Lancaster daily intelligencer. [volume] (Lancaster, Pa.) 1864-1928, 1881-06-18
zanrastcr fntelh8enrer.

zanraster futellgenrer.
SATURDAY KvENmgo. JUNE ,ls, 1851.
The Chrsnlc Rallroal Trsable.
As the city Of Lancaster seems to be
unable to compel the Pennsylvania rail-
road company to guard the street Cross
ings, it may be q matter of congratula-
tion that the company proposes soon to
lay track outside the town, upon which
to run its through trains. 1t is certainly
not creditable either to the city or
the company that numerous &C
cidents should take place at the railroad
crossings of the streets without any rem
edy being applied. It shows a nerveless
city government and an -unscrupulous
corporation. An accident yesterday and
one to-day should suffice to stir up
enough popular feeling in the matter to
secure some redress but probably it
viii not. The suits brought. by the
city have somehow been paralyzed and
their issue will he delayed until the
new road is built outside the city, when
its officials possibly think they can afford
to snap their fingers at the municipal
authority.
But that they cannot do. There is one
influence which controls them always,
and that is self-interest. Lancaster is
too big . town to be despised. Its trade
is important and another railroad is at
hand to contend for it with the Pennsyl-
vania. If that corporation should sue
coed in grasping the Reading we would
be pretty effectually at its mercy, it is
true; but it has not done it yet and is
not going to do it, we think. The COM
patition of the Reading has forced
the Pennsylvania to relinQuish the
original intention of putting the freight
depot out on the Stambaugh place, as
was contemplated when it was pur.
chased some three years ago. This depot
is now about to be rebuilt on its present
site. In view Of all the circumstances,
perhaps, it may really be the city g interest
that the main line be taken outside our
limits. The chief inconvenience will be
the possible loss of the use of one or two
fast through passenger trains. This is
the extent of the deprivation of railroad
facilities which the malice of the officers
will be able to impose upon US, and to
compensate for it we will have our streets
! from the delays and dangers at
tond., upon the crossing by so many
trains.
fully considered Oy ~ .d;e - - ~ :...,s VIZ
authorities, however a. III IL Is judged
to he any disadvantage to tho CITY 10 per-
NIT the building of the outside .me' the
question will arise as to our power 10
prevent it. That We have such power
we are disposed to believe. We do not
know what authority the Pennsylvania
railroad company has to build loop in
its line whenever and wherever it sees
proper. Under the power it is now az.
suming, in the Strengthening of its
line, of laying down new lines
while yet retaining its old one,
it may cover the whole country
with its rails. Possibly it may not have
the power it claims to build what will
be essentially a new railroad around
Lancaster, even though the city had no
special power to object to it. But it will
be remembered that the present road was
built through Lancaster at the expense
of the city. The original line was 10.
Gated outside, pretty much where the
projected line is to be built. The city
entered into a contract with the state,
as we understand, by which the line was
changed at the city's cost. Does not
then the question arise as to the power
of the purchaser of the road
from the state to violate the
agreement made by the state that the
railroad should pass through the town !?
The purchaser took the road subject to all
the restrictions under which the state
held it, and if the state could not
run the railroad or any part of it out
side the city, can the Pennsylva-
mia railroad company do it? And
would not the city have a lawful claim
for damages against the company for
removing the road or any part of it !?
We have not examined the matter and
state no opinion upon it but it is i'm
portant enough to be looked into by the
authorities in view of the well known
purpose of the company to soon build
the outside line.
We doubt the propriety of covering
into the state treasury, as forfeit to the
commonwealth, such money as that
which one member of the New York
Legislature says was paid to him by an
other for his vote. The man who says
he got it will not keep it, rs it is the
wages of iniquity the man who is
charged with giving it will not take it
back, as that would be a confession of
crime. But their difference is no reason
why the state should be a stakeholder or
O beneficiary of the dirty hrihe. Ytcann0t