The herald., 1893-02-07

aeseesm6ub mduo on Second street, a
resolution was introduced to set aside
the assessment between Los Angeles and
Alameda streets, which WAS adopted by
a unanimous vote.
THE DOUBLE TRACK ON ALAMEDA STREET.
Mr.. Nickell in the chair. The hour
having arrived for hearing the matter
OF allowing the Southern Pacific COM
pany double track on Alameda street,
which petition had been reported back
by the board of public works without
recommendation, judge Bicknell sd-
dressed the council in behalf of the com
pany, and read long petition from that
corporation asking for a double track
from the San Fernando depot to the
Arcade depot. He said the building of
the new wharf at Santa Monica would
double the business of the Santa Monica
branch road, and single track, as at
present, would give that business no
adequate outlet. The removal of the
track on San Pedro and Pine streets
would take up 10.50O feet of track and
give the property holders on those
streets just that much more room.
Mr.. Teed-In the event that the
double track were to be laid, how many
more trains would be run over it than
are now being run over the road?
Judge Bicknell-None whatever. 1t
Is to prevent loss of life by collision,
which will be averted by double track {;
and also to prevent trains from being
accumulated in the San Fernando and
Arcade depots, as is now frequently the
case. With double track all danger
to life and limb will be forever obviated.
Mr.. Gaffey-By what right in law or
equity, Judge, do you make this claim
for double track?
Judge Bicknell then read the ordi-
nance granting depot grounds and rights
OF way through the city on pages 204 5
OF the ordinances of the city OF Los
Angeles as codified by F. G. Teed, and
on page 119, same book, approved
September 6, 1872, by Christobal
Agu liar, then mayor.
Mr.. Gsffey-For how long time does
that grant extend, Judge?
Judge Bicknell-There is no time
specified, and it therefore must be re-
garded as perpetual.
Col. q. Wiley Wells was the next
speaker, and said he represented large
clientage opposed to granting any fur
ther track room on Alameda street. He
reviewed the history of streets since
cities were first organized, and said they
were built for the convenience of vehi-
cles and loot passengers; and the usage
OF streets by railway corporations is
something OF more recent origin. This
claim for moro track will practically
amount to a confscation of the peoples
property on Alameda street. 'sThere are
property owners on Alameda street who
lived there long before thel q was single
line OF railway contemplated within the
state. Their rights are the elder rights,
and you are the choeen guardians of
those rights, gentlemen OF the council.
This proposed change cuts down the
space between rail and curbstone to 13
feet. How, ask you, gentlemen, is q
man driving a spirited horse to his
buggy, to pass another team in that
narrow space of Is feet with two big go.
ton engines belching forth steam as they
approach each other with heavily-laden
trains? Why, gentlemen, collisions,
and fatal ones, too, would be matters OF
hourly occurrence" The colonel con-
tinued at length, and made strong
argument.
Judge Hatch presented petition from
owners of 2800 feet on Fifth street ask
ing for the grant OF this double track as
local benefit. He said Colonel Wells
had read the council lecture on their
official duties, but he did not propose to
try it on-he might get the worst of it.
The colonel had said that the space be-
tween rail and curbstone was only 13
feet. He said the city engineer had
given him an estimate of 10 feet each
side; and as that officer was present, he
would call on him to say whe ther that
was correct.
Mr.. Dockweier said such was correct,
provided the tracks were laid l3 feet from
center to center, which makes a total of
81 feet, counting from the extreme ends
of the ties to the double track.
George S. Patton spoke next. He said
the discussion was taking very wide
range, in allowing the frontage to enter
into the consideration. If man owned
10 feet of property on Alameda street,
he is entitled to as much protection as if
he owned 1000 feet or 100000. Jap
plause from the gallery, which was
promptly silepced by the chair.] He
said that the double track was good
thing for the railway company, and
for the passenger riding within
the cars, but it was no good thing
for the foot passenger or for the farmer
driving into the city with load of gar
den truck with q pair of half broken
colts. Suppose lie crosses one track in
front OF an approaching train and gets
run over on the other track by train
coming from the opposite direction, will
Judge Blcknell or Judge Hat ch go be-
fore jury and charge that poor old
granger with contributory negligences.
Is the granger to put his trust in his
team, or in Divine Providence, in cross
ing such track? l defy anybody on
earth to give, as legal opinion, the
idea that the Southern Pacific has the
right to lay two tracks ON that street.
Mr.. Teed-Do you state your belief as
8 lawyer that they have no right to a
single track2
Mr.. Patton-I have not had time to
study up that question as yet. In fact,
I am not practicing law just now. l am
a rancher and raising oranges for liv-
ing. and it takes all the money l can dig
up to pay freight upon such oranges to
this very Southern Pacific company of
Kentucky. But am informed that they
laid that single track down Alameda
street to the new Arcade depot in def
ance OF law and entirely upon the maxim
that might makes right. II this council
grants this proposed privilege, it will
confiscate the property of the protesting
parties. If you do grant it, make it so
that all competing roads coming into
this city shall have the right of way over
the same raila. Applause from the
lobby.l
Mr.. J. s. Chapman was the next