The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1900-07-10

day by a Tribune reporter whether or
not the company had anything to say
in regard to the city solicitors fight
against the company's right to MAIN
tain toll gate within the city limits.
Mr.. Watkins in reply stated that the
company proposed to maintain the toll
gate where now located and that the
attack upon the Boulevard company
and its promoters by the city solicitor
and others was not only unfair but
| put the officers and stockholders of
the company in a wrong light before
| the public.
When the Boulevard company was
organized a few public spirited cit-
zens, realizing the benefit to the whole
city to be derived from driving road
leading out of the city practically free
from railroad crossings and traversng
n beautiful section of mountain coun-
| try, went to a great deal of trouble
to raise the money necessary to build
such road; over $4,000 was raised
on stock and Sl15O0 on bonds of the
| company.
No large subscriptions were asked
| for, as it was intended to make the
enterprise of a public character. Ev
was told that it was not a money
making enterprise, but purely and sim
ply one to add to the pleasure of the
stockholders and public generally. as
| it would practically make a beautiful
park out Of that whole section of the
mountain. The popularity of the road
| has been proven by the number using
It, especially for pedestrians, who are
| 10, a = T,,.,.
COMPANY'S INTENTION.
The company's intention was, and
| is now, to spend the revenue derived
from reasonable tolls in maintaining
and extending the roads. The road
was built with the least possible ex-
pense and involved no extravaganza
or waste and rot one dollar of revenue
has been received by an officer or
stockholder of the company up to this
| time.
The policy of the company is to con-
tinue to improve the attractiveness of
the boulevard and should have the sup
port of every citizen of Scranton, and
in place Of trying to rob the company
| of part of it's property the city should
support the Boulevard company in it's
|
| and make the mountains one vast
| beautiful park. The company has Of
| fered to sell to the city the part of
the road in the park limits, including
the bridge, at less than cost. The sale
to include the 100 feet right of way
owned by the company. The bridge
could not be duplicated today for 80
| per cent. more than the cost to the
| Boulevard company. Should the city
decide to purchase this part of the
| road the Boulevard company could re-
tire the bonds and eXpend, through the
saving of interest charges, a much
! larger sum on the roadway for it's fur
| ther Improvement. l have not the data
at hand to correct the misstatement
| that the bridge is not safe and that
the foundations are not well bedded.
| That matter will be referred to j. l..
Crawford, who is entirely familiar with
the construction and can easily satisfy
the public on that score.
PEDESTRIANS 60 FREE.
The public should bear in mind that
only the driving and wheeling public
are required to pay toll, and they can
afford to. The walking public have
| free use of the roads, bridges, etc,
which undoubtedly adds to the attrac-
| tiveress of Nay Aug park and extends
their pleasure grounds indefinitely over
the mountains. The beautiful roads
| built and maintained by Mr.. Scranton
and to which the boulevard gives ac-
cess, are in line with the action OF
the public spirited men who built the
| boulevard and who only care to man.
age and control it now so that the
| only desirable drive in the neighbor-
hood of the city will not be destroyed
! by falling into the hands of parties
who may allow it to be destroyed by
neglect or use it for their own selfish
objects.
I should be pleased to have you pub
| lish the opinion of Mr.. Warren, attOr-
ney for the company, who gives our
| legal position very clearly, as we'll as
| the equity of the whole case, and to
which the public are entitled before
forming a hasty opinion:
Mr. c. d. Simpson, President Nay Aug Falls
and Elmhurst Boulevard company, city.
Dear Sir: ! am in receipt Of your letter of
June 9th, enclosing copy Of concurrent rcSolu-
tion Of the councils of the city, directing your
company to remove their toll gate and toll
Eatlcfer from Wllhu INe nHlts VI inc tlly
and authorizing the city solicitor to take al!
necessary steps to prevent your company from
collecting tolls within the limits OF the city,
together with notice from the street commits
sioner, asking your company to carry out the
provisions thereof at once. In accordance with
your request | have made a careful examination
OF the law bearing upon the rights of your
company to maintain its toll gate and toll gath
erer within the city limits. In this connection
| have read the opinion submitted to councils
by the learned city solicitor, as printed in the
public press, in which he announces that your
company has no right to maintain its toll gate
and toll gatherer within the city limits,
LEGAL QUESTIONS.
I have made careful examination of the legal
questions involved. / do not think the case is a
radically wrong and his opinion 4 tissue OF mis-
takes and wrong deductions. The cases he cites
in support Of his contention clearly justify the
maintenance Of the gate and the toll gathcrer
where you have located it pursuant TO the license
issued by the court. It is matter of no con-
cern 10 the city that you did not secure this
license until recently.
First as to the equities Of the case; II is
to be borne in mind that your company pur.
chased a strip of land through what was prac-
tcally wilderness. several years ago, connecting
with the then open streets and thoroughfares
of the city at near what is now called Nay
Aug Park. At that time there were no streets
located along the route Of your boulevard, nor
dreamed OF. There was no Nay Aug Park, even
upon paper. Subsequent to your purchase Of the
=----------