The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1914-01-15
COURT STOPS CUT IN
WESTMINSTER FARES
Appellate Division Annuls Rul-
ing Of Upstate Service
Commission.
JUSTICE HOWARD DlSSENTS
Criticises Majority Opinion as
Result Of Technically,
Not Justice.

ALBANY. Jan. 1A.-The decision or the
upstate Public Service Commission re-
ducing the rate Of Communication tickets
charged by the New York Central and the
New York. Now Haven and Hartford
railroads between New York city and
points In Westchester county and Con-
necticut was annulled to-day by a de-
cision Of the Appellate Division OF the
Supreme Court. the Third Department.
The decision points out that It is rendered
without prejudice to a new application.
which can be made at any time under
changed conditions.
Justice Wesley A. Howard dissented.
and his opinion was concurred in by
Justice Woodward.
The Westminster commuters case dates
back to 1910. when the Central and New
Haven roads increased their communication
rates between New York city and points
In Westchester county and Connecticut
Millions OF people in metropolitan terri
tory were affected by the increase and
an appeal to the upstate Public Service
Commission resulted in an order declar-
ing that the companies were without the
right to increase these rates.
This commission holds" the decision
Of the upstate Public Service Commits
sion said that as matter OF public
policy the rates into New York city from
I the committing district should be placed
at the lowest reasonably possible point in
the interest OF the public and the rail-
roads,
| The commission further held that in
the case OF the New Haven company the
foliage and terminal charges paid to the
New York Central company for the use
of its terminal and track facilities In the
city Of New York are in the nature
n and Of the general
penses Of the company and should not be
set up as justification for Increase in
rates.
Justice Howard Dissents.
Justice Wesley o. Howard. who dis
sented said In his opinion:
According TO "A majority vote in this
court. this important case, involving
millions OF people and millions OF dol
lars. Is about to turn largely. II not
wholly. upon a technically. This il con-
trary to the code 1t Is contrary to the
right.
1T seems to me that my learned asso-
ciates have fallen into error. II In not
Stephens Digest. but the conscience OF
the court which should dominate in this
case The court in recent times is under
a constant fus!llade of criticism. and
much OF IL is merited. We have plenary
do Justice. The Legislature has recently
gwen us unlimited permission 10 ignore
technicali,ieS and TO do what we think
is right This emancipation OF the courts
from technicalities. rules and precedents
10 broad. sweeping and complete.
But Notwithstanding this opportunity
to shake OF their ancient letters, the
courts seem prone to wear them. They
seem unable to believe that these statutes
mean what they I.eUfala
OF late are constantly untying the hands
OF the courts. but the Judges have been
10 long shackled by rules, which they
themselves have made that they seem re-
luctant to be set at liberty"
Blames Peculiar Contract.
Judge Howard declared that the fact
that commuters. even under the advanced
| rates, are carried nj a loss IL attributable
to the peculiar contract between the New
York. New Haven and Hartford and the
| New York Central roads under which the
terminal charges and track foliage. in
stead Of being fixed by a definite sum.
| are fixed by counting the passengers of all
grades travelling over the New York and
Harlem road and entering the Grand Gen.
| trail Terminal"
The prevailing opinion holds that the
railroads were entitled to have the deter
mination Of the commission made upon
the merits ana 70 De ADVISED what, in the
| opinion OF the commission, were fair and
reasonable rates, rather than to have the
| decision against II based upon the ground
that. In the opinion of the commission the
relator (the railroads) had failed to over
come the presumption OF wrongdoing
1T is In this view that We have con-
sidered the ruling OF the commission AS
to the burden Of proof worthy OF such
extended consideration. There Ii no pro-
vision Of the New York public service
commission law which places the burden
Of proof upon the railroad company or
takes proceedings before the commission
out from under the general rule"