The New York herald., 1922-01-18

tensive. and sufficient to impose upon
the commission the duty TO reorganize
the whole transit situation in such city
The members of the commission are
NEW OFFICERS, not only in name, but
! in fact Their duties are essentially new
duties. although they include some duties
heretofore performed by other boards
or officers. The office OF Transit Com
missioner being new office. the Legis-
lature could constitutionally I'LL the same
by designating the persons TO act as
Commissioners.
''Second--It Is next urged that the
act is unconstitutional in that II violates
Article XII. Section 2, the claim in this
respect being that the act Is special
city law since it does not apply to all
cities of the first class. and could not,
therefore. become valid legislative en-
actment because it was not transmitted
ITO the Mayor of the city of New York
before 1t was passed. If the act be a
special city law, then the claim Is we'll
founded. / am Of the opinion, however,
that 1t is not a special city law, and
this court, in effect. so decided In Ad-
miral Realty Company VS.. City of New
York.
'It is true that In that case the
statute under consideration was the
rapid transit act which became law
d
went into effect. but the decision of this
court. as appears from the opinion de-
livered. was not put solely upon that
ground Judge Hiscock (now Chief
Judge), who wrote for the majority OF
the court, said
In the second place. the act Is not
one of those contemplated by the
provision in question. The latter
contemplates laws which relate to
municipal property and affairs and
which may be described as the pro-
vision does describe them. as city
laws. To come within the precise
provision which is invoked hSre 1t
would be necessary to hold that the
rapid transit act was special city
law. It seems to me that this term
could not be regarded as reason
able description OF the statute before
u.s. 1t was adopted not only for the
benefit of the cities which. of course,
would be affected, but OF the public
at large, and II ccnrers broad powers.
including that of the granting or
franchises. It Is much more gen
eral law than is contemplated by the
provision in question.
Applicable to Present Case.
"The words quoted are as applicable
to the present case as they were to the
Admiral realty case and the decision
there made Is controlling here.
"Third-It is claimed that the act
violates Article 3. section IS of the Con-
stitution, the contention being that the
act applies only to cities having popu-
lation of over one million; that the
powers specified in the act are to be
exercised and carried out only by the
Transit Commissioners of the First dis
trict, which includes only the city OF
New York that New York Is the only
city of the State having population
Of over one million. and It therefore fol-
lows that the act is limited to such city
and becomes q local law.
This reasoning Is plausible but falla-
cious. The act is general in terms. 1t
applies to all cities in the State having
population of a million or more. 1t may
be conceded that at the present time IL
Is applicable only to the city or New
York but if so 1t by no means follows
that it was intended only for that city.
since there may and probably will in the
near future be one or more cities to
which it will be applicable. Certainly
there is no conclusive presumption to the
contrary.
Rapid transit for the city of New
York has for many years been matter
people Of that city, but of the whole
State 1t has been generally regarded
as a State affair. The history of legisla-
ton on the subject shows it. The rapid
transit act appointed as commissioners
persons in office under former act. The
act of 1894 named five commissioners
The act was held to be constitutional.
Power to fill vacancies in the Board OF
Rapid Transit Commission was given to
the Mayor.
I'm 1907 this power was taken from
the Mayor and given to the Governor of
the State, and the power which had
heretofore vested in the Rapid Transit
Commission was transferred to a newly
created commission. The same act pro-
vided that the expenses OF the commits
sion incident to rapid transit construc-
ton in the city of New York should be
paid by that city. That act was held
valid.
Function of the state.