The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1898-12-30

act In amendment OF the charter OF the
Union Railroad company passed I'm
1892. by which. under reasonable circum-
stances. the city could demand that an
other equally efficient and economical
method OF propulsion, II more desirable.
should be substituted for the overhead
trolley. Under the provisions of this
contract the city In forever pledged TO
the overhead trolley system upon these
streets. i am not sure but that THIS
right to demand another system upon
all of our streets was not taken away
by the act passed by the General As
sembly in June last at Newport, en-
titled "An Act Providing for a Tax or
Street Railways" 1t is certain that
this contract takes away that right, 80
far as the proposed streets are con-
cerned.
FOURTH believe that this contract
would put our entire water front COM
pletely I'm the hands OF the Union Rail.
road company so far az passenger ana
freight traffic are concerned. forever
And forever. gentlevnen, Is long time
i am not forgetful. of course, that In
one clause of the contract there Is pro-
vision that the city may at any time
compel the Union Railroad company 10
give UP the freight business, but nope
| that there are none OF you VINO cannot
| see the worthlessness OF that provision.
| IL IL not worth the time IL took to write
III. ,Wltn the tTdthS VI the phi'' 'N"',
road company laid In the proposed
| streets, and with She exclusive right TO
| use them vested in itself. by an act or
the general assembly, how could the
| city confer this right upon any other
| company, and OF what avail. therefore,
| would IL ever be for the city to order
the Union Railroad company TO stop
| carrying freight? II would simply mean
| that our merchants would be complete
! ly cut off from all connection with the
| steam railroad. while the Union Rail-
| road company would continue It's pas
| senger business over these streets for-
| ever I am sure by this resolution and
| contract you would be giving away for
| little or no recompense valuable rights,
| and rights which will become more and
| more valuable as our city grows. The
| Union Railroad company has recog-
nized the value of these rights from the
| start.
| / believe that the city should lay it's
own tracks in the proposed streets, and
then grant to the Union Railroad COM
| pany the right to run its passenger ana
freight cars over them, under a con-
tract for definite period. But IT II
| should not be possible to obtain for the
city this right, believe that the con-
| tract should contain such provision as
would enable the city of Providence to
| exercise the same right over the tracks
laid by the Union Railroad company as
II now has over the tracks OF the New
York, New Haven and Hartford Rail-
road company, and that the contract
should expire at some definite period.
This suggests another objection,
| namely: In order to do away with the
| nuisance of string teams" and obJec-
tionable freight rails In Market square
we are granting the privilege or laying
freight rails in certain of the streets
| where they must necessarily be con-
siderable of a nuisance. The portion OF
Eddy street on which these rails are to
be laid Is largely travelled by people in
carriages and on bicycles, and as they
must travel lengthwise OF the street
] they will be much more apt TO be an
| moved by getting their wheels caught
in these tracks than If they were cross
! ing them at right angles as In Market
| square. Certainly there ought to be no
| doubt of the right of the city to order
these tracks out of Eddy street when
! ever some better plan can be devised oil
carrying the tracks over the land bor-
| dering upon the river. i am not sure
| that this right is reserved to the city
| under this contract.
| In vetoing the proposed ordinance
| and resolution and making the above
| recommendation i act in no hostile
spirit TO the Union Railroad company
and attack none of its vested rights
merely desire to preserve the rights
which belong. and should belong. TO the
city OF Providence. Respectfully,
WILLIAM G.. BAKER, Mayor.
Alderman Vincent said he was un-
able TO follow the reason given by the
| mayor in his veto. The committee had
| given much thought to the idea of per-
petuity and said the city solicitor and
| others agreed that under the agreement
the city could compel stoppage OF the
freight traffic by the Union Railroad
| Company He moved the resolution
pass Notwithstanding the veto and the
ten members of the board so voted.
On the third veto the vote was the
, same and the third resolution was
adopted.
, The following petitions were granted
, | Raymond n. Gown. to locate and oper
| ate a steam boiler at 100 Orange street
To transfer victualling licenses, th
following, viz: Frank J. Massard, L
637 Eddy street Manuel Peter. to 42Sl
South Main street; Rouse Il. Chase, I,
keep a victualing house at 2s6 Soutl
Water street: Joseph $. Enos, to keel
a tavern at 634 South Main street. II
: build barns. the following, viz: Mar
$ garet T.. Keyes, rear 22 James street
4 ! Maine Dairy Co. rear Atwelfs avenue
! Rudolph Soderberg, on Rowan street.
= The petition OF Shepard & Compan
y and others for the abandonment O
? Comfort street was presented. Alder
/ man Reynolds said that this matte
e had been up before the board severa
\ times and these had been public hear
ings. The fire department had protest
n ed against the closing of the street an
the alderman thought others were In
e terested in the street besides the pet
TONERS.
: Alderman Vincent said the purpose c
$ Mr.. Shepard was TO use the street 10
: his business and that the public a
q large would in no way be injured. A
Y derman Mccarthy favored the grantin
n CONTINUED on Page Four.)