New-York tribune., 1902-06-05
USE AND MISUSE OF ROADS.

It is pleasant to observe that the Automobile
Club has decided 10 hold and to sanction no
more speed trials on public highways We
might wish that it had taken such action some
time ago. In time to avoid the tragedy OF last
Saturday. The Tribune long ago urged that
it should do so, or that the public authorities
should prohibit and prevent such speed trials
counsel which was met with resentment by
some who are glad to adopt it But it Is
better late than never 1t VIII be we'll IL the
tragic lesson just learned shall be potent for
establishing generally proper regard for the
right use of public highways, in both city
and country. Such regard has too often been
lacking. Responsibility for the Staten Island
disaster is put by some motormen upon the
city aldermen, who are said TO have
authorized the OF the road for rae
ing purposes. and 1t is assumed in a cocksure
and high-daddy fashion that such authorization
unquestionably valid and all sufficient, and
that it quite ends the whole matter. One of
the organs of the motormen, amid lamentations
over the 'unfairness, unreasonableness and
ignorance" of The Tribunes discussions of the
automobile question, declares in a fine
cathedra manner that the body which passes
ian ordinance regulating traffic has also the
power TO suspend change or abrogate any or
''all Of the provisions of such ordinance"
It is, we believe, quite true that the existing
law regulating the speed of vehicles upon pub
lie roads gives the local authorities power 10
increase the limit of speed in certain cases
That provision of the law was protested against
by The Tribune at the time of its enactment
liable TO misuse, and are inclined to think
that the tragedy of last Saturday gives some
slight point to that protest. That is not how
ever, the real matter at issue. Our chief con-
tention has been, and is, that the local authori-
ties, acting as temporary trustees of public
property, have no right TO ALLEVIATE TO per-
vert from It's intended uses such public prop
erty or to exclude the public from its proper use
thereof. This road on Staten Island is a public
road. 1t is owned by the public, for the COM
mon use of all lawabiding citizens. 1t is a
gross infringement of public right for any
body-even the Board of Adermen-to exclude
the public from it arbitrarily In order that it
may be exclusively used by a few individuals
for their private pleasure or profit. That is the
point The fact that this particular road is 'in
a remote section of Staten Island does not alter
the principle. 1t is public road just as much
as Broadway. There are thousands Of men in
this city who are fond of rifle shooting, and
who would greatly like TO have a good and con-
venient range upon which to practise. Such a
range could easily be constructed upon Broad
way, between the City Hall and Bowling Green
Is 1t to be maintained that the aldermen might
properly designate that part of Broadway to be
thus used, say, from 10 a. NJ. to 3 D. m., and
might order all other of 1t to be suspended
at such time?
In this Staten Island case the aldermen seem
to have given their assent to an invasion of
public right and to a misuse OF public property.
The result was that lawabiding citizen, in the
pursuit of his ordinary and lawful occupation,
and while upon public property, was killed.
He had not gone thither to participate in or to
witness the unlawful misuse of the road He
was travelling, on lawful business, on public
highway He was entitled to the protection of
the law upon that highway. Instead of giving
him such protection officers of the law appear
to have authorized proceedings which directly
led to his death. In that they did not vindicate
such misuse of the road. They simply brought
upon themselves moral responsibility, and upon
the city lega! and pecuniary responsibility. for
that mans death. We shall see whether they
also brought home to themselves n realization
of the fact that the public roads, whether in
the heart of Manhattan or ''in a remote section
of Staten Island" are for the use of the pub
lie and that no occupancy of them can be law
fui which interferes with the safe use of them
by the public.