Morning journal and courier. [volume] (New Haven [Conn.]) 1848-1894, 1892-01-20
COMMUNICATIONS.

some QueetnOns concerning tne ouer
of the Housatonic Railroad Com
pany.
Tothe Editor of the JOURNAL AND COURIER:
My attention was called to-day to what
purported to be an offer on the part of the
Housatonic and Derby Railroad companies,
and their general counsel to pay the claims
of property owners whose real estate was
injured by the closing of Hill and Lafay-
ette streets, and the order for bridging
Liberty street, and lest any should be de-
ceived thereby. 1 desire, as one of the
owners of property who have suffered by
this most unseemly conduct of these rail-
roads, to ask the astute counsel general"
one or two questions:
If you believed the so-cslled offer to
pay which you have sent to the mayor to
be fair one, why did you not make it in
1888 when you drew up the present agree
ment to arbitrate which you now advise
not to be performed, and the performance
of which you are doing all in your power
to PREVENT
2-If your answer to question No. l is
that the proposition is substantially the
same as the agreement of 1888 as you un-
derstand it, then why do You not carry out
the agreement of 1881
8 If you honestly believe that the agree
ment of 1888 does not include damages on
the other streets besides Hill, Lafayette
and Liberty streets, but does include the
damages done on these streets, why do you
not pay these damages to property on these
streets without this three or four years
haggling in the courts, making these poor
peOple all the expense YOU cant
4 If you will not perform even the part
of the agreement of 1888, which you ad-
NIT you ought to perform, viz: pay dam
ages to property owners on Hill, Lafayette
and Liberty streets, what guaranty have
we that you will not break a new agree
ment if made and we have another four
years. litigation2 and then you will find
some other flaw in the agreement of your
own drafting.
5. Do you really ask any man or
woman, in his or her senses, to believe
may be seriously damaged when situated
on the corner of Hill street and some
CROSS street connecting it with Lafayette
street and alse damaged in the same way
when situated on the corner of such con-
Meeting street and Lafayette street, yet
that piece of property situated on the
connecting street right between the two
pieces of property which are admitted to
be injured, would suffer no damage; or in
other words if you close up access to both
ends of a Cross street no ones property
on the cross street thus shut up will suf
fer any damage unless his property also
abuts on another street, Do you really
ask us to believe that is within law or
common sense that when street is shut
up the two lots at the ends are the only
ones damaged-the lots in the middle of
the street though equally cut off from pub
lie travel suffer no damagei
The very fact that the pretended offer to
settle contains such sbsurdity is enough TO
convince us that we cannot expect very
fair treatment or dealing from the railroad
company unless we get 1t through the
courts or the legislature.
If the railroad company had any just or
legal defense to our claims the proper place
to make them was before the commission
ers appointed by Judge Silas a Robinson.
The fact that tho railroad company never
made its pretended defense before such
honorable men as composed the arbitrs-
ton board, with Hon. L. B. Norris at the
head of the board, shows pretty clearly
that the Counsel general was afraid to
submit its defense to an able and honora-
BILE man like Judge Norris, but prefers to
fight behind small technicalities.
is to carry the case forward to the courts;
and if we cannot succeed there, then to the
legislature.
The proposition of the astute counsel
general" seems to be that this agreement
which was drafted by him in concurrence
with Governor Ingersoll on behalf of the
city does not mean anything in particular,
and very little in general, and that the
language in it twill refer any claims for
damages arising from the discontinuance
of said parts of Hill. Lafayette and Liberty
streets which may be made
BY any party or parties against said com
pany, whether such parties do or do not
own real estate sbutting on said parts OF
said Streets" does not include any streets
outside of these three streets, when the
wording is "whether such parties DO or do
not own real estate on said parts of said
streets"
When the astute gentleman says that he
will give this agreement such an inter
probation that those who "do not own real
estate abutting on the three streets are
to be cut off from recovering any damages
for their ruined property, We may well say
we do not want any more agreement made
by this railroad drawn by this astute
'fcounsel general"
Another consistent % part of the "coun-
sci generals proposition is to have the
new agreement made by the city as before,
| when his chief point of demurrer in the
| case pending in court is that the city has
no right, authority or power to make such
| an agreement or to enforce IL when made.
Az INJURED PROPERTY OWNERS.