The Mount Holly news. [volume] (Mount Holly, Burlington Co., N.J.) 1891-1942, 1898-02-22

Government at Washington still lives"
and is eminently able to take care of the
country.
NEXT Tuesday the Board of Freeholders
will convene in special session to take
action on the request of the Monmouth
Traction Company for the privilege of lay
ing trolley tracks through certain por-
ton of the county. That the committee
appointed to investigate the matter will
report favorably there is little doubt, as
nearly every member has expressed him
self that way. They have all agreed that
the trolley company should be given the
privilege it asks, the only point to be
wrestled with is on the subject of restrict
ions and expense. And here is a possible
trouble. The men at the head of the cor
poration now seeking franchises in our
county, are not out for their health. The
representative on the line of the road be-
low Burlington has an established reputa-
ton for shrewdness, and it can safely be
said that nothing will be given or paid to
this county that is not plainly stipulated
in advance. This is clearly proven by the
fact that the trolley managers seek to use
the highways rather than purchase the
right of way from the property owners
along the road. They want to get all they
can for nothing. 1t is to be hoped the
Board of Freeholders will carefully watch
every point. This county has spent too
much money or its roads to hand them
over now to a corporation that is looking
out for its own interests solely. In
another column we give the views of a
resident of the section through which the
road is proposed to run. While his ideas
appear to be favorable to the county, they
seem to us to lean strongly toward the
trolley men in the most important points.
Take his suggestion of width, which is to
make the roadbed so feet wide and have
the rails laid so that the centre of
the track will be I2H feet from the CEN
tire of the road bed. Taking the gentle
mans idea of having the roadway so feet
wide, he proposes that the rails shall be
laid in the centre of one-half of the side,
or in other words he suggests dividing the
so feet road in half, then lay the rails so
that the centre of them will be I2H feet
from the middle of the road. The trolley
bed is about five feet wide, hence one-half
OF. that would be IN feet; take this from
the I2H feet and we have one rail only
ten feet from the middle of the road, the
other rs feet from the same point leaving
10 feet of road on the other side Why
this arrangement Why not compel the
rails to be laid at the extreme side of the
road? Why cut it up? Then take the
matter of bridges. According to this sug-
gestion all small bridges needing addition
al strength are to get it at the hands and
expense of the company. Why not let them
build bridges for their own use? Then, in
gests that if new draw bridges have to be
built, the trolley company is to bear half
the expense. Look out for this point. A
snake may be Matched here that cannot
easily be scotched. There are already
hints that one drawbridge which the troll
ley contemplates crossing will need to be
rebuilt to sustain the weight of the cars.
Those favoring trolley say, however,
that the bridge is getting old and will soon
have to be rebuilt by the county and that
the trolley people might as we'll bear a
share of the expense. We venture the as.
sertion, however, that the bridge will last
for years in its present shape. But, even
if it does not, is it desirable to have troll.
ley cars running over the same bridges
that are used for common travel? FIRE.
quently we hear of accidents from such
causes. Mondays papers contained an &C
count of a milkman's horse being killed
by receiving shock from crossed wires,
the driver being thrown from the bridge
into the river by the same current. True,
if the ideas published are adopted, the
trolley company must be liable for dam
ages, but does anybody suppose it will pay
without suit and trouble? There is no ne
cessity for misunderstanding this article.
We have no objection to trolley line; on
the contrary we will do all in our power to
aid the public in securing transportation
facilities, but will oppose strenuously all
efforts to hand our roads over to a corpo-
ration intent only upon grasping valuable
franchises for its own enrichment This
county has spent much money in building
roads. One of the arguments advanced
was Ito make them pleasure to drive on,
whether with loaded wagons or with
carriages" Now there is proposition to
place near these "pleasurable roadways''
something that will make them nuisance
to those whose horses may never become
used to them. Can any stronger argu-
ment be used in favor of having the rails
placed at the extreme edge of the so feet
road? Trolley franchises are worth money.
If any testimony is needed on this point
we refer to the case in Union county,
where John Keal offered $Ioo, 900 for a
privilege, and B.. M. Stanley at once
stepped in and made an offer of $3.50, 900
for the same thing. Columns of this
paper could be used in discussing the mat
ter. We still maintain that the commit
tee should give the public an invitation to
meet them and offer suggestions. AS said
last week the committee is composed en-
tirely of men from the section interested,
and if they give hearing, sending no,
tices all over the county to that effect, it
will remove much of the comment that is
now taking place on the point of a "fxed
up job in that direction. The Freehold
ers are the agents of the taxpayers and it
is their duty to carefully weigh every step