The sun., 1915-06-09
CENTRAL WINS RATE
INCREASE VICTORY
Court Of Appeals Upholds
Communication Fares Between
City and Wcstchester.
STRONG POINT FOR ROADS

ALBANY. June s-Increases in the
communication rates between New York
city and points In Westminster county
made by the New York Central Rail-
road in 1910 were sustained by the Court
OF Appeals to-day. The decision OF the
court nullified an order OF the upstate
Public Service Commission to reduce the
communication rates to the amounts
charged from 1907 to 1910.
The decision Is n sweeping victory for
the Central and II establishes the prin-
ciple that railroads and not the State
shall have the right to determine the
general policy to be adopted IN develop
ing traffic conditions in newly developed
territory.
The New York Central first increased
its rates In 1907. This advance was
followed by second general increase
In 1910. Complaint was made to the
Public Service Commission that the
second increase was uncalled for. In its
decision the commission directed the
company TO reduce It's rates to the stand
, ard fixed by the 1907 increase. declaring
that the second increase was apparently
for profit. An appeal to the Appellate
Division resulted In the reversal OF the
order of the commission This decision
is sustained by the Court Of Appeals.
The grounds upon which the order Of
the public Service Commissions ruling
was reversed are set up in long
| opinion by Judge Hiscock. concurred in
/ by his associates. This opinion, which
( affects thousands OF commuters IN the
metropolitan district, in part follows;
THE naked fact that a railroad has
established and continued a rate for a
| limited time does not justify the con-
clusion that II was profitable. II may
| have been established at an Improbable
| figure as a result OF miscalculation. COM
pelling competition. or OF policy which
| was willing 70 endure temporary losses
! In the hope that there might ultimately
be developed a profitable traffic. In the
presence OF proof showing the circum-
! stances under and the results with which
! these lower rates we're established and
maintained no court has the right "a
presume and hold that they were profit
able.
I'm the second place. even II we should
assume that these rates when established
In 1907 were compensatory. in my
opinion the presumption did not follow
that this condition and result would in
definitely continue.
1T is true that the courts indulge
In the presumption OF the continuity OF
certain facts and conditions In the alb
sence OF proof to the contrary. Among
such presumption are those OF the con-
tinuance OF life. intention. reputation
partnership. residence, &c. Sometimes
these presumptions of continuity seer
to be somewhat arbitrary and to hav,
been adopted as matter OF convenience
las far as they rest upon any rea
basis that basis is common experience
and observance. which justices the belle
that ordinarily when certain facts ar.
established. II Is safe TO presume others
The mere fact that the rate has beer
raised carries with IL no presumption
that IL was not rightfully done.
while the counsel for the appellant
seems TO argue that In this proceeding
the burden did not rest upon the com
plalnants Of establishing that the rates
complained OF were unreasonable / thnl
that the proposition that the complain
ants did not have such burden II
scarcely debatable. They were attack
ing certain rates as unreasonable anC
asking that those rates should be re
duced. and the burden rested upon then
as means Of securing this relief o
supplying the evidence to show that tn,
rates were unreasonable and that the,
were entitled TO the relief which wai
being sought and which in fact ha'
been granted
In conclusion the opinion says tina
the question what general policy shoul,
be adopted by the respondent in develop
ing suburban trade was one to be de
c!ded by IL and not by the State. Tn
methods and rates which II would appl!
10 the development Of any policy wer
subjects for regulation. but the question
whether the welfare OF the road woult
be best subserved by one policy o
| another was subject to b. decide,
, by the officers and stockholders of IN
corporation.
: at seems to me that the commission
was more or less influenced by this con
; sideration. which was irrelevant" say
Judge Hiscock.