The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1916-1920, 1919-01-16
ONE B. R. T. RECEIVER
ONLY, SAYS COURT
Garrison Confirmed as Judge
Denies COactiOn in Inter-
csts of Harmony.
NO REDUCTION IN WAGES
Full Publicity and COncilia-
ton of Public Is
Policy Outlined.
NO REDUCTION IN WAGES

Judge julius NJ. Mayer made the ap-
rolntment OF Lindley NJ. Garrison rs re-
ceivcr OF tho Brooklyn Rapid Transit
and subsidiary companies permanent
yesterday. The Federal Dlstr.c. Court
denied petitions or requests TO appoint
coreceiver from Corporation Counsel
Burr for the Board Of Estimate and the
city administration, the Public Service
Commission and the Brighton Wreck
Victims Association.
Tho court used the controversy that
led the Corporation Counsel and the
Public Service Com. m ssion to act sepa-
rately III trying to cause the appointment
Ut receiver to emphasize the point that
The best assurance OF harmony In tho
ioSdiustment process is to hsvc but one
receiver.
Tho Corporation Counsel presented a
resolution of the board OF Estimate
naming Comptroller Charles l.. Craig as
the city's candidate for coreceiver. Mr.
Rurr said the Comptroller would serve
without compensation IL named. Will
ian L. Ransom, counsel for the Public
Service Commission, asked that a CO.
receiver be appointed. but did not name
candidate John J. O'Leary. counsel
ciation. presented a similar general re-
quest Mr. O'Leary's only specification
was that the coreceiver should be a resi-
dent of Brooklyn.
+. =. G. Petition Questfoned.
Mr. Burr questioned the right Of the
Public Service Commission to suggest
or nominate coreceiver He argued
that II the commissions petition was
granted 1t would he placed in the con-
Trajectory position OF a tribunal regu-
lating street railroads and. in a meas
ure. through its selection as coreceiver.
street railroad corporation itself. Mr.
Ransom did not answer the Corporation
Counsel. He held simply that another
receiver should be appointed to represent
the city. which has vast investment
m the new subways at stake. Judge
Mayer said
The argument OF the learned counsel
Tor the city and the learned counsel for
the Public Service Commission indicates
that there is lack Of agreement between
these two great bodies In some respects
one official thinks that the other body
Is not entitled to representation. One
counsel thinks that whatever else hap
pens there should at least be additional
representation which would represent
the city.
II fear there has been m,sappre-
hension as to what a receivershlp Is
Under a receivership-I am stating the
very simplest OF principles--the property
is taken into the possession OF the court
II is the courts duty TO conserve the
property while thus In its possession
The court has no power to break con-
tracts. Valid outstanding contracts and
obligations must be observed.
Whether one or two additional men
are appointed II must be plain that Il
would be impossible Cor the court sue
cessfully or intelligently to conduct
complex recetvership OF this kind with
other receivers representing. not tho
court, but some point OF view which
might or might not accord with the
point OF view entertained by the re-
ceiver appointed by the court.
Menace TO Receivership.
Such a situation is not known in re-
ceiverships Such a situation might Sc
riously tend to destroy the efficiency Of
the receivership, and receivership es-
pecially OF this character. and might
transfer from a forum outside the re-
ownership and the court the controve--
sizes which might properly be settled At
some place and time other than by this
court"
THE court Ia entitled 10 have as its
arm at all tirnos s!ngularity OF purpose
II must be quite plain that the court IL
unable at this tTe or the one hand TO
appoint a coreceiyrr. which would he
simply having two men where, in the
courts judgment, one man is enough, or.
on the other hand. accepting not the
courts appointment but the nomination