The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1890-10-08
TO SAVE WOODWARD ST.
Arguments in The Lafay-
cite Railroads Case
llgg Against gaiinnsStt the CITY

The final hearing in the matter Of the
application OF the Lafayette Railroad
Company for an injunction to restrain
the CITY from interfering with the 1ail-
road company's tracks from the Newark
and New York Railroad em mbankment to
tn Q Griffin Iron Works was commenced
before the Chancellor this morning. The
by ex-Chancellor Williamson and
Mr.. William A. Lewis and
the interests of the city. Mr.. Edwards
began the proceedings by reading The
answer to the cOmpany's petition, a
synopsis OF which has been published in
THE JERSEY CITY NEWS. Then each side
read the testimony taken under order Of
no controversy was raised over Van
Horn street. The engineer of the road
testified as to the facts set out
in the petition, and Thomas H.
Williams, president of the Griffen Iron
works. testified that the building of the
sary in order to enable him to carry on
his business successfully. He said
that his works were the
largest of its kind in the country,
and if he was compelled to cart all his
produce and coal and iron to and from
the Pennsylvania Railroad, as he must
now do, he would be unable to compete
favorably with his competitors. Mr.
Samuel d. Tompkins, treasurer of the
iron works, thought that the spur could
be built on O trestle over the street in
controversy. and the only objection he
knew, to the trestle was that of expense.
Charles A. Van keuren also thought
that the road could be built upon
trestle
The engineer of the road, however, tes-
titled that it would be neither practical
nor feasible to build thespu on a trestle,
because the grade would be too heavy in
connection with the sharp curve to oper-
ate the road. Besides. the trestle would
be dangerous. Mr.. Lewis then began his
argument. He became very indignant as
he dwelt upon the manner in which
the press of Jersey City had
spoken of this case and referred to the
headlines which designated the COM
pany's course as a Railroad steal"
Another street gobbled up" etc. He
SAID that the Central Railroad was not
treated fairly in Jersey City. The
Pennsylvania Railroad and others he
said ran their freight trains through the
streets to factories. and did just what
they pleased with the thoroughfares
of the city. But when the Central under
takes to lay track on its own private
property, which it has purchased, these
men come i'll and say you haven't seen as
and you must stop"
Mr.. Lewis said that the answer laid
ette road laid its tracks on Sunday. He
was in the city the other Sunday and he
saw small army of men at work on the
Pennsylvania Railroads new depot
shoveling dirt aud no one stopped them.
He was proceeding on this line when Mr..
Edwards said that point was not OF much
Importance.
1T only implies a guilty conscience" Z"
interposed the Chancellor with q smile.
Proceeding, Mr.. Lewis contended that
there was no record of any regular pro-
ceedings that shows that right of way
was claimed for Woodward street across
the Newark and New York Railroad. The
Chancellor interrupted him to say that
the Court could not consider any irregu
larity in the proceedings, but simply de-
termine whether the road was on private
or public property. Mr.. Lewis then pro-
ceeded to show by acts of the Legislature
aud the proceedings of the Boards OF
Works, Finance and Aldermen that
Woodward avenue has never been de-
clared open across the Newark and New
York Railroad.