Evening public ledger. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1914-1942, 1920-08-05
MAY YET WIN FIGHT
0NP.R. 7. RENTALS
Lawyers See Way for City to
Put Case Before
Service Board
COMPANY "sITTINe TIGHT"

z. Il. T. underlying rentals. removed
from consideration of the Public Service
Commission by the Superior Court in
the case of the United Business Mems
ASSOCIATION, may come up before the
commission In another manner.
This was indicated today when the
! city solicitors Office began considering,
! It is understood, whether the city may
inject the rental question into its COM
plaint against the transit company's
higher fare tariff.
a difference in legal methods between
the city and the United Business Mems
Association Is believed to make II posi-
bic for the city properly to bring the
rentals before the commission at the
coming hearing.
The defendants in the business mems
suit are some thirty underlying com
panies, against which the commission
was asked to make an order reducing
the rentals. The point taken by the
underlying attorneys that the corpor
ations are not doing business within
the meaning of the public service com
pany law, and that they are not sub
ject to the commission. raised the juris
dictional question upon which the Su-
perior Court ordered proceedings be-
fore the commission stayed.
On the other hand. the CITY has not
framed its complaint against the under
lying companies. but against the T.. Il.
t.. which is admittedly subject to the
commissions jurisdiction. The under
lying companies are mentioned in the
city s complaint. but only in one con
nection. That is whether the p. X. 4.
should be compelled to continue paying
the rentals to them.
The business mems complaint is
against the underlying companies right
to receive the rentals and the underlying
companies are specifically made defend
ants the city's complaint is against the
T. X. T. ana its right to pay the
rentals. and the underlying companies
are only indirectly involved.
This distinct difference in "framing"
the issue is believed to afford the city
the right to go into the rentals when
the hearing before the commission is
resumed in September.
Lawyers say the direct attack of the
United Business Mems Association
against the underlying companies prob
ably will 60 to the United States Su-
preme Court. If. when the Superior
Court convenes in October, it decides
the Public Service Commission has con-
stitutional and jurisdictonal right to
examine the rentals. the underlying
companies could continue the appeal to
the Supreme Court. The business men
would have the same right il the Su-
perior Court decided the commission did
not have this right.
These are the issues which the un-
derlying companies appeal to the Su-
perior Court has raised:
First. Whether corporation char
tered as street railway company un-
der the laws of Pennsylvania, which
has, under legislative authority. leased
to another corporation, similarly char
tered. all its franchises, property and
railway lines, is doing business
law. and is within the purview and
regulatory power conferred by the pub
lie service law.
Second. Whether the relief asked for
by the United Business Mems Associa-
ton is within the statutory powers of
the Public Service Commission to grant.
Third Whether the Public Service
Commission has the constitutional right
to revise the rentals stipulated in such
leases. where it afirmativcly appears
that the leases were made prior to the
passage of the public service company
law, and where it further appears that
the rentals bear no relation to, and
are in no sense dependent upon, the
number of passengers carried Or the rate
of fare charged by the operating COM
pany (thc i. r. IT,.
Meanwhile. the p. II. T., the party
that bargained with the UNDERLYING
companies in 1902 to pay the rentals, is
"sitting tight Officials frankly saw
there would not have to be fare in
crease If the rental payments were re-
duced.