interborough system took no account
Of an annual depreciation Of Soso"o
/ q wear. Justice Ingraham quoted the
amendment 10 the rapid transit law OF
/ 1912. providing for merging the earn
incs Of two systems. one owned by the
city and the other held under lease D!
a private company. He said:
The plaintiff or his counsel seems TO
| think that in fixing that amount laNcl,
age net income Tor peliod U, cor.
/ they were required 70 charSc the CVt
narration with a certain sum Tor depreIId
/ lion of the plant and care eacn year, oue
/ il is very evident that that Wa illa.'s.
for the determination OF tne coIll, ,S ~
! ers Here was a railroad operated anu
I maintained out OF its earnings. lts ea' u
| inGs were largely In excess OF the COS. ~ %
! maintenance and had for the iast ~. y" y
years yielded pront OF OF. ~, not
I wear, Whether in determining that het
! income a sum was TO be allowed for DC
I nreciation was a question which cledri!
/ The commissioners had to determine.
| siaosre rad ascertained how much each
| 1ear i, Vas necessary to deduct from IN.
! earnings to maintain the system az ~
vs. and that sum was, OF Coui9e ",
| rided before fixing this amount OF ny
! Earnings at s.. $500 "A year. IL IN edIu,
! vear the depreciation was name Soou 90, ~
| NJ net earnings, OF course no dIlo..,
| u,o,Ild be necessary for the depreCla'.VJ..
Of the plant and rolling sio.h pu ~ '1e hee,,
yaar becaus4 that depreciation had peen
49, cod by renewals and repairs dur
Ing the year.
7, is understood that Mr.. Shearn VIII
hold that during the years "heh '"e
average income Was taken there "as
M money spent TO keep up the road
en- that the commission erred IN not
,or,nr out a depreciation charge. This
NAV be an argument used IN MS ap'
n,,ca,ion for permission 70 go 70 the
Court Of Appeals.
Nav Cry NEW Contracts.
A. the same time Mr.. shearn may
,~,,r I'm The point as 10 whether the
Annellate Division was not unuc' "
INSTRUMENTATION in regard TO the ques-
.,on &c n whether the Court OF Appears
~ forner cases 10 test the con-
-.;.,,,ionalitv Of the law had before IL
IN substantial form the contracts aS
.bev were presented for the Puoio
hearings month ago
Discussing tho Contracts
In his opinion discussing the con-
tracts Justice Ingraham said'
After these contracts, were prepsfe; ~
and we're in substantially thee 10, 10, II, n,,h.
| .hicb thnv were at the time OF the PuD
| IL hasrirr three actions were CON- OH,
| rn.nred in the I'd Judicial District ~
Court of Appeals held that the a'hen a'I
ment TO the rapid transit act nas IN
nnouph 10 authorize the contracts
e,,ostio, and IL was further held tna'
| tbis amendment did not NiolaIe any p ;;SG
| yision of the constitution. Inc moo !.
cations made IN tne Cntr, of Anneals
| bswe not subs tantially changed II IN any
| ~ it's fundamental PROVISIONS. ne ~ 81
| tracts therefore, as now proPoseu W .
executed, are subssanddia md mr. presented TO
Tho Court OF Appeals and tnat we're inc
subject Of the prior nearihs'
II NAV be that Mr.. Shearn in argu-
ing for an appeal may say that the
| first draft Of tie contracts Tor the quar-
svstem bears the date OF August H.
1919. whereas the decision OF the Court
~ Appeals in the Admiral Realty Hop
ner and Ryon cases, referred TO- was
handed down on June %. The suits
were brought the latter part OF Feb
ruary. about the time that the Inter-
borough proposition for dual partici-
nation was made public.
However. before that time on Feb
ruarv IA. a draft contract with the
prookIvn Rapid Transit Company as
tho sole operator Of the entire new sys-
tom had been drawn up. Although
thew were not put into concise contract
form and v-fbiage. the elements 'that
we're TO enter into the later contracts as
thew were drafted for the dual system
we're contained in the Willcox-Mc-
Aneny report for the dual system,
which was adopted by the Board OF
Estimate on May %. after an agree
ment on all the fundamentals had peen
reached with the two companies.
| Iustice Incraham went on 10 say that