The Portland daily press., 1885-11-14
the FERRY LANDING.
The Concluding Testimony for the
RemonstrantS.
Arguments by Messrs. Bird, Looney
and Townshend.

|
ferry.
Can't Spear testified that the ferry company is
| paving s425 for the present landing for year.
The company has the option to extend the lease
of its present landing for three years, but not at
| the same price He thought tile average daily
expense of running the boat since she went on
| the route has been S23 a day. The average earn
ings have been from 500 to s31 day. The boat
| has carried, on an average, about 500 passengers
each way daily. The boat has met with some
fourteen or fifteen accidents since she began to
run.
On cross examination, he stated that there
! would be no trouble in so constructing landing
as to avoid any damage to buildings on the wharf
Mayor Deering was then called. He testified
| that tlle LAYING out Of the landing would make the
end of the wharf unsuitable for any other purpose
The harbor end of the wharf is the most valuable
part of the wharf property. He thought the ferry
would have no advantage over bridge transporta-
tation in delivering at the Cape such articles as
| southern pine lumber, in which he deals. He
! thought there would be a constant succession OF
| accidents on such landing as IS proposed lie
| thought there should be a landing established at
some point, but that Portland Pier would not De
a suitable place. He thought the plan proposed
would not be satisfactory to the petitioners them
selves; that it would be disappointment to them.
| Then ensued sharp tilt between MI Cleaves
the citv sovernment in instrueting the CITY Solicit
or to be present at the hearing. The Mayor said
there was lobbying to prevent any expression OF
opinion. Mr.. Cleaves asked him if he did not
make speech against the location Of the landing.
The Mayor said he made statement MrCeaves
called attention to the fact that the city govern
ment refused to instruct the City Solicitor to OPP
pose the location Of the landing.
Mr.. Fobes, of the firm Of Burgess, ropes y 70, 70,
testified that on Franklin wharf the value OF the
harbOr end would be ten times as great as the
head of the wharf, and the proportion would not
differ much between the value OF the parts OF
Portland Pier.
Mr. J. Tukesbury q member Of the Portland
Pier corporation testiled that IN ms rs J1dghient
would permanently lose about half its rents. He
said the wharf, in his estimation, is worth $4,000
and the corporation would probably claim about
half that amount in damages, If the landing is
laid out there. He thought the proposed highway
would be very dangerous and many accidents
Mr. W. A. Goodwin city ciYil engineer for the
past fourteen years, testified that the damage
landing would in his Judgment be $24,556 g.
This allows S4,590 for portion OF the wharf at the
end Of the pier; 5000 for the roadway; $500 for
changing over buildings on the wharf, and Sl4,-
166 81 as damages for decrease in rentals. This
last estimate allows for an annual decrease in
rentals Of $3.50, the present werth of which sum is
S14,16667. He estimates the cost to the city OF
building the float, slip and drop at s4 szo.46; MI
Goodwin thought the proposed foot too small. He
described the construction of similar floats in 9th
er ferries. He estimates the annual cost to the
city of maintaining the landing in proper repair at
The total amount Of public expenditure involved
city, according to these estimates is $441S3.45.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
At the resumption of the hearing in the after
noon Milton Higgins, member of the Portland
Common Council was the first witness. he testl-
fed that his business is teaming Double Jiggers
are from to feet wide and, with horses attached
the average length is 26 feet
City Civil Engineer Goodwin, recalled, testified
that it is a very small part of the function of
float to bear the weight, it must be large TO have
stability. We can not have float with this ex-
pensiye drop attached bobbing about on the
waves The float proposed by witness will bear a
Capt Daniel Brewer. ship carpenter Of Willard,
was next called and examined by Judge
Goddard He has built scows similar to
the propQsed float the last one petRg 1appehed
er than if It was in smooth place where there Is
no sea. The float should be 26 by 80 feet SIX feet
deep The drop should be attached to the noat az
point 20 feet from the inboard end, thus giving
levespace of thirty feet in which to stop teams
between the drop and the boat. In a southeast
gale, the sea would run about directly INTO lhe
proposed slip. Seventy-two feet length of drop
would be required to give a descent Of one N N
want 100 feet length of slip outside the float and
110 feet would be BETTER in order to Dreak tne
sea. In the opinion OF Witness me iahdlng Pa,ee P,
cost of such a float as the witness thinks neceSsa-
ry is So 344 O8 if built of yellow pine,and 81 ,Oo3
contingencies. The witness recommended yellow
pine it can be secured in better lengths and on
account of its greater durablllty, Will De
cheaper in the end than spruce 1t is necessary
to sheath with metal the float on account of the
worms which eat wood very rapidly IN TINS mar
bor BY rough estimate Of the cost of the drop
Capt. Brewer makes the whole cost of float and
drop at about $4,000 or 81 900 as the material for
the float is Of spruce pine. On cross examina-
fion witness stated that he had done work for
Messers. Curtis and Willard owners Of the old fer
ry line. He had made his estimates OF the float at
the request of Mr.. Goodwin. Witness and MT.
