The Portland daily press., 1886-04-06

tne way, IOr dccluculS noPPSAAo -
point. Judge Symonds said that the owners
IF the property on Portland Pler are men,
who if the landing Is laid out, VIII use every
legal method to obtain what they think Is
the value Of the property taken. Oruinaali, i
ly, when damages are excessive on .a lJau
laid out by County Commissioners, sucn
way may be discontinued, but in this case
that right does not exist. The various ele,
ments entering into the claims which would
be made upon the county for damages, IN
Guiding the wharf property taken, the build
ings, loss of rental and ROAD way, Were ue-
scribed at some length.
Mr. Bird followed Judge SymondS, ana
said that the proprietors OF P0rtland rIeI re-
monstrated to this petition, not because tney
are not willing to sell their properly 1or the
purpose, but because they think they can
not get a fair price for it. The evidence
submitted shows that the people of Ferry
Village and Willard would be alone beneht--
ted by the laying out of the way. Portland
already has their trade. Testimony for the
petitioners shows that the travel with teams
over the ferry would be light The pr0prie-
tors of the wharf say that if the landing is
to be taken they want the entire lower end
taken. For the amount of their property
taken they propose to have every dollar OF
damages to which they are entitled. The oc-
cupants of the wharf also claim damages to
which they are entitled. MIR. Blr1 then re-
ferred to the estimate made by Mr. Tewks,
bury as to the value of the property, and
was reckoned as per cent on the value, his
estimate of $50,000 would not be extrayagant
Mr.. Looney followed Mr. Bird. lie said
that the object of the petition was TO Denent
a private corporation with public ey,and
that if a team ferry could be made TO pay,
there would be money enough found to run
it. He mentioned previous attempts TO run
double END boats on this route, ana their
failure, and the present excessive rate OF
taxation in this city, brought about Dy tne
i TO inh hn nj
its influence.
Judge Goddard concluded his arguments
for the remonstrants. He referred to the
persistency of some people and admitted
that every man and every woman
the granting of the petition. In this case
the burden of proof rests with the petitioners:
They are required to prove the necessity OF
the landing. Opinions for or against the
petition are of weight either from the charae-
ter of the witness or the reasons he may
give, but some of this evidence Judge God
dard took exception to as being that given
by interested parties. As to the cost OF the
work, Judge Goddard alluded to the estimate
of Mr.. Goodwin and the corroboratlye testl-
mony of Capt. Brewer and was willing to let
the committee decide between their testi-
mony and the estimates submitted by the
other side. He cited the large annual eX-
pense on Portland bridge and said that alter
having this provided for them, the town OF
gent in the case of its roads. He spoke at
some length upon the accommodations re-
uuired In regard to the past ana existing
landings Judge Goddord said that the tact
they had been sold and neglected showed
they were not wanted He maintained that
while town remained small a public land
ing was good thing but as the place grew
the landing became as unnecessary as the
common originally set apart for the lastur-
age of cows. No evidence. has been intro
20 HOW, flan viofn nj nh
landings in other cities. Cities do however
maintain ferry lines between portions Of their
own territory. Judge Goddard asked why
the drop and slip should be asked for with
the landing and referred to the possible in
crease of county taxation. Judge Goddard
raised questions of law as to the power OF
laying out highway over tidewaters, the
sufficiency of the bond for the continuous
running of the boat as guarantee, and the
right of this continued action under the
special act.
Mr.. Hartford opened the argument for the
petitioners He referred to the isolation of
| Ferry Village, the efforts of the people to OBJ
tain ferry facilities. He spoke of the dis
comforts which the people had undergone
and closed without alluding to the legal
phases of the question which he left to his
colleagues.
The hearing was adjourned at this point.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
The afternoon session began at about hall
past two. Mr.. Henry B. Cleaves spoke first
and said he was glad that the old COM
pany had come openly as remonstrants
represented by their counsel. The business
men of Portland have been aroused and do
not propose to see the working people OF
Ferry Village going around by Portland
bridge. AS to the satisfactory guarantee OF
| the operation of the boat, the County Com
missioners themselves have declared that
matter settled in their public notice. Judge
Goddard says public landings are not needed
but these questions are not introduced for
any purpose but to divert judgment In this
case.
The opposition does not come from the
city of Portland nor from the country towns
Remonstrances are here, but the petitioners
know who secured them. No witnesses were
called from these towns because no oppOsi-
ton exists there. Mr. CleaveS alluding to
the objections to the location, recited the
facts Of the action of the petitioners in re-
gard to Custom House wharf dock with the the
action of the harbor commissioners and city
government. He denied that Portland Pier
IS a dangerous place, and said that the con-
dition of the roads of Cape Elizabeth is not
pertinent to the case. Mr.. Chaplin testified
| to the large expense in maintaining Portland
| bridge, but he also testified that the city
| takes care of Pride's and StroudwateT
| bridges. Mr.. CleaveS said that the public
| landing at the foot of Thames street was in
| dock claimed by Mr.. Curtis, and that that
Il
| venting the city even from landing paving
| stones there. The other landing place is
| covered with buildings, and the city's claim
| is lost That this petition is in favor of a
| private corporation was denied by MI
| Cleaves, and he cited decisions in the courts
| of this State showing road laid out by a
| county under circumstances analogous to the
| present. Witnesses who at this hearing ties,
| titled that the landing is unnecessary, signed
petition ten years ago for the laying
| have come here and testified in its favor
| Retail merchants and business men called by
| the remonstrants have opposed 1T.
| Mr. Drummond followed Mr. Cleaves. He
| read from the statutes to show that ferries
| are to be provided by the authorities and
| partially supported by them if necessary
| The old ferry ways have been decided as
| useless by the action of the legislature max
| ing provision for new one. Reference has
| been made to horse railroads not being aided
en- the thoroughfares through which they
| run. The legislature has substantially de
| termined that this landing is necessary, the
| only remaining question being what site
| shall be selected for the lanGing. Mr.. Drum
| mond said that the question as to the boats'S
suitability has been already settled. The
| objection that there would not be any great
| amount of travel with teams over the route
| cannot be settled until people have chance
| to travel on the boat Mr.. Drummond thought
Illdt Will lolIy III operation Iue peoPlo vi
| Ferry Village would be inclined to keep a
| larger number of horses. In regard to the
necessities of the public, Mr.. Drummond
| said that the benefits to be derived from such
works is reciprocal, one portion enjoying one
| thing, while another has something else, both
| being better off with what each has con-
| tributed to provide. He then at considerable
| length reviewed the estimates Of the city
civil engineer, urging the same objections to
| the amount as were brought up at the FORM
er hearing. Mr.. DrummOnd closed with a
recapitulation of his remarks.
This closed the hearing The committee
| will report to the Supreme Court either at
+bo onnroaching term or the one following,