Morning journal and courier., 1883-08-30
Hartford and Harlem.

Declared a Nuisance-The OImstead
 Parallel People Put in Their Plea.
 The railroad commissioners resumed the hearing of the arguments on Hartford and Harlem layout through this city yesterday morning. Mir. Doolittle began his argument at 1O:35. He said New Haven did not need the road. They had the Shore Line to New London, the Derby up the Naugatuck, the New York to New York, the Canal to Farm ington, the Hartford to Hartford and the Air Line to Middletown. When it is built it will be mere money making operation. Not for the public good, nor because the public in
 erests require it. It will be built to be sold. Perhaps to take other railroads by the throat and force them to buy it.
 ''In the matter of their layout" he said, q have concluded that they have run it, so far as New Haven is concerned, directly through the center of the city, because it looks so nicely on the map. MT. Baldwin tells you that they have right to run their road anywhere, so long as it isn't 8 wanton abuse of power. The theory of our govern ment is that the land of an individual shall not be taken from him, except where there shall be an imperative necessity. And who does MT. Baldwin put forward as the judges of this necessity Why the stockholders of the Hartford and Harlem down in Mir. Bald wins office. We do not need the road Ours is not the case of 8 city without railr pads. But rather one whose territory is thoroughly permeated with roads which are steadily los ing money-some of them. We have put in, gentlemen, the testimony of some of the best citizens in this community from every walk in life against just handed you yoa will find the names of two judges of the Superior court who hap pen to reside in this city. There has never been to my knowledge such unanimous sentiment against scheme to affect the pub lie in this city as that against the present. Now MT. Baldwin, when he perceived this public sentiment against the layout, said: Well, after all, gentlemen, it's but question with the engineers.' This road in my judgment should go up on the bank of the West river. Tue Hartford and New Haven road was required to run between the old canal basin and the steamboat wharf. It didn't touch building For more than ten years their depot was down at. the head of the causeway leading to Tomlins Jn's bridge, l two miles away.
 Here Mir. Doolittle showed by map, en- graved in 1924, how far away the Hartford road was from the city at the time it was built. The Canal road simply utilized mas " AgIA0 CEcoh huO ulu uO LO bAc CIGJ The people that formerly resided in the eastern part of the city have been driven out by the thickening of the manufactories and the population, and have removed to and | built up the western part of the city for | beautiful homes. They want to live there. And say that for your honors to grant this road the privilege to do as it wishes in this matter would be cruel. From the course proposed by the road, the solemnity of the last service for the | dead in Evergreen cemetery, the funeral knell and all the last sad rites 30 dear to us, must be invaded by the rush and roar of the locomotive and the screech of the whistles.
 What compensation does the road make those parties whose land they ruin by ap- preaching although they do not touch. The \ land on Chapel street, where the line runs, is ' worth $175 per foot. On Whalley avenue it | is worth $100 per foot. It is too valua- ble for manufacturing purposes. And, | your honors, will you allow this valuable property to be depreciated by this iron | track? What argument do they advance in flavor of their route7 The accommodation of passengers. Why not run the road through the center of the Green if the accom- modation of passengers is what you are look ing for2
 Mir. Doolittle quoted considerably from prominent legal authorities in support of ! his argument. He spoke of the necessity of l removing the depot from it's old place on Chapel street, because of the danger to prop erty of engines standing in punches under the bridge. Yet they propose to have out on Whalley avenue, or somewhere, just such another nuisance twenty-two feet under 1 ground.
 ''The company propose" said Mir. Doolit- | tie, Ito cut through the only water main which supplies the upper part of the city. | They propose to raise this main over their
 track. The other roads were built before the city waterworks. This company ought not
 to be allowed to lay finger upon the pipes. | for it. By raising it they will diminish the
 flow of water 28-1O0ths they admit. But the I water pi pes they say are part of the high | way the same as sewer. I cannot find any
 such ruling New Haven was an expensive ! city to sewer. It was very flat. The Chica go system of sewerage was adopted here- Wt
 have debt now in consequence of our fine ] system of sewers, and our people are very
 sensitive upon any points where the chances l sre that the sewers will be disturbed by thif l new railroad ine."
 At 12 o'clock MT. Doolittle's argument waf
 concluded. MT. Bald win then spoke for his | road. He said it was useless to talk about
 the wants of the New Haven of years ago
 The city was altogether different now from | what it was in the days of her huckleberry
 brush green. MT. Baldwin said he had ob
 served that the Hartford and Harlem wal 1 steadily rising in public esteem. ''It hal
 been asserted by my learned friend who just
 closed his case that there is no need of tht road. Now will state who the three objec tors are to the scheme of the Hartford and
 Harlem parallel. They are, first, the New | York, New Haven and Hartford railroad company directly and indirectly; second the Olmstead Parallel, directly and indirectly,
 and third, J. B. Sargent and other wealthy property owners along the line of the road The speaker then showed how the city would
 be benefited by the road.
 Lawyer l. N Warner, of the Olmstead
 Parallel, argued that the Hartford and Har-
 lem was not legal corporation, they had
 no location when they issued their articles
 of association. The Olmstead, which had
 entered it's location in it's articles of associa- tion, should have the precedence.
 | Lawyer A. P. Hyde made an argument
 indeavoring to show that the Hartford and
 Harlem road have not the right to locate theil road while the Olmstead Parallel road peo pie
 are proceeding and endeavoring to perfect l their location.
 Mir, Baldwin said in answer to their argu-
 ments that the Olmstead Parallel had by itt
 lethargy forfeited it's franchise. From October 1881, until February, 1883, they were dor mant and only when the Hartford and liar lem road made such progress that the Olm
 stead people began to get frightened did the ghost arise MT. Baldwin quoted the Su preme court decision in the Enfield bridge
 case to prove his point. He accused the
 OImstead Parallel road of lack of diligence
 and good faith.
 As it was late when Mr. Baldwin conclud- ed the commissioners adjourned until the Il
 of September at Bridgeport.