Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1895-03-29
A Trolley Railroad Decision In Penn
sylvania.

sylvania.
1t has been growing evident to careful
observers for some time that, in view of
the rapid increase of trolley railroad sys-
TENS for general transportation purposes,
subject which must speedily claim the at
tention of the legislatures and the courts
is the respective rights of the trolley rail-
road companies, and of the people. That
the trolley roads are a great convenience
in many cases and that they confer many
pu5Aic benefits where the traffic warrants
their construction, cannot be disputed. On
the other hand it is a question not yet suffi-
ciently considered as to how far they have
a fundamental or constitutional right to
take possession of highways which were
built for an entirely different purpose, and
on every mile of which, even of the most
ordinary country highways, the people
have expended thousands of dollars in
construction and yearly maintenance.
There is a question as to what payment
should be made for the franchise and un-
der what restrictions the companies should
be put with regard to caring for the high
ways and saving the public from added eX-
pense on account of the construction of
the railroads within them.
AS bearing on this general question the
supreme court of Pennsylvania has just
rendered an important decision in trolley
railroad case appealed from one of the
lower state courts. BY way of premise it
it may be said that the state of Pennsyl-
vana enacted in 1889 a general law under
which trolley systems have been built and
others projected in country districts in a
manner not contemplated by the law. The
case in question involved the rights of pri-
vate property holders along the line of such
roads, and the decision of the court holds
build their roads in country districts with
out the consent of abutting property own
ers. The court points out that the general
street railway law twas intended to apply
only to municipalities which have full and
complete control over their streets, and
was not intended to provide a mode OF
transportation from one city or borough to
another, and that though such corpora
tion should obtain the consent of township
officers to the construction of its road, that
consent could not do away with the right
of the owners of property fronting on the
road or highway to compensation for the
use of that property, because the contro
of townships over the roads within them i:
i'm tod ha ioh pf . lin ic cir m
ply a right of passage over them. The
street railway act does not give companie!
organized under it the power of eminent
domain, and, therefore, the only way fol
these companies to protect themselves
even though they have the consent of tn,
suburban authorities, is to get the consen
also of the owners of property along tn,
line of the highways upon which they in
| tend to construct their roads,"
The effect of the courts decision is t.
protect fully the rights of country propert!
owners, and it also establishes the princi
pie that there should be no unjust dis
elimination against steam railroads, whicl
have paid for their franchise, and in favo
! VI blOllNg iOauo, nave hPOi
the public highways without making an.
compensation at all.
Outside of Pennsylvania the decision i
of interest simply as showing one of tn
signs of the times, and as indicating wha
will be the probable character of futur
legislation and court decisions on this sub
ject.