Cincinnati daily press. [volume] (Cincinnati [Ohio]) 1860-1862, 1860-10-30
The Rnilrond 20 Pcndleton.

holders on the extension of the Pendleton
Street Railroad have conferred with the
proprietors of the road, and have agreed to
accept the proposition to have double-track
road built to the East line of the corpora
tion to be powdered between the outside
rails, by the Company, fare to be ten cents,
and the per-odpitd to be taken off Upon
this the Gazette concludes that it is all riglSy
and expects that the Council will at once
confirm the arrangement.
One of the queerest things about the street
railroad grants is, that the property-holders
on the routes should be supposed to be the
only persons that have any right to be con-
suited. Are they the only passengers of the
road2 They may not be one hundredth part
of the travel. Do they own the highways?
Not in any way to give them q right to in
terfere with the public use. Yet they set
themselves up as the proprietors of the high
way, and are recognized as such by the City
Council, and they assume to say whether
the street shall be used at all for public
convCnisnce, and on what terms it shall be
used.
The principle recognizes the right of any
single land-holder to put an embargo on any
highway. In the division of routes, which
seems to be the elimination of wisdom in our
Council single property may own
a majority of the real estate; or half dozen
may, as in the case on Fifth-street, between
Central-avenue and Smith-street, own the
property on a short connecting-link be-
tween long lines, and thus put an embargo
on the whole.
There may easily be circumstances in
which single proprietor could thus stop a
public convenience on great thoroughfare
The principle is conceded by this subsection
of these grants to the property
and it only requires these peculiar, but by
no means impossible, circumstances to show
its enormity, and its utter want of founda-
ton.
The property-owners have no more rights
in the streets than any body else. If thing
is nuisance, they have no right to put it
there; and if it is a convenience to the pub
lie travel, they have no right to permit nor
prevent it. Consider how small an interest
the lot-owners have in our great thorough
fares, compared with the public use, and
then think of the absurdity that this public
use which makes the value of their prop
erty, should be subject to their permission or
forbiddance.
The property-owners have just as much
right to authorize the Pendleton Company
to put up a toll-bar and charge ten cents for
passing it, as they have to authorize it to
charge ten cents fare to passengers. 1t is
time that our City Council became conscious
that there are other people in this city be-
sides the lot-owners.
Their interests are not antagonistical by
any means; although the Council seems to be
striving to get up such theory by their
mode of subjecting their legislation to the
lot owners. Their interests are identical;
but the passengers are vastly greater num-
ber than the lot owners, and, therefore, they
have the chief interest in the use of the
streets, and should chiefly be consulted in
these grants. -,
The paving part of this proposition of the
Pendlsten Company is an interesting feature.
One proposition is to pave between the in
side rails, and the other between the outside
rails of the double track. In one, they will
not even pave the track used by their horses
and in the other, they will pave that and no
more, leaving ruts to form on the outside of
the rails which would make them an intoler-
able nuisance to other travel.
For these liberal provisions, including the
double fare, which makes three fares across
the city, they require the per-eGpita to be re-
leased from that route. We shall see what
the Boanergi of the per-eapita in the Council,
and the vigilant metropolitan per-cdpitd
journals, which have such an itching for the
stock account, viii say to this proposition.