New-York tribune., 1920-05-11
Supreme Court
Holds sCityBus
Lines Illegal
AHrms Injunction Re-
etraining Operation in
!. Brooklyn in COMPETE
tion With Trolley Cars
Fight To Be Carried On
Decision Will Act as Prece-
dent in Similar Pro.
ceedings Pending in N. Y.

MUNICIPAL bus operation received a
setback yesterday when tho Appellate
DIVISION of the Supreme Court, Brook
iyn, unanimously affirmed the injunc-
ton granted by Justice Cropsey re-
straining the city from operating
busses in competition with the lines of
the Brooklyn City Railroad Company.
Corporation Counsel John P. O'Brien
announced that the city would take the
fight to the Court of Appeals. He said
also that he would apply for stay in
order that the operation of busses be
not intcrfered with pending the deci-
SION Of the higher court
While the Brooklyn decision affects
only the puases operated in that bor-
ough. It Will act as a precedent in sim
liar proceedings pending between the
city and the New York Railways Com
pany IN Manhattan. The receiver for
the Richmond Light and Power Com
pany, which operated surface lines on
Staten Island. announced recently that
he would wait for the decision rem
dered yesterday by the Appellate Dvi-
sion before applying for an injunction
against the operation of busses on
Staten Island. AS Staten Island is in
he same judicial district as Brooklyn,
similar decision would be expected.
Goth Points Raised Are Overruled
The decision of the Appellate Divi-
SION was directed against Grover A.
WAalen. as an Individual, and as Com
missioner CT Plant and Structures,
acting for the city in the matter of the
establishment OF the bus lines. The
court decided against the city on both
points raised By William s. Carswcll
Assistant Corporation Counsel. that the
cltN Yves justified in establishing the
bus lines by the home rule act guarding
the public welfare of the citizens Of
New York. as we'll as under the eme1
Gency that existed
The court held that Section 1853 of
the city charter expressly prohibited
the establishment and maintenance of
traffic lines except by granted fran
ohige,. 1t held that the Legislature
had made the city the agent to grant
franchises, but that it had no power
10 confer a franchise upon itself and
surrounded by Limitations and condi-
tions in nowise complied with in this
case"
The decision pointed out that the
city had no power or authority under
the law to go into the operating Of
BUSES or any other business. and that
the leoal and lawful way to bring about
the establishment of the bus lines is
By the issuance of charter by the
Legislature and the granting of GER
tiiicate of public necessity and con
vcnencc, which would come from the
Public Service Commisso on.
Court Defines Emergency
The court held in effect that if the
city would have the RIGHT to establish
bus lines in order to promote public
welfare il would also have the power
to establish department sto"es. drug
stores and so forth The home rule
act. the court held, does not grant
such power, either expressed or i'm
piled. The court went eXhaustively
into the question Of emergency. 1t
sad that emergency was defined as a
condition or unexpected occurrence
calling for immediate action.
The court intmated that the city
might take action to meet an cmer-
gency without holding strictly to the
letter of the law, but it held that
permanent condition vas not an .emer-
Gency and that the permanent estab-
lishmont Of the bus lines as contem.
plated was not justified.
The decision leaves Mayor Hylan in
bad way as the sponsor for municipa
bus ops ration, as he and Commits
sionc~ Whalcn failed to get bill
through the last Legislature granting
the power to the city to operate busses.
which the Appellate Division points out
is essential The opinion was written
by Justice Abel K. Blackmar and the
order OF the lower court was affirmed,
with SO costs to the city.