Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1893-05-11
VICTORY ATTHEH HELM
The Salt Lake and Los Angeles
Railroad Company Wins.
JUDGE zAyEs RULING TODAY.
lie Gives the Plaintiils all They Askeu
For.-Ihe City Takes M
Exception.

Salt Lake and Los Angeles fa'iw"y
compnny vs. the Oregon Short Line ana
Utah Northern Railroad company anu
Salt Lake City, the hearing Of which
occupied the COURTS exclusive n'ten'
ton on Saturday and Monday last.
His honor said the plaintiffs had APP
plIed 10 the court for permission to ex'
tend their tracks from n point on SOUTH
Temple street, between sixth ana
Seventh West, to a connection WITH tho
Rio Grande Western on Skin
West, in order to reach the Rio drande
Western depot. Tho first question was
whether there was public necessity
for tho change demanded. IL woulu
appear that tho plaintiffs obtained q
franchise to lay lis track on south
Temple from Sixth West TO tho city
limits, and "a right OF way from the
point indicated to the Great Salt Lake,
building their road Mt a cost OF s2lO,'
600. 1t also appeared that Improve
ments had been effected by them at
the lake ut an expenditure OF some
so-O,Oov' ~ - 49, 49,. ..,,Id,,' 90 south
uueK was no" !" sn' ,'''''' y, -.
Temple, between SIKH anu oeVeh'n
West streets. OF cour,e II there was
any necessity for this road at all there
was a necessity for additional con-
uectlous anu accommodations LOT
iis freight and passenger traffic,
aud IN. r,,adi,of styeet was certainly
,, r,., a..
ho'a proper piaco 'o' '"e'"' '""' '.N
road was public necessity was PROP
ably generally admitted. The Union
p,sisa h.d .i..ad,, . ro.d ~ aa,a.id
's
ana us chiei business eohsis'eo In tue
conveying passengers 10 aud from the
Lab, nj that noint. Competition. oh
carved Tho conrt. REGULATED values md
might be said that there existed no
ftr-thni plaintiffs might build their
futthsr west. IN his oninlon. howoyer.
uublio ms n connertion with the Rio
pany,s depot. which wns centrally
located. III was likewise reasonnble 10
suppoae thattbeplaintiff obtained these
uriyileqes nt a less outlay than they
would have 10 make In building n new
Jopot. This should benofit Inc public.
and no incllned 10 the opjnion that
there was such "A necessIty for this con.
nectlop. The further and more seri.
Gus question was whether the court
had authority 10 grant 10 PLAINTIFF the
privileges sought, The statute pro.
vlded Tor the pu blic uve OF streets. but
another provision OF the st,tut, set
forth that railways should also be sub.
ject 10 the use of streets In common
with each other where The same be.
came necessary. IL was also provided
that the court should have power 10
determine tho condition. and reyuIa.
tions rs well as the manner and place
Of such crossings. BY the plaintiffs
crossing the Union Pacific track
ut tho point named IL would
Aubject that portion of the street
20 common use, The further
question was whether the court bad
inc authority TO give permission TO
paintiff 10 construct its track across
lie street, as IL Proposed 10 do. ip view
.. the fact that the city had re.
fused, except u nder certain conditions.
which had not been accepted, Refer,
ence had been made TO section 1888 OF
vol. 9, compiled laws OF Utah, 1854
This law provided that any railroad
company might construct ifs road
along, across or upon any street.
avenue OF highway. or across any rail.
way which the route Of It's road should
inteIsect. The proposed extension of
this road from the connection between
its own road on South Temple
aud Sixth West TO the rib
Grande Western depat must be
regarded as the line designated
by tho plaintiff company. His honor
quoted tho 3lst subdivision Of section
1855, lst vol. complied lava OF Utah,
This, no said, gave authority TO pro.
hibit the laying OF n track on any
street, alley, or public place; but no
reference was made 10 the crossing. This
law OF 1858 also gave tho city the
right TO prohibit the laying If cracks
III streels, but did not give them the
power TO prohibit railroads from cross.
ing street where II was necessary TO
do 30. He was disposed 10 con
stTue Theses two laws together
nnd 10 hold that where this
latter law gave She absolute 20 'er
to prohibit the laying OF tracts on aiy
,ifeet, while II gave the city tho RICH
10 prohibit the laying, 1t MAS simply
confined TO this. In this case lhe
liainufis had laid down their tracks.
bud were operating their rond to the
wet line OF Sixth West, and ali they
Low asked was not to extend their