The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1916-1920, 1919-09-13
SAYS BURR GOT CAR
WRIT IMPROPERLY
Manhattan and Queens Lines
Counsel Attacks City Of
ficial's Affidavit.
HEARING is ADJOURNED
Hylan Representative Declares
Nixon Has No Right to
Interfere.

Justice Finch, sitting in Part l., Spe-
cfal Term Of the Supreme Court, heard
counsel for both sides yesterday on the
application of Corporation Counsel Burr
for a writ OF prohibition directing Lewis
Nixon, Public Service Commissioner 20
desist from further proceedings in tho
application of the receivers for the Man
haitian and Queens Traction Corporation
for an increase in the rates of fares
on that companys lines. He granted
until Wednesday for the filing OF briefs
although Corporation Counsel Burr said
he was prepared to file his Immediately
and adjourned further hearing OF the
arguments until Thursday.
Every seat inside the court room rail-
was filled with an array of attorneys
representing all the traction companies
in Manhattan, Brooklyn and The Bronx.
who listened attentively to the argu-
ments OF the Corporation Counsel,
Terence Farley. counsel for the Public
Service Commission, and Vincent b.
Robertson, representative of william II.
Begg and Arthur c. Hume, receivers of
the traction line, whose application for
a hearing Tuesday brought about the
prohibitory writ.
Mr., Robertson asserted that the APP
plication of the receivers for permission
to increase the fare on the Manhattan
and Queens lines was not a test case
upon which the other companies under
the Jurisdiction of the Public Service
Commission might see At to act later.
He said:
THE receivers of this line never could
keep pace with the increased cost of
operation. In August. we were forced
10 give employees a 10 per cent. wage
Increase and this was followed recently
by 1b per cent increase. We can
tn
crease of fare is obtained we must stop
operating. We do not seek the abroga.
ton of existing contracts with the city
and relief is asked as an emergency
measure. Neither is 1t sought in order
to pay return on the money tied up
in the company. but 1t is felt that the
blow of the lines disseminating will fall
eventually upon all citizens having prop
erty If people who get service do not
pay its full value.
Corporation Counsel Burr, supporting
the writ of prohibition application, called
particular attention TO one point in the
traction company's contract with the
city which provides that In case Of vio-
lations Of the fare terms the property Of
the corporation would revert to the
City of New York on ten days notice
Mr. Burr said that the Public Service
Commissioner has no right to interfere
lie service corporation and a municipal
ity and that this contention was borne
out by a recent decision of the Court of
Appeals. Continuing, he said:
There is great danger, II the Pub
lie Service Commissioner is right in his
contention as to his power to change
rates. Railroads. whenever they find
themselves in temporary financial diff
culties. might appeal to him and have
fares increased out of hand"
Mr.. Farley contended that as a matter
Of law the writ of prohibition which now
ties the hands of the Public Service
Commissioner was Improperly granted
He referred to Mr.. Burr's affidavit upon
which the writ was issued as an Tex
traordinary document. called an affi-
davit, which cites the Constitution,
Railway Law, Public Service Law and
Court of Appeals decisions over the
Corporation Counsers signature" He
said Mr.. Burr failed to disclose his
sources of information and grounds for
belief that the meeting which he sought
to have prohibited was called for the
purpose OF increasing the fares on the
traction lines In question. Mr.. Farley
denied that there was any Indication
that such was the purpose OF the meet
ing. All the attorneys clamored for an
immediate decision. but failed to agree
on the proposition that the stay be va
Gated to permit the Public Service Com
missioner. who was an Interested audi
tor, to proceed with his Investigations.