The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1894-01-23

cheaper than the single span. This
Is true as q mere proposition in abb
straet engineering. But we showed
conclusively that it was sure to be far
more costly in the long run The
single span crossing was 80 agreeable
to the Pennsylvania Railway officials
that they freely granted the right of
way without litigation and without
damages. They are firmly opposed TO
the location of piers On their land,
amid their tracks. depicting their
lines and interrupting the view OF en-
gineers in charge of trains. IL the
county insists on locating such piers.
the company will demand not only
compensation for the ground occu-
pied and for the interference with the
lines, but also damages for the the
oretic invasion of their property by
the midair crossing. No lawyer in
his senses doubts that the company
car recover a heavy amount-snough
to greatly impair the Boulevard fund.
1t can, besides. prolong the fight in
the courts five years, just like the
Junction Docks and Connecting
Railway suit.
In the Ease of the Traction Com
pany. the folly of Mr.. Bruggemann's
course cannot, perhaps, be brought
down to a simple demonstration like
the above, but it is none the less GER
tain. His act is that of a man of mar
row, limited views. His reasons may
be condemned in two sentences. The
bridge is a narrow one, therefore the
Traction Company should only bs al
lowed to lay one track over it; corpor-
atoms are allowed too many privileges.
anyhow. We suppose the latter ar
gument' may appeal to the a~narchlcat
element, if we have any in this county,
but it will hardly weigh heavily with
common sense business men. There
are just two questions really worth
considering in the premises. One is
whether the track on West Newark
avenue is a good and useful thing;
the other is whether the laying OF a
second track over the bridge is an i'm
pairment of its general usefulness. To
the former the answer is hardly open
to doubt. We will not insult common
sense by formally arguing to prove
such a truism. In passing we may
only say a word in praise OF the enter
prise and far-seeing wisdom OF the
company in thus opening up new and
unsettled portions of the city and
county to general usefulness. 1t is
doing so at enormous expense. The
present likelihood Of a profit is
very slim indeed. The work
is a remarkable reaching out into
the future. But it is ridiculous to say
that a second track yer the bridge
would be any obstruction to its gen.
eral use, any more than a second
track impairs the use of the street.
On the contrary. it is highly probable
that teamsters will regard the track
as a very great boon to themselves
and their horses. The times when
two cars would meet on the bridge
probably not number two per
diem, and even were they more fra
quent, the transit would be SO rapid
that no delay could be caused to any
other traffic. On the other hand, the
delay, inconvenience and danger of
running trolley cars a single
track is SO obvious that it would APP
peal to most men as a superlative con-
sideration.
The members of the Board of Free
holders appear to have had the right
idea on both of these topics. But
through ignorance of the provision of
law which requires them to act upon
a veto Immediately on its presenta-
ton, they have allowed MI. Brugge-
mann to override their Judgment.
This is very unfortunate indeed. Both
resolutions should be adopted by the
Board, de noUo, and sent to Mr..
Bruggemann again. Presumably he
will veto them again. Then the
Board can sit down on him by
promptly passing the resolutions yer
his veto.