The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1895-08-01


| Though no final result was reached
yesterday afternoon in the case of the
! Consolidated Traction Company against
| the Watching Railroad. over the loca-
| ton of a grade crossing on Bloomfield
avenue. Vice-Chancellor Pitney gave the
| latter railroad company until next Mon
| day to decide which of two systems it
would adopt. The court practically gave
permission for the crossing at grade,
| but the hitch came on the question as to
what should be done to protect the trav
cling public and which of the two COM
panies should bear the greater expense.
Joseph Coult and Cortlandt Parker, op-
posing counsel in the case, consumed
over three hours in argument before the
| Vice-Chancellor announced what he pro-
posed to to.
| with regard to the alterations to be
made" began the Vice-Chancellor, 'the
! petitioning company must pay for the
| actual work. The decree of the court is
| that they shall make the changes i'll
| such way and put a foundation under
| the tracks so as to make it as near as
practicable no crossing. This is not
| case where a change of grade is called
| for. The companies agree that it is not
| necessary, and 1 would not make such
| a decree unless the public authorities de-
| mand it. Mr.. Halfpenny, on behalf of
| the township, agrees to a grade cross.
| ing; 1 agree to it. Both roads are
straight for long distance and the
grade is even in both directions, SO that
trains can be seen a good way off un-
| less there is fog.
'It is contended by the steam rail-
| road. and not seriously contradicted by
| the applicant, that the act in using the
word crossing refers to the foundation.
as we'll as to the locomotion in propell-
| ing moving bodies over that foundation.
I think the statute very awkwardly ex-
presses that word, because of it's dou-
| BILE meaning.
| GAS to what modes should be adopted
| for the safety of people using the cross
! ing, the parties are not as one. Several
| plans have been suggested. The appli-
| cant says the mere stopping of the cleo
| tric cars and the going before it of the
| conductor to the track is sufficient The
| steam railway company think an elab-
| crate system of protection, known as the
| interlocking system, should be intro
duced for the safety of passengers.
|
| tenn struck me very favorably. I would
order it's adoption if I could do SO with
out imposing hardship on either of the
parties. The first cost would be about
| $3.50, but the cost of maintaining it
would be but trif1e more than keeping
| a man to attend the gates now at the
| crossing. 1t would involve two mems
| work, as no one man could reasonably
| be expected to put in the number of
| hours that would be required to operate
! the system.
'"Uhen the question arises as to the
partition of expense, but I propose not
to propose that system, if the parties
| will not agree to it, under the terms I
| will mention. will give the steam rail
road company another alternative. The
| steam railroad company wants the
whole expense cast upon the applicant,
| as the latter is the crossing railroad.
I cannot follow my own view on this
point but must follow the law laid down
by the Supreme Court and by the Chan
Gerry Court, that the running of street
ways does not increase the burden of
traffic. This climax has been reached
step by step.
"Some years ago horse railway tracks
were laid with only about a half inch
depression from the street surface, and
it was held that this made no material
difference. Under the established law
the electric cars came In vogue, and at
first did not seriously affect the rails,
but later a rail was adopted which is
essentially the same as is used by steam
railroads, and the public demanded that
the cars travel at a higher speed. The
result is that ordinary vehicles are
crowded out and made to take a Sec
ondary position.
Men, women and children have been
ruthlessly cast aside by the electric
roads. Notwithstanding all these
changes, it is held in law that the cleo
tric roads make no greater use of the
highways than ordinary vehicles.
'It seems to me, therefore, that the
danger to the railroad cars is no
greater if LOCO persons passed it in cleo
tric cars than if the same number
crossed on foot, or in ordinary vehicles.
must hold that this crossing is no diff
ferent in that one respect.
Now, on whom does the law of the
land impose the burden of maintaining
safety? In a case where a railroad cross
ing becomes dangerous by reason of a
large number of persons or vehicles pass
ing it, and the railroad tracks must be
elevated, the greater portion of the ex-
pense devolves upon the steam railroad
company. I feel constrained to cast the
burden of expense on the railway which
uses the more dangerous implements or
machines. There would be more danger
to passengers on an electric car if struck
by a train than there would be to pas
sengers of a train struck by an electric
car.