Morning journal and courier., 1881-07-27
The Parallel Road Project.

AStSeS~A The Hearing Before the Railroad Com-
 mtssioners-The Legal and Other Ob-
 jectfOns Raised-The Derby Railroad
 Entrance to the Cfty-More Hearing
 Next Week.
 Railroad Commissioners Woodruff, Bacon and Hayward met yesterday morning in the office of the New York and Connecticut Rail road company in Woods building this city, and held their hearing of parties interested in the proposed layout of the Parallel road. About 50 persons were present, New Haven, Bridgeport, West Haven, Milford, Fairfield, Norwalk Greenwich and other towns being represented. Corporation Counsel Stoddard and City Surveyor Fowler officially repre- sented the city of New Haven.
 The Derby railroad, whose tracks the new road proposed to use in entering this city, was represented by President Bartholomew and M. Frank Tyler. For the New York and Connecticut Railway company appeared A. P. Hyde, of the law firm of Waldo, Hubbard & Hyde of Hartford, and ex-Congressman Warner, of Norwalk. General William Ran del Smith, of Norwalk; Hilton B. Doolittle, of this city; Colonel Hoyt, of Greenwich, and Lawyer Woodward, of Norwalk, were among others present.
 First the cities and towns interested were called upon and then individuals.
 MT. Stoddard, for the city of New Haven, objected to the Parallel coming into the city over the Derby tracks. It would involve crossing seven streets at grade. There was a serious objection to the use of this track. It was injurious to public safety. It was so now, and with more trains it would be more dangerous The present location of the Derby track was mistake, and in the fall measures would be taken to change the Derby road entrance to the line of the New York road over the salt meadows. He urged that public sentiment favored this change. In reply to question from Mr.Hyde, who asked if the Parallel couldn't use the Derby track so long as the latter remained where it is MT. Stoddard said no, because, with more trains, more danger. He said he did not represent the Derby road, but the city of New Haven, which owned most of it.
 The commissioners agreed to fix day for MT. Stoddard to be heard at length on the matter he had introduced Mr. Woodruff stated that all hearings would have to take place before August 23, or go over until No vember or December, or later, as the commits sioners were occupied after August 23.
 Israel K. Ward appeared for the borough of West Haven. The crowd being too large for the company's office, the hearing was ad- journed to the Superior Court room, in the county building MT. Ward objected, in be- half of the borough, to the projected roads o% ikc First avenue, as decided damage to the borough. A grade crossing at that point would be great evil, but if not grade crossing Spring street would be damaged Another route further north could be taken He objected to any crossing at grade on the borough. The commissioners will name a day for a hearing in the West Haven matter Bridgeport was represented by Thomas Stirling, Stratford by Selectmen Beardsley l and Curtis, Fairfield by Selectman Wake man, who all objected to grade crossings in | those towns. For Norwalk General Randel Smith appeared and objected to the general location of the road through the borough He also represented some fifteen or twenty | individual property owners. Ex-Congress- man Warner, on the other hand, ! held that there was no opposition to the gen. eral location of the road, and doubted if any | borough meeting action had been taken. The objection was with regard to certain cross ! ings General Smith said he represented the highest authority in the borough. The con- missioners said they would name a day for | the hearing.
 Colonel H. W. R. Heyt, of Greenwich, ap- peared representing the town, also fifteen or \ sixteen individual property owners and First | Selectman Russell was also present prepared to object. Colonel Hoyt was prepared at the proper time to deny the legality of the or ganization of the company, to deny the neces- sity of taking the line through Greenwich which it was proposed to take, and to oppose all crossings at grade. In reply to the com missioners, who were ready to hear the legal | objections at once MT. Hoyt said he must
 defer making them, as he had reserved them | for future meeting
 l MT. Tyler, for the Derby road, said the | road would make no statement, as the two
 roads would probably come to some satisfac- l tory agreement. He objected to the approv.
 al of any layout which would interfere with ! the possible change of any layout of the Derby road.
 l Hilton B. Doohttle, representing R. s.
 Fellowes, objected to the layout of the road
 because it passed over five different pieces oi
 property belonging to him. In the first
 place he stated that in his opinion there is
 not in existence any such corporation as the
 New York and Connecticut Railway compa- ny, because the statute law of the State
 have not been complied with. He read the
 statute law of the State and said it had moi
 been complied with. He charged that
 George R. Coles, of Norwalk, has never
 signed the articles of association and the ar.
 ticles show it, as it says that s. E. Olmstead
 did it for him. Nor has he signed any pa.
 per to show that he had subscribed for any
 stock. This should be done to make the ar
 ticles good and prevent fraud being perpe
 trated upon the public by lodging of re-
 sponsibility on quibble in case of any ne