Goodwin made separate estimates, Mr. Goodwlns
estimates being made on a somewhat smaller
| float
MT. Choate. wharfnger of Portland pier re-
called, testified that the average annual expense
account on the pier is S4OO with occasion 1of eN-
traordinary expenses every Twelve OF fourteen
This concluded the evidence for the remon-
cant, G. III. Knowlton was called by the petit
tioners;and testified that he had been engaged in
running island steamers about. eight years. He is
acquainted with the site of the proposed ferry
the end Of the wharf were removed
Steamers. snele MoT& Worth in all $500 SEASON. Xpublc
way down the wharf would be of advantage to the
island steamers. The island steamer $. E. Spring
was taken off on account Of difficulty in securing
landing place. The island steamers are now
Weston f. MiIIiken, called by Judge Goddard
| testified that he has a lumber yard on the Boston
| and Maine wharf In the judgment Of the wit
| cheaper across the bridge by team than across
| the ferry. Would prefer to team it to places at
| no toll to be paid. Witness sells lumber mostly
at wholesale and does not sell much to Ferry VIII
| lage
! ARGUMENTS FOR REMONS1RANTS.
George L. Bird, Esq, opened the arguments for
the remonstrants speaking substantially as fol
| lows:
! am aware that there are many diverse inter
| ests represented here. The town of Cape Eliza
beth is practically the petitioner here IL IS
| now accommodated with two ferry companies.
| You are to decide if the expense is warranted by
is a proper Site for the landing. These points
will be touched upon by the other counsel for the
| remonstrants. l am here as representative of
| the owners and lessees of Portland Pier who
| have right to just and liberal compensation If
| their property is taken from them. This is not
| matter Of sentiment as far am concerned but the
petitioners who come here, to make easier their IA
cilities should consider the feelings of these pro-
prietors and lessees. Let us look at the present
| condition of the wharf. At the lower end are
Messrs. Lewis, Chase 4 Whtten holding yalu-
able lease; above them is Mr. A. NJ. Smith; above
| Mr.. Smith is Mr. Sawyer You, gentlemen, know
of the growth of the fish business and the diff
| Guilty of securing location. If you take Messrs,
| Lewis, Chase & Whitten's property they must
go to an inferior place losing an established site,
| and they are entitled to remuneration on these
| points. | believe that the estimate of $4,000
loss made by Messrs. Lewis, Chase & Whitten is
| a fair and just one. The case of MIR. Smith is
reduce the value Of his property one-half, and Mr.
| Sawyer suffers in the same way Gentlemen, If
you take this property, you practically destroy
sees will claim damages dollar for dollar and pro
pose to have it. The owners of Portland Pier are
perfectly willing the county of Cumberland should
take this place for a landing. if necessary, but
they also propose to be renunerated dollar for
dollar.
1t has been testified that with the buildings re
moved the end of this wharf will be a good land
ing place, but have they told you wnat damages
YOU will have to pay for the removal Of the build
fncs? The island steamers now running are well
accommodated, and are you gentlemen to con
slider the chance of getting one or two steamers to
lie at this wharf? We want certanties in esti-
mating damages, not probabilities or possibilities
The condition of Mr. Smiths property will be
much the same as of that lower down the wharf.
If the highway is built as indicated by Mr.. Good
win it will remove one half Of Mr.. Smiths build
ing And so it is all the way up that wharf. The
highway must be built suficently large: II you
build in that way the whole western side of this
wharf is rendered useless for the discharge of
cargo There will then be no reservation of sew
enteen feet. Goods will not be allowed in this
highway, which is practically public street, and
the estimate made by Mr.. Goodwin of $4,000 dam
ages is none too much.
I do not propose, gentlemen, to take more OF
your time, but as counsel for the owners indicate
to you their intention OF securing adequate COM
pensaton. They are willing that, if necessary
you should take the whole wharf but do not pro
pose to have it left in a cut up condition.
Mr.. Looney followed, speaking substantially as
follows:
Nag 1t please yoltr HonOrs:
am paid attorney unlike my learned brother