New-York tribune., 1921-03-03
johnson Charges Bill Is Mualid,
Violating the u. S. Constitution

Senator Johnson spoke for the better
part Of an hour and held the attention
of his audience to the last word. His
address was chiefly devoted to setting
forth allegations that the bill was un-
constitutional and invalid
He began by saying that the bill
affected not only New York City, but
the entire State of New York, and
urged that the Legislature, in the exer-
else Of "A wise public policy, ought to
let the bill die in committee.
This proposed law not only is con-
trary to the Constitution of the State
of New York, but it violates many of
the provisions of the United States
Constitution, too," said Senator John
son.
To support his contention he quoted
Article III, Section 1s, Of the State
Constitution, which says:
"No law shall authorize the con-
structlon or operation of a street rail-
road except upon the CONDITION that the
consent of the owners of one-haf in
value of the property bounded on, and
the consent, also, Of the local authori-
ties having the control of that portion
of the street or highway upon which
it is proposed to construct or operate
such railroad be first obtained"
The Senator pointed out that the city
has invested approximately 100000 900
in construction of subways, and that it
fulflls the ownership reference in the
state constitution. He cited Article
Section 10, of the United States Consti-
tuition, forbidding a state to pass any
law impairing the obligation of CON
tracts.
Of the provisions of the bill he said:
Ut may demand any sort of action in
respect to the traction companies and
compel the consent of the city. And
yet this act, SO clearly compulsory
where the city is concerned, places no
compulsion upon the corporations or
the holders of city franchises. 1t is
systematically permissive when dealing
with the corporations. 1t is boldly com
pulsory when dealing with the city No
Technology is omitted to make the
transit commission supreme and its alb
solutism complete.
The law not only purports to regu-
late fares, but in express terms gives
the supergoverning commission power
to coerce and compel The city against
its will and without its consent to
bargain and barter not only its intangi-
Bile rights, but its physical properties.
This is not regulatory law. 1t is an
attempt at destruction and confiscation.
Makes Mockery of Home Rule
"This bill would fout the Constitu-
ton. 1t would make mockery of
local home rule. The proposed transit
commission will annul and rewrite CON
tracts made with railroads, gas, electric
and telephone companies without CON
sulting the wishes of the locality. It
will fitch from the city having 100000
or more inhabitants the right to retain
the public benefits hound up in the
subway contracts, which were entered
into by virtue of statutory powers con-
ferred by the state and confirmed by
the solemn vote Of the people of that
city.
Every consideration of fair dealing,
the very character of our institutions
and the enlightened public policy de-
mand the defeat of this measure"
Senator Johnson then cited the ia
nous "Quimby" case" in which Judge
Cuthbert w. Pound rendered de-
cision two years ago which was regard
ed at the time by certain legislative
leaders as multiplying the Carson Mar
tin bill's provisions abrogating existing
franchises, contracts and agreements
between municipalities and public
utilities corporations.
The grant by tho municipality" said
Senator Johnson. quoting from Judge
Pounds opinion, "of authority to use
streets is not mere privilege or gra-
tuity. Once accepted it becomes con-
tract which neither the state nor its
agencies can impair"
Other members of the present Court
OF Appeals were quoted by Senator
Johnson, and then the Californian