Morning journal and courier., 1892-06-15
DO NOT CONCUR.

DO NOT CONCUR.
 Iayor Sargent Dissolves . Tie Vote in the Board of Aldermen by VOt. ing in Favor of NOn-COncurrent Action In tho Matter of the Petition { of the West Haven Road for Per mission to Lay Double Curves at Church and Chapel Streets.
 The board of aldermen at 8 special meeting last evening voted not to concur with the board of councilmen in the action of the latter body granting the New Haven and West Haven Horse Rail- road company permission to lay double curves around the corner of Church and | Chapel streets. The question caused | much animated discussion and finally the | whole matter was referred to the corpora tion counsel for an opinion. Even had the board voted to concur and the com pany proceeded to lay the curves they would probably have been stopped by an injunction served by the mayor in &C., cordance with the advice of Alderman Newton.
 The ball was set rolling by City Clerk Downes reading the protest from the New Haven and West Haven Horse Railroad company against the amendment of the committee on railroads and bridges to the company's petition for permission to lay double track curves from Church street into Chapel street. This amendment grants permission to the road to lay the curves provided the road agrees to connect it's tracks with those of the Dixwell and Whitney avenues and State street horse railroad companies. At the meeting of the board of councilmen Monday evening the report of the committee of railroads and bridges was amended 50 that permis- sion was granted to the West Haven road to lay curves without compelling them to | connect with any of the other lines. Alderman Newton, chairman of the committee on railroads and bridges, first took the floor in support of the original report of the committee. During the course of his argument he claimed that the public was greatly inconvenienced, owing to the fact that at no point in the city could the public cross Chapel street on the l horse cars, and that in every instance 8 passenger for the depot was obliged to be transferred from one car to another. "The railroad company" said he, "are interest ed" in making money for their stock holders, while we, the aldermen, are here to protect the interests of the public. The railroad company claims that it will cost them $1 ,000 additional to lay the tracks as prescribed by the amendment and say
 that they do not think it just that
 they should be called upon to pay any
 such sum. When the Fair Haven aud
 Westville Horse Railroad company got
 their charter it was provided that they
 might run down Church street. It was
 still later provided by special statute that
 the three roads north of Chapel street
 might go down Church and Meadow
 streets. The law of 1889 provided that
 these three roads should be allowed to
 cross Chapel street. No railroad company
 in this city owns the roads, but simply
 certain rights to lay the rails. They own
 it subject to the convenience of the pub
 lie, and when they cease to serve the con-
 venience of the public their rights cease
 We cannot give things that railroad com.
 pany ought to have, but when railroad
 comes to us and asks us for an extension
 we have the right to grant that privilege
 conditionally. I do not believe that the
 company has tho right to lay these tracks
 to give authority for this change"
 The alderman then quoted the act o1
 1881 repeating all rights of railroads te build in New Haven. "The only law" he
 continued, "they could claim was the one
 passed in 1889. This law provides tha
 the West Haven road may lay double tracks in Church and Meadow streets, pro
 vided the tracks were laid before May
 1890. If such company fails to do this l they forfeit all rights. In the interests o
 the public call the attention of the mayo
 that it is his duty to see to it that thii
 company is not allowed to put down thes
 double track curves"
 Alderman Kelly called the attention o
 the chairman of the committee to the fac that he had over his own signature mad
 6 report advising that permission b.
 granted under certain conditions, and nov
 coming in and saying that the compan, could not legally build its road, and hat quoted law to substantiate his claim. H' | would like some light on this part of tn , subject.
 , Alderman Newton explained that whel , he made the report he did it in good faith
 but since the report had been made he ha
 learned that all such action was illegal e and this was the reason why he had com 7 into the board of aldermen seemingly ii f opposition to his own report.
 : Alderman Connor claimed that he dit , | not believe either of the other roads coult
 be legally made to run their lines to th F depot if they did not want to do so. Alder , man Gilhuly moved that the board concu 1 | with the board of councilmen.
 !, Alderman Newton then moved that tn f petitioners be given leave to withdraw f but the motion was not seconded. , Aldermen Kelly then raised the poin | of order that all motions except one t 8 concur was clearly out of order, as tn l l question had come from the board of coun
 cilmen for concurrence. The mayor de 1 cided the point of order well taken, afte which the motion to concur was seconded Alderman Hitler stated that the court 0
 common council had previously give street railroad companies rights that thei ': charters do not entitle them to, simply bt
 cause it was a convenience to the public
 This proposed improvement was 8 COT 7. venience to the public and he did not thin
 the West Haven road should be compelle : to put down tracks to connect with othe @ lines.
 Il The discussion was also participated l by Aldermen Morgan, Sonnenberg an [. Johnson, after which the question on tn
 motion to concur was called for. :. At this point Alderman Sonnenber ::- raised the point of order that the whol
 question was not properly before th j. board, if the law which had been quote l. that the city had no right to grant an 7. such permission was correct.
 :. The mayor said if he was compelled
 was not properly before the board, but th D ruling was not asked for.
 s The original question on concurrenc g was then called for and taken by an ay f and nave vote.
 @ The vote resulted as follows: Ayes, A y dermen Moran, Keane, Gilhuly, Johnson l, Morgan, Connor; total 6. Nays, Alder # men Hitler, Newton, Kaehrle, Sonnenbere @ Shannahan, Chatfeld; total 6. Excuse @ from voting, Aldermen Kelly, Cramptor A Prince; total 8. The vote resulting in y tie the mayor cast the deciding vote againi @ concurring with the board of councilme1
 By vote of to the petition was the 0 referred to the corporation counsel for al
 opinion as to the right of the court (
 common council to grant said petition
 Alderman Kelly then moved that when th d board adjourned it adjourn until ne1 Monday evening, when it is expected th opinion of the corporation counsel will t l. read.
 V The board then transacted some routin n business, after which it adjourned at l., o'clock.