The New York herald., 1921-11-22
5 CENT FARE GETS
JOLT IN HIGH COURT
City of Chicago's Appeal
Denied for Lack Of
Jurisdiction.
O'BRIEN DOUBTS EFFECT
Says Court of Appeals Decision
Varied From That Made
. i'm Illinois.
O'BRIEN DOUBTS EFFECT
Special Despatch TO THE NEW York HERALD.
New York Hernld Bureau,
Washington. ID. C.. Nov 81 -

Washington, ID. c.. Nov. "a. 8.
The fight Of the New York city gov
ernment against increased fares on
the metropolitan street railway sys-
tenn received a setback to-day when
the United States Supreme Court dis
missed the Chicago traction rate case
for want of Jurisdiction.
The New York and Chicago cases
have some strikingly similar aspects.
Although the Supreme Court refused
to join them. many legal authorities
are convinced that to-day's action will
have an influential bearing on the
New York litigation.
Senator Hiram w. Johnson or Cali
fornia, special counsel for the city of
New York in traction matters, insisted
that the action OF the Supreme Court
would not affect the New York case
Announcement OF the dismissal OF the
Chicago case was made at the opening
of the court by Chief Justice Taft
dismissed for want of Jurisdiction
upon authority OF City Of Pawhuska VS..
Pawhuska Oil and Gas Company and
City of Chicago VS.. Dempcy." This was
the order of the court which put an end
to the Chicago case.
In arguments In the Chicago case
counsel for the Chicago Railways Com
pany contended that the proceedings
should be dismissed for want of juris-
diction because no question was raised
under the Federal constitution.
The Pawhuska case referred TO by
the Supreme Court was cited by counsel
for the traction company In the argu-
ments. 1t raised the question whether
rate regulating order made by the
State corporation commission In conflict
with rates fixed by a franchise granted
by the city was an unconstitutional i'm
pairment OF the obligations of contract
In that case the Supreme Court decided
that mo question under the contract
clause Of the Constitution OF the United
States Is involved. but only question of
local law the decision of which by the
Supreme Court of the State Ia final"
The Dcrnpcy case, also cited as a
precedent. was dismissed on precisely
the same ground.
The Illinois Public Utilities Commits
sior ordered an increase from 20 7
cents in the Chicago traction fares on
August s. 1912 The city took the case
to the United Supreme Court.
John p. O'Brien. Corporation Counsel.
caid last night that the. Chicago deci-
sion did not establish precedent in any
litigation in which New York city might
be interested.
After pointing out that New York
city. like the Tntereborough Rapid Tran
sit Company. had sought permission 20
file briefs with the United States Su-
preme Court in the Chicago case. but
had been denied, Mr.. O'Brien said:
THE decision could not control tho
question OF five cent fare provision in
the surface railway franchises In New
York for the reason that the Supreme
Court Of the United States has declinnl
to overrnle the decision OF the Supreme
Court Of Illinois respecting questions
arising under the constitution and the
statutes Of that particular State. In New
York our Court of Appeals has 'aii down
a different rule with respec. &C. tnc
franchises Of the surface railways rf
thos State"
George McAneny. chairman OF the
Rapid Transit Commission. declined TO
comment on the ground that he had
not read the Supreme Court decision.