The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1897-03-31


city government of last year, cOmmun1-
cation was received from Mr.. Harris,
representing the Yarmouth road, stating
that before any action was taken on this
the Yarmouth road desired
the privilege of being heard. The COM
mittee was now DESTROYS of listening to
what the Yarmouth road had to say and
what they had to propose.
hIr. Larrabee replied that as far as he
knew the Yarmouth road had no quarrel
with the Portland railroad. The var
mouth road is chartered to lay its tracks
in Portland and to cross the bridge under
such restrictions as the city government
may make. If the Portland railroad
desires to cross this bridge also, the var
mouth road has no objections to MAKE,
but they do not desire to be shut ous OF
excluded from the right of crossing the
bridge. This bridge was considered wide
enough for two roads to cross when they
We're chartered to lay their tracks across
it, and it is wide enough for two tracks
now. The Yarmouth road desired to put
in its own tracks and use them for les
own business. Mr. Larrabee said that ne
did not understand the meaning OF the
clause in the location granted the var
mouth road which says "that the tracks
of the Yarmouth road shall be laid sub
ject to the Portland Railroad location.
This seemed to him to be giving exclu-
sive privileges to the Portland railroad.
AS far as he knew Mr.. Larrabee sail
they had no quarrel with the Portland
railroad
Alderman Pagan asked MIR. Lara bee
If the Yarmouth road had any intention
of crossing the bridge on the same track
as that used by the Portland railroad.
Mr.. Larrabee said these had never been
any trade of this kind made and the
Yarmouth road desired to lay and use its
own tracks. No conference had been
held, to his knowledge between the two
roads to settle the question.
Alderman Rounds asked the city engi-
nesr, who was present, what the width of
the new bridge would be.
City Engineer Fernald replied that it
would be 40 fest. The engineer said that
the bridge had been built wider to ac-
commodate whatever railroads might de-
sire to cross it. This extra width has
cost S25, GOO. The bridge had also been
constructed stronger than would have
been necessary if the railroads did not
cross it. What this additional strength
had cost Mr. Fernald was unable to state.
Mr.. Charles B. Libby, attorney for the
Portland railroad, asked if the bridge
was to be paved.
Mr.. Fernald replied that 1t was. Mr..
Libby said that it would make no differ
ence whether one track or two crossed
tie bridge in that case, as the paving
would make the bridge perfectly safe for
carriages and the public.
In reply to questions by Alderman
Rounds Mr.. Fernald said that the old
bridge had been thirty feet wide. He
considered that this had been wide
enough to accommodate the public. To
this original width of 30 feet had been
added two sidewalks, one on each side,
SIX feet in width, one foot on each side
between tn road way and the sidewalk,
half foot on each side for the railways
and four feet additional width in the
road way for car tracks.
Alderman Rounds asked if only four
feet hai heen allowed for two car tracks.
Mr.. Fernald replied that that was all
that had been considered necessary.
1.-The two car tracks will occupy twenty
feet of this thirty four feet of roadway, -
said Mr. Rounds, ''leaying fourteen feet
outside for the public.
Mr.. Rounds's questions and statements
were doubtless for the purpose OF show
ing that the committee of the old city
government which had this matter in
charge, had only considered the possible
ty of one electric road crossing the bridge
and had Intended to grant it the exclu-
sive privilege of crossing.
Alderman Kehoe ssked Mr.. Libby if he
understood that the Portland railroad
had been granted the right to cross
rukey's bridge by its charter.
Mr.. Libby shid that his opinion as q
lawyer was that the road had right to
cross the bridge. The legislature had
eq1uoDUly E6ccRulZtsi uHlS lhoh ny Ills ldW
it had passed at this session. A public
bridge is recognized as a public highway
and by law electric railroads ehave
the right to cross public bridges as they
have the right to lay their tracks in pub
lie highways.
"Then by. that ruling" said Alderman
Rounds, 1.-THE city has no right to the
bridge after it has built it but the bridge
belongs to the railroads.
MIR. Libby replied: You have mis-
understood me. stated no such thing.
| A railroad has the right to cross bridge
SUBJECT to such restrictions as the city
government may impose.
Alderman Kehoe said that the power Of
the committee extended only SO fer as il
related to the order which had been laid
on the table in tho board of aldermen in
order that an Investigation might be
made. The committee WIS giving g
hearing on the proposition of the Port
land railroad company, but would be
willing to listen to any proposition that
| the Yarmouth road might make.