New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1920-05-29
Request
For Increased
Fares Denied
Nixon Even Refuses 10 Give
Company a Hearing OH
Its Application; Lacks
Jurisdiction, He Says
Appeal Will Be Made
Higher Rate Said TO Be Nee
essary Because of the
Raise Granted Employees

Inc application OF Cne InCefDOrOugh
Rapid Transit Company for increased
fares on the subway lines, made
through James l.. puackenbush, coun-
sci for the company was denied yes
terday by Lewis Nixon, Public Service
Commissioner. Commissioner Nixon
even refused to give the company a
hearing on it's application.
~ deny this application for want of
jurisdiction" said the Commissioner
Mr.. Quackenbush then renewed his
request, in conformity with the pro-
visions of the Public Service Commits
sion law, by asking for a rehearing.
Nixon.
Counsel for the company said the
application was predatory to an appeal
to the higher courts for determina-
ton as to the jurisdiction of the COM
mission to consider rates of fare. 1t
was also said the application did not
apply to the elevated railroads operat-
ed by the PETERBOROUGH, and separate
application would be made for those
lines.
The application, which was signed
by Frank Fedley. president of the In
terborough, after reviewing the COM
pany's financial situation, said the
matter of rates had been presented to
the Board of Estimate "out Of respect
for The opinion of that body that it
possesses power" but that it contends
that Transit Construction Commits
sioncr Delaney, as successor to the
old Rapid Transit Board, is the only
public official with power to amend
! Contract No. 3 with the city as to the
lnterborough rate of fare. Commits
soner Delaney, however, the applca-
ton says, declines to exercise such
power without the consent of the
Board of Estimate.
Tells of Increase in Wages
at becomes necessary, therefore,"
says the application, "to request that
you exercise the police power of the
state to regulate rates in the public
interest, which power is paramount to
the cOntractual agreements as to the
rate Of fare between the city and this
company, within the principle decided
by the Supreme Court of the United
States"
The decision of the Supreme Court
is cited in the case of Union Drygoods
Case, 248 U. S., where it was held chat
private contract rights must yield to
the public welfare, where the latter is
appropriately declared and defined and
the two conflict, has often been de-
cided by this court"
AS one of the reasons for the need
for an increase in fares the company
alleges that, on June next, the wages
of the men will be increased 10 per
cent, which will add $1,OOo,oOo to the
cost Of operation annually of the sub
way lines. The application adds that
the increase in wages, in connection
with depreciation and other compul-
sorry requirements, will more than alb
sorb the probable increase in revc-
nues, land again bring the company
face to face with insolvency not later
than December 81, 1920"
Outlook Declared Gloomy
Mr.. Hedley issued a statement last
night declaring that, unless the courts
held that the Public Service Commits
sioner had the power to increase fares,
the outlook is gloomy for future pub
lie convenience, to say nothing Of the
destruction Of our investment" He
further says:
eve as a last resort seek to per-
suade the Public Service Commission
or and the courts that he, technically,
has authority to proceed without the
consent of the city. We hope that the
Court of Appeals will sustain our con-
tention, because otherwise the outlook
is gloomy for future public convent
ence, to say nothing of the destruction
of our investment. We have delayed
presenting this contention in the hope
that the contracts could be amended
by mutual consent and thus avoid
long litigation with the city concern
ing its contention that the rate of fare
IS beyond the control of the Public
Service Commission