Morning journal and courier., 1883-08-04
SruruxI xuS GGttrier.
Saturday, August 4, 1883.
The Hartford and Harlem

! Moro Evfdenee Against the Proposed Lay -out-Esromfnent Citizens Testify in Op- positIon-Numerous Objections Heard August 18th. The hearing in reference to the proposed layout of the Hartford and Harlem railroad | was resumed yesterday morning in the Supe- rior court room, the railroad commissioners all being present and the usual array of | counsel in opposition also Leing in attend ance.
 MT. Hamilton opened the proceedings by reading protest of citizens to the LeglSla- ture against the laying ont of a railroad west of York street. There were a number of such papers addressed to the General As- sembIy in anticipation of the effort then making for charter for the road. MT. Ham, ilton said these petitioners were substantlal- Iy all the property owners between York street and West river and Whalley avenue and Oak street. They were now laid in, as exhibits s.B." s'C'' and ''D, Y" and were orig inally got up to protect all the owners on the western plateau of the city.
 Deputy Sheriff Catlin testified that his axnerience as chief of police and police com missioner had taught him that there were ten times more arrests made in those sections or the city in which depots were located than there were in the section through which ! it was proposed to run the new road, and he saw no reason why the running of the line through the western part of the city, ana more particularly the stationng Of depots there, would not cause crime and criminal | class to gather in that vicinity. He was op- \ posed to the road on the old grounds or oe. struction of property" ''out Of the way, siunfit the neighborhood for. residence pur- poses" etc. ,.e lica and residing on Martin street, said he | did not think the Hartford and Harlem lay out fer the interest of the city. It would be 1 mora advantageous for the public to have tbe route along West river. crossing at GoHe ! street He had lived for seventeen years on l Whalley avenue, nearthe contemplated line | of the road, and there were few arrests. lie | did not remember but one arrest during the four years he was chief. It would not re- main free from crime were depot and shops ! built there.
 Corporation Counsel Driscoll read his let ter to the Board of Aldermen, in which the Hartford and Harlem route was speclhed | He also read the instructions he received | It WAS simply a communication from the city clerk, saying that the aldermen had re- 1 ferred the matter to the Board of Public Works, with power to act for the city.
 S. E. Baldwin objected to exhibits "B, :" | ttC" and ''D," as some signatures were by three of the road commissioners.
 MT. Hamilton said that the papers were l originally started when the signers did not | know what route was intended
 MT. Baldwin made Mir. Hamilton take the oath as vitness- MT. Doolittle objected to the examination. The commissioners ruled against it. MT. Baldwin moved that the ex- hibits be ruled out.
 MT. DoolittIe said that MT. Hamilton had represented that the papers were slgneo' | probably last winter, before the Legislature adjourned Mr. Hamilton wanted to make ] statement about these protesting papers. Mir. Baldwin objected, but was overruled
 Mir. Hamilton stated they were signed with | the double object of laying them before 8 leeislative committee and if necessary before 1 the railroad commissioners. Mrs Baldwin ! again moved that they be ruled out.
 l There followed some questioning or Ham iIton by S. E. Baldwin, who recognized some | of the names as having been put on at hrst. He could not state that J.B. Ssrgents, H. M. | Welch's or Dr. c. A. Lindsley's names were or were not among the first signers. The names were not signed in the order ln which they appeared on the paper. Inese sgneIH say in their petition that they are property | owners in the western part of the city
 MT. Baldwin admitted that the majority of the signatures were genuine. MT. Hamilton wanted to know if MT. Baldwin was ehargne
  pointed to three names of members of one family evidently all signed by one member oi
 the family.
 The dispute over these papers was cu
 short by the commissioners.
 James P. Pigott, city clerk, said that tht
 layout of Mulberry street was not recorded | on the city books. This objection to the re
 cord was got around by an order from Mir
 Driscoll to have the layout of Mulberr!
 street recorded yesterday. The paper was thel
 read, showing that the layout was fifty fee
 wide and that assessments had been ordered
 and the widening and extension from Win
 throp avenue to Day street had been regu
 larly effected.
 Engineer A. B. Hill explained on maj
 the Mulberry street layout. The distance l
 700 feet between the lines of Mulberry ant = George streets.
 Colonel Amos J. Beers, collector of tn . port of New Haven, testified that he oWne' l no property in the western-part of the city - As fruit dealer he handled good man. e carloads of freight each year. 1t neve
 seemed to him that the proposed layout wa
 a proper one The damage to the. propert, , would be greater than the benefit to tn | public from the railroad competition. H
 preferred the Derby road route for cit
 approach TIT n.,.. . .,o rn,on .rrns company, 8 resident here for thlrty-tW
 years was acquainted with the propose' I
 The property in that part of the city lies wei - for residences, and the road would be Of use there West river would be much bette 'I as 8 route.
 Wooster A. Ensign testified that he ha
 resided here sixty years. He was hafc
 ware merchant, handling several hundre
 carloads of freight. He did not like tn !. Hartford and Harlem layout, as he hated
 see good property for residences spoiled.
 cut at Day and Chapel streets would be yer
 disadvantageous.
 William B. North, of O.. B. North & Go
 said he did not think the route suitable nc
 that public convenience required @ crossin e at Chapel and Day streets. route on Wes
 river would be as we'll, but thought that eve
 there the manufacturers would not cal
 freight out there unless they got spec1' - rates. All the business of the town tende
 toward the other part of the town (east.
 He thought it question whether mRnufa' turing would increase in the western part ( the city, while recently factories were starte up in East Haven. Public opinion wa or strongly against the Hartford and Harle' S s. layout
 ,s. F. s. Andrew, the pork packer, handle ee POO or 300 carloads of freight 8 year. H ua objected to the Hartford and Harlem layou E. He preferred location on the bank of We All river. The proposed layout would necess e. tate constant expense for bridges. He VI >, not opposed to parallel road. There WI
 no feasible place for depot on their layo'
 between Goffe street and West Haven.
 John T. Sloan testified that he lived - Fair Haven. He was real estate agent. 2 route as laid out by the Hartford and Ha \ lem would have a bad effect on propert Business would not increase below NortC
 street. If the route was along West river would be better for business. He had \ piece of property within 800 feet of the pr \ posed layout, which he was about to se This proposed layout lost him the bushes Carlos Smith said that property on We
 Chapel street, near Day, had been sold f ' $175 foot. Two blocks above there is
 lot for sale at not less than $50 foc
 William J. Atwater bought a block of lo
 six or seven blocks away from the Hartfo
 and Harlem layout-about half way betwe the Hartford and Harlem layout and |
 river. Atwster paid $1OO foot This W \ to show that the land damages as stated
 Sylvanus Butler at $200, 1000 were way of t
 facts
 n General Samuel E. Merwin, jr., said handled between 300 and 400 carloads ! freight Sear. He thought that deep c through the city would be bad. There W no necessity or convenience requiring Manufacturers would prefer depots furth