The Mount Holly news. [volume] (Mount Holly, Burlington Co., N.J.) 1891-1942, 1898-05-03
The Trolley Franchise.

| The Trolley Franchise.
| The fourth meeting to consider the
proposition to grant permission to a trolley
company to lay its tracks on the highways
of this county was held in the Court
House, on Saturday, and it was apparent
that none of the interest that had been
awakened on the subject had abated, as
the building was crowded with represen-
tative men from all parts of the county.
As soon as the meeting was properly or
ganized Mr.. Birkhead, for the committee,
said that pursuant to instructions he had
requested each company seeking fran
chise to make deposit to cover expenses
incurred in connection with the proceed
ings up to the present time. He reported
having received a check for $500 from one
company and cash in the same amount
from the other.
The ordinance of the New York and
Philadelphia Trolley Company was then
offered. 1t differed in several instances
from that of the Monmouth Traction Com
pany, presented at a former meeting, par
ticularly on the point of the Delanco draw
bridge. The Monmouth Company offered
to bear one-half of the expense of rebuild
ing The New York and Philadelphia
Company will bear the entire cost. The
latter also offers a cash consideration at
the outset. For permission to use the
Florence stone road it will pay 81, 500 cash
and for the use of the stone road from the
Burlington city line through the township,
5000. The yearly payments are to be as
follows: 800 per year for the first five
years; 5000 per year for the second five
years; $500 per year for the third five
years; $500 per year for the fourth five
years; 81 900 per year for the fifth five
years; 81, 500 per year for the sixth five
years; $4,000 per year for the seventh five
years; $4,000 per year for the eighth five
years; So, 900 per year for the ninth five
years; and thereafter at the rate of $4,000
per year. There was also an agreement
to enter into written contract with the
county for the faithful performance Of the
work
Samuel W. Beldon, for the Monmouth
Traction Company, recited several changes
that had been made in the ordinance of
that company, the most important of which
was the agreement to enter into written
contract with the county to perform the
terms of the ordinance.
On motion of Mr.. Fairbrother, the meet
ing was opened for public discussion.
Mr.. Brakley, of Bordentown, who, at a
former meeting, entered objections to a
trolley crossing certain bridges near Bor-
dentown, made the same protest now.
Prosecutor Budd said the ordinance of the
New York and Philadelphia Company
would be changed to meet this objection.
Clarence T. Atkinson, for the Mon
mouth Company, stated the ordinance of
his clients would parallel in every respect
that just presented. In fact the latter
does not offer as much as his does. The
difference in gauge is serious matter,
and the offer to pay stated sum, while it
looks large, was not as advantageous as
the percentage system suggested by the
Monmouth Company. In support of this
statements Mr.. Atkinson gave figures
showing that percentage of the gross re-
ceipts would turn more money into the
county treasury than any other method.
OF course the increase in population, re-
sulting from the building up along the line
of the road, had to be considered a certain
| ty in this figuring. A more important point,
in Mr.. Atkinsons mind, was the fact that
it would be impossible for any company
but the Monmouth to secure a right Of
way through those municipalities which
had already granted the franchise. If the
Board of Freeholders wants to have {
trolley built it cannot do so by granting {
franchise to the New York and Philadel
phia Company. Why is this so Why il
that the people are all for the Monmouth
Company? Because they believe it intend!
to do what it proposes, while they thinl
that the other company is merely an OBJ
structionist Mr.. Atkinson then rehasheC
his old story of the New York Company
being the Pennsylvania Railroad in dis
| guise, and finally wound up with the state
ment that even if the rival organization
was acting in good faith, its offer was no
as good as that of the Monmouth
Mr.. Macafee, of the New York anC
Philadelphia Traction Company, replied
With reference to the question of differ
ence of value between a percentage and {
fixed sum, he said his company believed
the latter for the best interests of thu
county. If, however, the Board deemed
otherwise, he was perfectly willing to hav'
his ordinance so amended. On the matte
of percentage he wanted to say tina
every one knows how railroad bookkeep
ing is done, and if that system is adopted
there will never be day or an hour tina
the bookkeeping will not be questioned
Then Mr.. Macafee spoke on the question
of gauge. He did not want to make an.
change because with very few excep
tions, the trolley gauge is four feet 5:
inches, as he proposed to build. Tn
people say they want it five feet so tina
their wagons can track, but everybod,
who has been in trolleys that have beef
retarded by loaded teams ahead of them
know what nuisance it is. However, h
had carefully canvassed the sentiment o
the county, and in Difference to the wishe
of the people he would change the gaug
of his road. Mr.. Macafee hardly though
it necessary to reply to that worn on
statement about his company being unde
the control of the Pennsylvania Railroad
At former meeting he had admitted tina
two of the people interested in the Ne1
York and Philadelphia Traction Compan
owned Pennsylvania Railroad stock, bu
not own single share of any character
"On the other hand" said Mr. Macafet
81 am informed that the chief mover i
the Monmouth Company has recently il
herited large block of the stock of tn
Pennsylvania Railroad Company. My il
formation must be correct, A." continued Nj
Macafee, ''for minister gave it to me. "
This shot brought ex-senator Mitche
B. Perkins to his feet Il suppose l al
the person referred to, he said, "but it
United Railroad stock that l own"
!, 81 have secured the admission 1 ws
D seeking" retorted Mr.. Macafee.
DR.. Janney called attention to featul
of the ordinance of the New York an
Philadelphia Traction Company, which
, considered very defective. 1t did not pr,