The Mount Holly news. [volume] (Mount Holly, Burlington Co., N.J.) 1891-1942, 1898-04-19

of the committee was responsible for their
inability to recognize between legality
and illegality, perhaps they were misguid-
ed by the zeal of the companys counsel,
or possibly they did not care what hap
pened whatever the state of the feelings
of the township officials, the Monmouth
Company got all it asked. The lawyers
of the corporation made no suggestion of
a stay of proceedings until the law on the
question of legal signatures had been COM
piled with; on the contrary they made the
assertion that the matter would probably
reach the courts eventually and this would
this trolley business was first suggested
there at once arose a fear that unless extra
precautions we're taken the county might
suffer. To prevent this the Freeholders
were cautioned to be on their guard.
There was no intention of making war
fare on any particular corporation, and
such should be the position to-day, but
we are compelled to say that the feeling of
confidence in the Monmouth Traction
Company which should exist is rapidly
being displaced by one of distrust and
suspicion. And that corporation and its
hackers are entirely to blame for this state
of affairs. Blackguardism, personalities,
bulldozing, reckless disregard of law and
fairness, gag law, overriding the right of
petition-all these may be indications of
desire to act squarely with the people
but it will not strike the latter that way,
any more than the methods of securing
counsel in employing those already on the
salary roll of the municipalities in which
they live Just look at this point min
ute. Suppose Prosecutor Budd should get
up in court next term and say he could
not prosecute criminal because he had
been paid more money to defend him
Would the people stand it? Or take an
other case nearer the point. Suppose Mr..
Chambers, the county solicitor, should, on
April co. say he would act for the county
on every question but that of the trolley,
and should give as a reason that he had
been engaged by one of the companies
seeking franchise. Would his action be
approved? And yet that is just about
the position of at least one lawyer,
who was willing to act for his city
at recent meeting in everything but the
trolley matter. Much talk has been in
dulged in about the presumption of a
route but we fail to see by what right,
legal or moral, any company has such
a power The franchise asked is county
property, open to all corners, and it is the
duty of the Board of Freeholders to see
that the taxpayers receive fair remunera-
ton for it and those who prove recreant
to their trust must not expect to escape
the criticism they will justly deserve. The
matter has now settled down to what it
was first feared to be-a game of "'hog.'
The Monmouth Traction Company has
evidently determined that they will have
the franchise or nobody shall have it.,
will be able to carry out that rule or ruin
policy. If the people along the proposed
route do not get the trolley it will be by
the action of the Monmouth Traction
Company and not of any rival organiza-
ton. Let them have what they ask if
they give fair compensation, but let the
transaction be strictly business one, so
that when final action is taken, the fin
ger of criticism or suspicion cannot be lev
eled at any one.