New Orleans daily crescent. [volume] ([New Orleans, La.]) 1851-1866, 1866-09-21
ROYAL STREET RAILWAYS.

Among the unhappy legacies left by the
last city administration was a controversy be-
tween the residents of Royal street and the
contractors who purchased the privilege of
constructing railway along that thorough
fare. Unfortunately, in some way or another,
the city is dragged into the controversy as
sponsor for the contractors-a very thankless
office, we should think, and one for which, we
presume, the mayor has not much taste
What may be the legal aspect of the matter
now we do not exactly Understandable least
we do not pretend to say whether or not the
city is actually bound in damages to the gen
tlemen who are going to build the railroad, in
case the injunction be.sustained It is not,
we suppose, by any means clear that
acting Mayor Kennedy had right
to sell such contracts, or how far the subse-
quent action of the city authorities may have
cured any original defects Of this nature.
Those questions will be decided by the legal
tribunals One thing however, is very clear,
and that is that, in street twenty-five feet
wide from curb to curb, there will be no room
for drays to load and unload at the side of
cars eight feet in width If the road run in
the middle of the street there will be seven
feet on each side, and an ordinary dray is a
little more than seven feet long Hence, IN
less it is possible for two bodies to occupy
the same place at the same time, which we
believe would be contrary to q generally ac-
cepted law Royal street will have to- be given
up rs place of commercial business. It is
not q pleasant contemplation for the people
doing business along that ancient and highly
respectable thoroughfare, or to the owners of
property therein, who have been anticipating
their share of the harvest of high rents but
it is melancholy fact.
We presume that they will try to save them
selves from the fate which theatens them, and
make an effort to preserve that classic granite
pavement for the uses to which it has been
devoted since it first became the pride and
boast Of our city, but if they do not succeed
the power and glory of Royal street are gone.
Trade may linger lovingly but precariously
around some iaterally accessible corners but
only as a memory Of the times that were. The
character of the street will be essentially
changed. It will be simply conduct for travel:
ts1It VII CSilO o11AJ W VIC jAIE5 VI tlt tttL-
bell. This being established as of necessity
why not make it useful to the whole extent
Of its capacity Why limit it to a single
track when it can accommodate two? One
track will effectually destroy its usefulness as
commercial avenue ; but one track will not
fulfil all the requirements of travel.
1t is all very well to send people down one
street and bring them up another, when such
adeviation from the rectilinear is required but
apart from the fact that in this case the neces-
sity would not exist by adhering TO that plan,
half of the advantage of the railway system
would be lost. If Royal street must be lost
to trade, let it be made as useful as possible
by running a double track through it, That
is what the community demands double
track. To put off 50 old and highly respect
able street as Royal with single track
would be an intolerable act of injustice.