The New York herald., 1922-09-01
SINNOTT, FOR HYLAN,
UPHOLDS BUS ROUTE
Secretary Writes B. r. T.
Manhattan Line Answers
Imperative Need
IGNORES LEGAL RULING
Advises Garrison That the
Brownsville Case Must Be
Taken to Court Again.
QUEENS RECEIVERS ACT
Ask Justice Gannon's Permis-
sion to Restrain Operation
in Astoria.
IGNORES LEGAL RULING
QUEENS RECEIVERS ACT

John +. Sinnott, private secretary
and son-in-law Of Mayor Hylan, in the
absence of the Mayor in Saratoga,
placed the city administration on rec
ord yesterday as refusing to exercise
the police power to halt the operation
in Brownsville of the buses Of the
Manhattan Transit Company, a cor
Doration of which Joseph II. Hoadey
is president
Mr.. Sinnott took this attitude despite
the fact that as long ago as 1913
Archibald +. Watson, then Corpora
tion Counsel, had delivered an opinion
holding that the franchise under which
the Manhattan company operates was
worthless, because unconstitutional.
and for the additional reason that,
even though originally valid. it had
lapsed for non-use. John 7. O'Brien
the present Corporation Counsel as
recently as last Wednesday affirmed
that the Watson opinion still defined
the legal attitude of the Corporation
Counsel's office in the matter.
The Mayors secretary justifies the
position which he takes in the city's
behalf on the ground that there is
an imperative local need for this bus
operation" +
Mr.. Sinnott's letter is addressed 70
Lindley NJ Garrison. receiver of the
Nassau Electric Railroad Company one
of the b. r, T. subsidiaries. Mr.. Gar
rison had written to Mayor Hylan call
ing attention TO the alleged illegal opera
tion of Mr.. Hoadley's buses in Browns
Vile and calling upon Mr.. Hylan. as
the chief executive officer of the city, to
enforce the law by stopping their opera
ton
Sinnott's Reply.
In his letter TO Receiver Garrison,
dated yesterday, Mr.. Sinnott wrote:
Il nm replying in the absence OF the
Mayoa ] am Informed that YOU, on be-
half OF the Nassau Electric Railroad
Company. short while ago. obtained
an Injunction from Mr.. Justice Cropsey
restraining bus operation on the route
referred to above, run under the super
vision of the Commissioner of Plant and
Structures OK the City of New York, on
the ground, among others, that 1t ar
fected the rights of your company in
respect to lines it operated, some por-
tion of which the bus route paralleled.
This new bus operation. with which
the city has no connection whatever.
has been inaugurated since that time by
a company called Manhattan Transit
Company under a claim of right to so
operate. This claim that they make
presents a conflict of private corporate
rights as between that company and
your company. The adjudication OF
what those rights are. If any. should
be left to the courts. where a speedy
and authoritative determination can be
had with reference to whether the Man
: haitian Transit Company operation Is
Illegal or an invasion OF corporate rights
possessed by your company.
''rhe executives power of the city
should not assume to decide this judicial
question. since 1t cannot do so with
finality and since a remedy in the Su-
preme Court Is available for the inn
mediate decision thereof with finaity.
IF. as you state, this Manhattan
Company IL operating without a certifi-
cate of convenience and necessity from
the Transit Commission. that Commits
sion Is free TO restrain the operation In
an appropriate proceeding under the
authority of Public Service Commission
VS.. Estrtgan, 81 Misc 432.
Tho operation OF buses In this par
ticular neighborhood is urgently needed
and n was for that reason chat the
Commissioner Of Plant and Structures
inaugurated an operation which YOU
49,.
Injunction Of Justice Cropsey. since
there Is an imperative local need for
this bus operation and since the bus
operation, the legality Of which YOU
question, IS serving practical neea
and Is not attended with any public
disorder. nothing further can be done by
the executive power of the CITY In the
matter other than what has already
been done"
Transit Board Ready.
At the office OF the state Transit
Commission, Commissioner I.eRoy T..
Hardness said that. II the matter were
brought officially by letter or other
wise to the attention or the commits
sion. that body would not hesitate 10
take appropriate action in the premises
Receiver Garrlson's appeal has been di.
rccted solely to the Mayor. Its reply
ls signed John +. Slnnott. secretary TO
the Mayor
The activity Of tho Hoadley buses,
however. was challenged from another
direction yesterday. Slaughter w.
Huff and Robert c. Lee, receivers for
the old Steinway lines Of the New YORK
and Queens County Railway Company,
applied TO Supreme Court Justice Gan.
non. In BroNalyn, for permission 10
bring an action for an injunction re-