The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1900-04-27

by the opponents. 2. That under the laws oi
Pennsylvania, the applicant cannot, in any event.
construct the section Of their lines as proposed
from LsCkawsxen to Havley. 3. That the con-
struction and operation Of a new line from Lack
AWAKEN TO Hawlcy by the applicant would be IN
violation ot existing contract between the
Pennsylvania Coal company and the Erie and
Wyoming Railroad company on one side and the
Erie Railroad company on the other by which
tho Eric and Wyoming Valley Railroad companys
line is leased to the Eric Railroad company Tor
a period of ten years, ending in 1902 and under
which the lessee company is entitled TO certain
traffic. I. Tho existing coal roads, so'calIcd,
have ample capacity 10 carry all OF the output
Of the coal fields that can he marketed at tide
water.
with respect to the first objections This board
is of the opinion that the applicants road does
not parallel the Eric railroad. except in the
sense mat the Eric running southcastcrly reaches
tidewatcr on the Hudson river at Jersey tlty
and at Nevburg; while the applicants line,
running northeasterly. and almost at right angles
to tho Erie, reaches the Hudson river nearly
forty miles north OF the Eric's most northerly
port Of delivery and about ninety miles north OF
its most southerly terminus the harbor OF New
York. II is not disputed that the Ere's haul is
made difficult by opposing grades; therefore
more costly 10 operate and logically more eX'
pcnsiyc to the consumer Of the product trans.
ported.
To hold, under these conditions that this is
parallcling Of the Erie lines would he in effect
TO determine that where line already exists
between given tcrmini, claiming that it
can or will do all the business offered.
no other line over shorter, more feasible and
therefore economical and cheaper route
shall be established And, finally, upon this
point the board holds that the construction Of
this applicants road will not be, in fact, the
Ill.
the continuation Of one of the oldest, earliest
routes OF lines of transportation in this state,
and almost wholly withinin this state The Del.
aware and Hudson canal built and operated
before not only the Erie railway built, but
before the railroads were known as a factor in
transportation, and, what is still nearer to the
point, the canal was built for coal transporta.
tion especially while It incidentally filled the
needs Of local traffic along its line.
sUPERCEUEs WATERWAY.
Tho operation OF the railroad along the right
Of way OF the old canal, merely supcrscdcS a
waterway by establishing a steam railway; IT is
in perhaps an exaggerated form a change of
motive power" Indeed, the continued operation
OF this particular route for transportation was
fully considered and provided for by the lcgs-
latufe in the passage OF Chap, ij2. laws Of lsHl.
That act authorized a steam railroad to be built
and operated on this identical route, for it
could apply TO no other.
With regard TO the contention OF ono Of the
two principal opponents, the New York, Ontario
and Western Railway company that its line will
he parallellcd, the claim is not well founded.
Its points of tdcwatcr delivery for coal and all
other traffic arc substantially TIE same as those
OF the Erie railroad, and its adverse grades aud
numerous curves are both oncrous and difficult.
But it makes further contention that it has
acquired control of the Port JcrviS, Monticello
and New York railroad and that the new line
will parallel 10Th ne Summitvilc branch Of
that line and the route Of the Rondout Valley
and Kingston railway, no part of which latter
line is yet built and OF which the New York,
ontario and Western Railway company has only
recently acquired control
With regard to this opposition the board is Of
the opinion that, even il the Rondout Valley and
Kingston road should be built, il and the sum.
mitvllc branch referred to cannot transport the
traffic which the applicants will control for their
proposed line, because the operating conditions
on the haul TO tidcwater are adverse. Finally,
the testimony adduccd on this hearing and the
history OF the Rondout Valley and Kingston rail.
road enterprise, afford reason to believe that it
is dormant project, lately brought into a
show OF activity with view mainly TO impeding
the construction OF the applicants line.
On the second objection raised by the oppon.
ents the board has only 10 say: That upon this
nearing the oral testimony OF two distinguished
Pennsylvania lawyers submitted for each
side, on the question Of tho power of the app'i.
cants, under Pennsylvania laws, TO construct that
part of their line lying within the state Of Penn
syl,ania and that, III effect, they fatty contra.
dicted each other, so that this board is OF the
opinion that that question must he ultimately
dealt with and determined by the courts OF
Pennsylvania.
The question here raised relates TO the so.
called branching power" or additional con.
struction Of railroads in that state, hut even
ii tho Erie aud Wyoming Valley road cannot
build connection tor the now railroad this
latter line, though leased to the Erie between
iiawlCy and LackawaAen, is common carrier
and may be compelled to afford traffic facilities,
and II these should hc obstructive or inadequate
the applicants show that new and distinct line
from iIawley has been located in their interest,
hy the IIawlcy and Eastern Railroad company,
new corporation.
NO VIOLATION OF LEASE.
And similarly as to the third point of ohcc-
ton made by opponents: II is not contendcd
that any violation has yet been committed re-
garding the contract Of lease and for certain
rights on coai transportation between the Penn.
sylvana Coal company and the Eric Railroad
company. Should such violation occur hc