The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1895-09-14
NO ROOM FOR DOUBT
Valley Passenger Railway Franchises
Arc Null and Void.
DECISION OF SUPREME COURT
Councilman ROchc's Startling Rcvcla-
tions Corr Ohorated by Iuter>iews with
City Officials Traction Company
Aware of the lnvalidity.

There can be no doubt but that the
Scranton Traction company mas grave
cause To fear for its Valley Passenger
franchises. The decision of the su-
preme court. unenrthcd 10y Select Coun-
Gilman Roche ut Thursday nights meet
ing, is clear and explicit. and bears
out that gentlemans assertions in er-
cry particular Every foot of track
operated by the Scranton Traction
company under the Valley Passenger
franchises can he torn up and removed
from the streets at the whim or Will
of any citizen who sees tit u enter an
objection.
Thcs, assertions come from promi-
nent city officials who are well verscd
in the law and who have given the case
a great deal Of attention. II is not al
together new discovery. hut 1t has not
been made public property before for
the reason that those who knew of II
saw no cause to make ii known. How
ever, the Traction company has been
fully aware for many months that this
knowledge was public property and
was liable to he used In the interests of
the city At any time the Fraction COM
pony might show 4 tendency To become
helligercnt. IN fact. il has several
times been used with good effect as n
lever to compel the company to come 10
time, when they were slightly disposed
TO be SASSY"
1t is ii Damoclrsiar sword over the
supine corporation.
Dccisiou OF Justice Williams.
The decision covering the subject in
point was handed down on March -
last by Justice Williams. of the su-.
prere court, in two cases which had
been appealed to him. The first was
the case of the Pennsylvania railroad,
appellant. VS. Montgomery County Pas
senger railway:
IF a street railway company is
chartered to be constructed from one
point to another and its line must
necessarily pass through a city. bor-
ough or township intermediate between
the termini; and that city. borough or
township refuses its permission. the
power tO build the road described in
the application and charter cannot be
exercised II must be possible tor the
company 10 complete its line before II
has a right. as against any city. bor-
ough or township into which its line
extends. 70 begin work.
The other case is that of Rain town
ship W. Tamaqua and Lansford Street
railway. appellant:
Where a street railway Is chartered
to construct a railway through several
municipalities, 1t has no right to be-
gin the construction of its line within
the limits of one of the municipalities
until the consent Of all the municipall
ties has been obtained"
What the Company Proposed.
The Valley Passenger Railway COM
pany proposed in its articles of agree
ment and charter TO construct a belt
line from Archibald to PittstOn and re-
turn. going down one side of the river
and coming back on the other. on the
strength of this expressed intention the
company received franchises for nearly
all the desirable streets in the city not
already occupied by one of the other
of the COMPANIES owned by the Trac-
ton people.
When the ordinance was on its way
through councils ii was freely asserted
that the road was a paper affair, and
the subsequent sale of the franchise
to the Traction company bore out in a
measure these assertions. Notwith-
standing. the franchises We're granted
and although they We're nullified for the
reasons above stated, the Traction
company at a great risk made use of
such privileges as they deemed de-
sirabl Few of the franchises neces-
sary for the extension of the road
through the valley Were ever sought.
consequently the Traction company's
rights under the Valley Passenger
franchises in this city are void, and it
would seem must revert to the city If
the matter is brought to court.