cars and afforded the companies reasonable opportunity to avail themselves of favorable market conditions if such could reasonably be anticipated. He also drew attention to the fact that if conditions arising in the future rendered compliance with the order unreasonable or unjust, the interests of the company were fully protected by existing statutory requirements.

The companies under date of April 2 reiterated to the Commission inability to accept the order, save under the conditions to which the Commission had declined to agree, but stated that they were prepared to "live up to the spirit of the order as far as we can" and reported progress toward the securing of the necessary cars for three companies. On April 10 the companies, with the exception of the Nassau Company, informed the Commission that they would shortly submit plans. On June 1 the Commission was notified that the plans and specifications had been completed and that an effort would be made to determine if cars could be secured to conform to the specifications. On June 7, six days after the date of the above-mentioned communication, the Commission was served with petitions and writs of certiorari, issued by Justice Greenbaum, in the Supreme Court, New York County, in proceedings commenced by each of the four companies against the Commission to review its order. The Commission at its meeting on June 11 directed Counsel to move in the courts for the quashing of the four writs. On August 12 Justice Samuel H. Ordway, in Part I, Special Term, Supreme Court, New York County, granted the motions made in behalf of the Commission, holding that the Public Service Commissions should not be hampered and obstructed in their efforts to obtain increased transit facilities for the public by proceedings for a court review of their determinations, except "where it clearly appears that it is necessary to keep them within the law and protect the constitutional rights of the corporations over which they were given control'. It does not seem to me that that has been shown in these cases * *

On August 14 the Commission was notified by Counsel for the Brooklyn companies that on the following day application would be made to Judge Van Vechten Veeder, in the U. S. District Court in Brooklyn, for an order restraining the Commission from

After a preliminary

enforcing the order for additional cars. hearing Judge Veeder issued an order calling for the constitution of a special Statutory Court, provided for by the United States. statutes and convened for the first time within the State of New York, to pass upon the merits of the companies' application. Special courts of the sort mentioned are authorized by the Federal statutes to consider applications to restrain State regulative commissions or the Interstate Commerce Commission. Before the Special Court, consisting of Judge Ward, Circuit Judge, and Judges Veeder and A. N. Hand, District Judges, the companies contended that they had been denied a day in court and that the Public Service Commissions Law was unconstitutional and urged further the granting of an injunction pendente lite. The court made a careful survey of the record before the Commission, upon which its order was based, and held that the order was the "result of a fair hearing upon proofs with a full opportunity to the companies to offer proofs." If the companies had not presented the proper evidence before the Commission in support of their contention, the fault lay with them and not with the Commission. In effect the court said the legal remedies provided through the state courts had not been exhausted. The companies, however, appealed, both to the United States Supreme Court and the Appellate Division, First Department, of this state.

Early in September the companies informed the Commission that the plans and specifications for all the cars had been completed and it was their expectation to ask for bids on or about September 4. In spite of the fact that the Nassau Company had not accepted the order, the Commission was informed that the specifications, as set forth by the other companies, would apply to any cars which might be purchased for the Nassau Company. The Commission was further informed that, while the company was proceeding in conformity with its order, such steps were being taken "under duress and fear of prosecution" and were not to be regarded as admitting the validity of the order.

The car plans were approved by the Commission on September 14, 1917, and at the same time a supplemental opinion by Commissioner Whitney pointing out that the Commission had every desire to safeguard the legal and statutory rights of the companies.

Case No. 2127-Interborough Rapid Transit Company — Station Facilities at 14th Street, Second Avenue Elevated Line.This case was begun in February, 1916, following the receipt of complaints concerning the inadequacy of stairway facilities at the 14th Street station of the Second Avenue Elevated line. The Commission directed the company to undertake negotiations for the acquisition of the necessary rights for the construction of stairways at the southwest and southeast corners, and on January 29, 1917, issued an order calling for the construction of such stairways, to be completed and in operation by May 1, 1917, and for the submission of plans and specifications to the Commission. The company on February 5 accepted the order and proceeded to the construction of the stairways, obtaining from the Commission extensions of time in which to complete them. One stairway was placed in service on June 16 and the second on June 21, 1917. The stairways were approved and accepted by the Commission on June 25, and have materially benefited traffic conditions at the 14th Street station.

