The Portland daily press., 1900-02-21
AS to Question of Public
Convenience.
Interesting SettO Between Law
yers Heath and Foster.
ESPECIAL TO THE FREss-1

Freeport, February 20. Hon. Herbert
If. Heath, counsel for the Lewiston,
Bruins sick & Bath Street Railway. raised
an important legal point In the hearing
before the railroad commissioners here
today on the question of the approval Of
the location granted by the selectmen OF
Freeport 10 that company through the
streets OF thia town to the Yarmouth line
with a spur sck to South Freeport. The
point raised by Mr.. Heath made tho
hearing lawyers battle and it wos n
contest as lively as skirmlsh In Sou tn
Afri,a When this Lewiston, Brunswick
81 bath sought to extend its line into the
town OF Frssport ths psopls hsrs were
divided In their preferences, some wishing
the road to construct Its main line so as
% include the village of South Freeport.
1he road desired to build directly
through the town. Inc matter was sub
mitted to a vote of the town at meeting
held about q month ago and there WAS
a lar.e majority In favor Of the South
Freeport route. The approval OF the looa
tion asked for, rested, however, with the
ssleotmen and they by vote of two to
one, approved the route desired by tas
company upon the agreement of the cor
poratiop that 1t would build and operate
u branch to south Freeport village. SEN
timsnt In the town is st,il divided on the
of citizens who prt sumably want the
South Freeport route followed as the
main line that Hon. Enoch Foster Of
Portland appeared as counsel. There were
also present Hon. Seth III. Carter of
Lewiston and stephen q. Perry, Esq, OF
the firm of n & Il. b. Cleavss OF Port
lanc, as attorneys for the Maine Central
railroad. Hon. Seth l.. Larrabes of the
Psrtland & Yarmouth road, with which
the new line will connect II built, was
nn interested spectator and, of course.
Hon. Amos Gerald OF Fairfield, the head
of the Lewiston, Brunswick & Bath 81 stem
was on hand,
NIX. HEATH'S POINT.
Should the contension OF Mr.. Heath
b, sustained In the courts 1t would wips
out q great part OF the power which the
railway commissioners have exercised In
the past over the extension OF street rail-
way lines. In 1926, the legislature amend
ed the law governing the formation Of
street railway lines formed under the
general law by giving to the railroad
com m ission srs the right to determine
whs theI the public convenience and nec-
efs ty required their construction. II the
commission held that the public oonye-
niencs did not require the building Of
suoh road that WIS the end Of 1t. In
1897 the law was again amended. 1t was
provided that appeals might be taken
from the dscisions of the commissioners
and a new section tive was incorporated
IN the law providing that street railway
corporations organized under special
charters might be exten3e3 into towns
adjoining those named In their charters
upon compliance with the requirements
of section six. thus road to extend
into an adjoining town would, among
other things, be obliged to show to the
satisfaction Of the commission that public
necessity and convenience required the
extension. As this provision was part
Of se,tion six OF the law as Ii existed
after the legislature of 1897 had amended
It. but In 1899. still auothsr amendmest
was added. Under the law it had been
necessary TO have two hearings In every
case. First the lora:ion of the route must
be approved by the commissioners. This
approval was obligatory If the commits
sicnsrs found that the requirements OF
the law up TO that point had been com :
Piled wish. Having such approval, a
etitloner had then TO take up before the
oommis,on the question Of Iublic oon-