The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1902-07-09

tent the nature of this highway was
practically conceded in the argument. A
bridge between these two great cities,
apart from special circumstances, pre-
sunlably would he for the equal benefit
Of each place Counsel for Hudson Coun-
ty offered evidence to show that the
traffic over this highway was conducted
very largely by citizens of Newark in
vehicles owned in Newark and insisted
that the expense of maintenance should
be divided between the two counties SO
! far as it was to be borne by them in pro-
portion 60 the number of vehicles owned
in each county and employed in conduct
ing commerce over the road. This prin-
ciplc he deduced from the proposition
that Hudson and Essex should share the
expense in question in proportion to the
benefits which they severally received
from the use of the road. But such a de-
duction in my judgment is wholly unwar-
ranted. The large vehicles belongings to
the Newark bakeries that travel over
this Plankroad laden with bread which
they deliver in the city OF Jersey City,
are engaged in a commerce which, ac-
corsiing to every sound principle of po-
litical economy and common sense, must
be deemed beneficial to both cities.
Commerce to be carried on continuously
must be beneficial both to the mer-
chant and his customer. Crude notions
10 the contrary at the present time are
to large extent exploded. The argu-
ment urged by Counsel that the distribu-
tion If bread in Jersey City from New
ark bakeries is injurious to the inter
ests of Jersey City because it completes
with the manufacture of bread i'm that
place, is fallacious. If the distribution
of Newark bread to the citizens of Jer-
sey City were not advantageous to those
citizens such trade would not be con-
.inued.
WHY CITIES SHOULD EXTEND
BRIDGES.
l know of no stronger reason which
could impel a city at its own expense to
extend bridge to a foreign shore than
the certainty that over such bridge its
citizens would be supplied with better
or cheaper food than Otherwise they
would enjoy.
1t is, however, very plainly establish
ed in this case that there is large vol
ume of traffic over the Plankroad be-
tween the city of Newark and the city
of New York in which Jersey City is to
a very slight extent, If at all, interested.
In respect of this traffic the highway
discharges the function of bridge be-
tween the city of Newark and the great
city of New York. Vehicles with their
loads of manufactured goods start from
Newark and, after leaving the Jersey
City end of the Plantroad, proceed di-
rectly' to the ferries and then TO custom
ers OF places of distribution an the City
of New York. These vehicles use and
wear the streets of Jersey City and en-
joy police protection there, but do not
seem directly or indirectly to bring any
substantial trade or gain to the latter
place. The course through Jersey City is
short. Apart from the occasional
trade connected with the transit of these
vehicles and apart from the effect which
they produce upon the business at the
ferries, Jersey City is rather burdened
than benefited by their transit through
her territory. If, therefore, the propor-
ton of the total traffic over the Plank
Road which substantially belongs to conf
merce between Newark and New York,
can be ascertained, it seems to me that
the practical problem presented in This
case can be solved with approximate ac-
curacy. The difficulty arises from the
fact that the evidence does not show that
a complete and satisfactory analysis OF
the traffic on this highway with rel X
ence to the point in question has csei
been made. A partial analysis appears
to have been made which throws some
light upon the true character OF the
heaviest traffic, the traffic which wears
the highway most, the traffic conducted
by heavy trucks and business wagons
So far as the Plank Road is used by light
vehicles which may be called private
carriages. including bicycles and automo.
biles not used in transporting goods
there is no evidence in the case to Justi'
fy the inference that the use of the road
for such travel is not equally beneficial
to the two cities
PRIVATE TRAFFIC ANALYZED.
The use of the road by foot passeng rs
is of the same character but the evidence
indicates that such use is slight.
In regard to the transportation of pas
sengers in the electric cars, If such travel
were over the Plank Road, it woulc, coE.
stitute a very large item of beneficial use
to be equally attributed to the two Gun:
ties whatever portion of the joint bur.
den might afterwards be assigned 70 -he
street railway company. But these elcc.
tric cars are operated upon independent
tracks which do not in any way affect
the Plank Road way or even these large
bridges over the rivers, excepting at ~
very near the draws in these bridges
If the apportionment Of the expense III
maintaining these bridges is made undel
the act of 1901 or under any other
statute. it is fair to suppose from the M.
ture of the case that neither county VIII
be put to much expense by reason of tlit
passage of the electric cars over any part
Of this highway.
1t is by no means certain that, if this
highway W ere abandoned by the public
the street railway would not hni Eieaiis
4:.,..r, +l,<, <,,,e,.a t;c,, Of ifc narS ovn,