Morning journal and courier., 1891-06-18

F-Mr F. 9. Fisher.
S-John B. Schenuerhorn.
ND. sPERRY. P. M.
THE TROLLEY SYSTEM.
The Question Before the Supreme
Court-The Briefs of Attorneys-An
Opinion from Corporation Counsel
Dr1scOll.
The question whether the Winchester
Avenue horse railroad company will be al
lowed to use the overhead trolley system
of electricity for it's street cars is now be-
fore the supreme court of Connecticut for
decision. The case was recently submitted
to the court of errors on briefs, when there
were no arguments.
Henry Farrell of Winchester avenue,
whose residence is on the line of the road,
has brought an injunction against the road.
In it his lawyers, George w. Robinson and
William Trumbull, set forth that this road
is not by its charter provisions allowed to
use the overhead wires. The company, SO
they further claim, "has petitioned the
mayor and common council of New Haven
for permission to use cars propelled by
electricity, by means of overhead wires,
and threaten and intend to erect poles and
wires for such propulsion and to operate
its railroad and run it's cars by the same,
under such permission and authority.
''The mayor and common council are
about to grant the petition and permit the
company to operate the road by electricity
furnished by overhead wires
''The operation of the road by such over
head wires will cause irreparable damage
10 no rfy of tho 1,afifinnar NV tho
noise created and in other ways"
A condensed report Of the brief of Mr..
Farrell's attorneys is as follows:
'"The defendants claim that the munich
pal authorities have full power to author
ize the use of this system under section
1886 of the general statutes. The plain
tiff claims that the whole subject of the
rights and obligations of this road as re-
CARDS the use Of motive power is covered
by its charter.
"The defendants invoke the aid of the
general principle that one statute should
not be held to repeal another, unless the
two are plainly repugnant. But this is
not case of appeal. The question is
simply whether the statute should be held
to govern a new company incorporated
after the passage of the act with specific
powers directly granted in its charter.
"The legislature must be presumed to
have had meaning for the enacted
words. They must have also had reason
for each particular clause of the charter
| of the company. If it was intended to
leave the regulation of the motive power
as regards the road to the authorities of
| the city of New Haven, why was the legis-
| lature so particular to specify in this case
| the various kinds of motive power except
| ing in terms the overhead system.
| Every act of q corporation which is not
| afirmatiyely authorized by its charter in
| wolves both an unauthorized exercise of
corporate power and departure from the
| original agreement between the members
of the company.
"Whatever power the mayor and COM
| mon council possess is given them only as
| the agent of the legislature, and when the
| principal itself assumes to act, the author
| ity of the agent is excluded.
| AS regards the road, it is plain that the
| legislature covered as it intended to the
| whole ground in it's charter.
'It is common knowledge that the troll
| Icy system is OBJECTIONABLE in various ways.
The poles and wires are unsightly, and the
| operation of the road dangerous. It is fair
to presume that residents of Winchester
| avenue objected to the use of this system,
| and it is evident that the exception in the
| charter was intended for the protection,
and the whole object of the exception is
| defeated if the mayor and common council
can authorize the use of the Objectionable
system"
Ex-Judge Sheldon and Lawyer Talcott
II. Russell represented the railroad COM
pany. In their brief they advanced the
following points, after quoting from the
general statutes and the city charter of
New Haven the law empowering roads to
| use improved motive power for street car
| services:
"The use of the streets of city for the
purpose of a street railway not involving
the use of steam does not impose any new
burden on the adjoining proprietors, but
| is within the purposes for which a street
| is originally acquired. So far, therefore,
as the rights of adjoining proprietors are
concerned, they have no right to complain
of the use by a railroad of the streets for
any such purpose. The question is sim
ply one between the railroad and the pub
lie, as to what the public interest require.
legislature or by the public authorities of
the municipality.
AS regards the powers not expressly
given, it has the right which every street
railroad company in the city of New Haven
has, to appeal to the mayor and common
council. If, as we have already shown,
and as the statutes evidently intend, the
whole power of the legislature in regard to
methods of operation is vested in the city,
there is nothing in the charter Of this COM
pany preventing it from appealing to the
municipal authorities for such privileges
and rights as they are empowered to grant,
and to their wisdom the question of
authorizing the use of such methods may
be left.
Corporation Counsel Driscon submitted
a brief in behalf Of the city and in support
of the defendants. One of the points he
made was as follows:
"But in granting the right to use certain
motive powers, and only excepting this
particular kind, the general assembly failed
to act one way or the other, and wisely
left the question of permitting this particu-
lar electric power, as we'll as all other kinds
of motive power not named or described
in the company's charter, to be determined
by the city authorities, under the statute
and city charter. according to their discre-
ton ard judgment"