Case No. 2129-Ocean Electric Railway Company - Condition of Tracks, Rails and Roadbed on Newport Avenue, Adirondack Boulevard and Neponsit Avenue, Borough of Queens. Having received complaints alleging a dangerous and defective condition of the roadbed of this company on Newport avenue, Belle Harbor, the Commission upon its own motion instituted proceedings, hearings being held on September 11 and September 25, 1916, and closed on the date last named. At these hearings the Commission's engineers testified as to the condition of the tracks on the various thoroughfares involved and on February 7, 1917, the Commission adopted an order directing the company to relay with girder rails all the T-rails then in use on Newport avenue, Adirondack boulevard and Neponsit avenue; to install new curves on the two thoroughfares first named and to make other improvements and repairs, all work to be done under the approval of the Electrical Engineer of the Commission and to be completed by May 15, 1917. The company, asserting inability to complete the work by the date mentioned, asked for an extension of time to July 1, 1917, to comply with the order. The Commission, however, granted an extension to May 29, 1917. On March 29 the Commission was notified by Mr. C. L. Addison,

Vice-President, that the company would accept the order. The Commission was informed on September 19 by its Electrical Engineer that the company had not fully complied with the order, and on recommendation of its Counsel, on October 5, 1917, unanimously adopted a resolution directing its Counsel to commence and prosecute a penalty action against the company in the Supreme Court. On November 9, 1917, the Commission was informed that some details of the work embraced in its order yet remained to be carried out.

Case No. 2050-New York Central Railroad Company New Passenger Tariffs Containing Changes in Passenger Fares. -Case No. 2231-New York Central Railroad Company — New Passenger Tariffs Containing an Increase in Passenger Fares.- Case No. 2233 — New York Central Railroad Company-New Passenger Tariffs Governing the Sale and Acceptance of 1,000-Mile Books.— The three above-mentioned cases all relate to tariffs filed with the Commission by the New York Central Railroad Company proposing advances in passenger fares. In Case No. 2050 tariffs were filed in December, 1915, showing a few increases and changes in rates on the lines of the company within the jurisdiction of the Commission for the First District. At the same time the Commission was informed that similar tariffs, proposing very important changes and increases in passenger fares to be charged in other portions of the State by the same company and its subsidiaries, had been filed with the Commission for the Second District. The Commission for the First District suspended the effectiveness of the proposed new rates in so far as they related to fares within its jurisdiction, such suspensions being continued from time to time. A hearing was held by the Commission on July 10, 1916, at which the railroad company was represented and agreed to still further postponements, the Commission being informed by its Counsel that the principal legal question involved was one presented before the Commission for the Second District, which adopted an opinion and an order cancelling the proposed rate advances. The Commission thereupon agreed with Counsel for the railroad company that the proposed rates as they affected the First District should be still further suspended.

On February 4, 1917, the Commission adopted an order discontinuing the proceeding, the railroad company having filed with the Commission tariffs cancelling the proposed increases.

Early in August, 1917, the railroad company filed tariffs which it was proposed should become effective September 1, showing numerous fare advances on the Hudson River division, the Harlem division and the Putnam division, and reduction in some cases in the passenger fares on the two last-named divisions. The Commission, on August 3, suspended the effective date of the proposed schedules to September 20, 1917, and directed a hearing for August 15.

In Case No. 2233 the company filed another tariff, the effect of which would have been the withdrawal from sale of all 1,000mile books on New York Central lines. Action was taken by the Commission suspending this tariff, and a hearing was directed for August 15 in connection with Case No. 2231. On August 9 the Commission received a letter from the railroad company announcing that tariffs similar to those filed with the Commission for the First District had been filed with the Commission for the Second District and later withdrawn, and that it would withdraw also the proposed tariffs filed with this Commission. The Commission thereupon directed that both cases be closed and discontinued.

Case No. 2170-Nassau Electric Railroad Company - Condition of Tracks on Bergen Street between Buffalo and Rochester Avenues, Brooklyn.-On December 20, 1916, the Commission, on its own motion, directed that a hearing be held to determine whether an order should be issued requiring the Nassau Electric Railroad Company, a surface line subsidiary of the Brooklyn Rapid Transit Company, to relay, repair or alter the tracks on its Bergen Street line between the thoroughfares above mentioned. The Commission held one hearing, at which it was pointed out that the company had previously undertaken the repair of the tracks and that some work was already in progress and would be completed about the end of June, 1917. Counsel for the company agreed to accept an order to have all of the work completed by the date mentioned, reserving the right to ask for an extension of time in the event that satisfactory arrangements