The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1894-04-03

1t is alleged that after the construction of
I the road the company permitted the
streets upon which it is located, in the
parts of the streets torn up and dis
! turbed, to be and remain in such torn up
and disturbed condition. unsafe and danger
GUS to the public in the use.of the streets,
and as an obstruction to greater or less
! extent to the proper use of the streets. Now.
| ! am not perhaps accurately informed as to
| che terms of the contracts existing between
the city authorities and the company, nor as
| to the terms of the ordinances under which
it has exercised its franchises, they are all
public records and open to investigation,
but in legal view of this matter. as to the
duties imposed upon this company to the
public, it is not material for our purposes
for instructions to you to look
| to the contract or ordinances.
In framing an Indictment against
| the company for neglect of duty, or for
maintaining a nuisance in the public streets,
a reference to the records might be neces-
sary, but in your investigation as to matters
of fact, and consequent criminality they
would be of little use The duty of this COM
pany to the public does not rest in the terms
of any contract between the city authorities
and the company. 1t may be that so far as
| this contract is concerned, under the law,
| the city authorities might be indictable
| for not compelling performance of the con-
tract in respect to public rights, or the
| company in the same regard be indlctable
for not complying with the contract securing
such rights.
| But the duty of the Trolley Company to
the public rests upon higher grounds than
| contract conditions That duty falls under
| the principle of law which renders any one
who owes duty in this respect indictable
! for an obstruction to the public use OF the
1 -. %l,A t.lr of flaof
customarily safe use which by law the pub
! lie is entitled to have in street as COM
mon public highway In short, it was, and
| is the duty of the Traction Company, ire
spective of any contract to replace, repave
| or otherwise repair the streets disturbed by
| the construction of their road, SO as to rem
| der them convenient and safe for pub
! lie use and travel, and to
render them free from obstruction to such
uses believe these duties were provided
| for by contract with the city, or by ordi-
nance, or by both; but whether this be SO or
not the principle of law applicable in the
premises remains the same, and a neglect of
such duty in leaving the streets without such
replacing, requirement., repair, or in such an
| obstructed state, would be an indlctable
| public nuisance. Now, your investigation is
invoked in this matter, that no further re-
sponsibility remain with the Court.
| DANGEROUS sPEED(0.
| Again, it is complained that this company,
runs its cars at an unusually dangerous rate
of speed through the streets, SO much SO
| that if it is continued the exclusive use ofthe
streets will for this reason be compeh1d to
| be abandoned to the company, and the pit b.
| lie be deprived almost entirely OF their equal
rights with the company to the use of the
streets. 1t will be observed that our or
dinary streets are hardly wide enough for
| double track trolley road, considering the
accommodations necessary for the general
public and the business of the streets. 1t
| Is true that the calendars OF our Cir
| cult and Supreme Court are being bur
| dened with actions for personal injuries Ihls
is quite aside from the discussion here, but
| it is said that this condition of affairs is at
| tributable to the dangerous rate of speed of
| these cars on our streets, more than 1T IS TO
| the neglect of the persons injured. Now, the
| rights of the trolley in our streets, are in no
| wise paramount to the rights of the pubic,
except that the car must pass along on its
| located tracks 1t has the right to run on
these tracks in the street The public has
| the right to use the street, and the same
| space, having regard to the right of cars to
| proceed without interruption on its rails.
| The public must give way to reasonable
| rate of speed of the car to this extent,
but that is about the only re-
| spect in which the public right is sub
servient. The public have the right to the
use of the streets to pass along, to repass and
to cross, not only at the regular crossings
| but elsewhere. where necessity or reasonable
| use of the street requires OF allows it, and be-
| sides those who live along the street, or have
| business places upon either side, nave the
right to a reasonable use of the str eet for in
gress to their places of residences or business
| or egress therefrom, or for communication
| with each other either on foot, or with their
carriages, wagons and horses. These are
about their relative rights. The extent OF
| the legislative grant interferes with the
| public to no greater extent.
| The Court of Errors and Appeals of this
State has given us principle to apply in the
matter which / am considering. Justice
| Magic, speaking the unanimous opinion of
the court said:-"It is not pretended, and
the case does not show that the plaintiff in
error"-(which was trolley company oper-
ating in the streets of Newark)-"has
! acquired by legislative grant any right to
run its cars in the highway at any rate of
speed Such grant to use rate of speed
| in highways which would be destructive of
| its customary use by others. and incompat-
ible Herewith. would not be within legisla-
made to the owners of the land trayersed
by the highways.
1.-THE contention of plaintiff in error rather
takes this shape:-It asserts that its cars,
propelled by electricity, are capable of being
run at greater rate of speed than other We
h1Cl0S IN tn6 nlgnWay, ana Gnab Gne puOIlc
| convenience demands for passengers carried
| in such cars what is called rapid transit;
| and it draws the inference that its cars may
therefore be run at such speed as will satisfy
| the public demand, and that other persons
lawfully using the highway in the customary
| modes must govern themselves and use the
| highway accordingly. Judicial opinions
| have been cited to US which appear to sup
| port these extraordinary propositions. I am
unable to subscribe to the notion which, car
ried to its logical conclusion, would permit
| this company and other companies running
cars in public highways propelled by cleo
| tricity, cables, ETC., to run at any rate of
speed which they may deem demand, un-
defined and unrecognized by law, to re-
quire."
| DO WE TRAVEL TOO FAST.
| I think it is a matter of daily observation
| on the part of the citizens of Jersey City
| that the trolley cars of this city are being
run in violation of these principles of law,
and that on parts of streets, and generally
over crossings and elsewhere, these cars are
| propelled at high rate of speed, at a dan
| gerous rate of speed, at a rate OF speed
which forbids the customary use OF the
streets on the part of the public; and If you
| find the facts to be such, then this company
| is maintaining a public nuisance in our
| streets, and its action and conduct in this
| regard should be abated, even to the extent,
| If it cannot otherwise be avoided, OF a
| cessation of the operation of the road. Ii
there is any part of our population, or any
| company, which desires to establish rapid
| transit, to the extent of what would be a