Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1900-01-25

the commissioners erred in holding that
they had the right to determine between
an Independent crossing and joint use Of
the tracks of the pctitionee by both par
ties.
Your petitioner asks this court to grant
it the right to construct. maintain and
use the independent route reported as an
alternative by the commission.
The defendant argued that this case is
now before the supreme court for the
confirmation of the award of the commits
soners fled Nov. 7, 1899. unless cause is
shown to the contrary" That the award
of the commissioners involves the use Of
the defendant company's right of WY,
depot and tracks in Burlington. in The
maner and under the conditions prescrib-
ed n the award. for an annual compenSa-
ton of $1,000. payable quarterly, which
amount includes the payments made to
the defendant by the Rutland Railroad
Co.. SO that the whole annual charge in
favoC of the Central company against
bo,h the Rutland-Canadian company and
the Rutland company shall be 5000
That this award should be confirmed
No cause has yet been shown on the re-
cord in this case against its conlirma ton
That when the case was before the court
on the former report of the commission
ers. the petitioner contended that it was
within the jurisdiction of this court, and
so within the province of the commission
that would involve the appropria ion lOngi-
tudinally of about 1899 feet of its yard AMI
/ right of wy on both sides of the point Of
crossing the main track of the defendant
company. The petitioner declined to have
the commissioner consider any other
method or way of csossing or connection
Thereupon the commissioners held, and
so reported that no such power was COM
mtted to them, and this court affirmed
their holding and the commissioners were
directed TO proceed according to their
commission IL the petitioner desires fur
Their action on their part"
Mr.. Wiids further asgued that looking
only at the substance of the petition, 1t =
an application of the petitioner to con-
duct the road through the defendant :
yard 1T Burlington. The defendant OBJ
iecting, the commissioners say: Yes, YOU
may 20 through the defendants yard on
certain terms and conditions, ONE of which
is that for few hundred feet you snail
use the defendants iron and in the inter
est of the public you shall use "A union
station. 1t makes no Material differenC @
with the legal aspect of the case whether
the iron belongs to one parry or the other,
the petitioner is enabled to conduct S
road and It's business across the defend
ants yard. In the operation OF its trains
it will occupy the defendants right of way
through the yard precisely the same as it
would under the plan and route propos d
by the commissioners. only in different
part of the yard, for II is already settled
ia this case that the petitioner cannot
condemn eight of way through the de-
PENDANTS yard so AS to qualify the pet-
toner with ownership.
1t can be 40 valid objection that the PC
titioner has to run its trains over tho
iron of The defendant company. While in
the actual use of the racks in the opera
ton of It's trains, they will be under its
control to all inten;s and purposes as