The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1904-03-09


by any corporation, the intent OF the
amendment being TO prevent any corpora
ton from blocking the plans OF the COM
pany by a later acquisition OF land which
" was stated might be acquired at a
subsequent -,e for that very purpose.
Mr. Buckland agreed TO the amendment
granting an extension OF the time In
which claims for damages might be filed.
also to the question OF verdict and award
and damages incidental thereto.
Neither had he any objection 10 the
amendment In regard 10 the abandonment
OF land and damages to be allowed. even
in the event OF a failure to complete the
tunnel after II had once been commenced.
ALL JUST CLAIMS
In reference IN indirect damages he
said the company was willing TO satisfy
all Just claims but he was of the opinion
that as long al the road was properly
conducted there should be some restric-
ton az TO the claims which might be filed
against IL. Then followed a lengthy
argument in regard to the matter OF dam
ages for persons whe were indirectly af-
fected.
Suppose that through the rumbllng OF
the trains through this tunnel a person
whose property Is not directly In line
with the tunnel suffers damages. how
would you recompense those people who
are thus forced TO abandon their
homes?" asked Mr. Colwell.
Attorney Buckland replied: There IL
no provision for such contingency in
this act"
That's II. and what we want Is a
means for damages for the nuisance
question where the land has not been
acquired" interposed Mr.. Baker.
Yes. but the company should not be
subjected 10 claims for damages TO an
inconsiderable distance in the territory
OF property interests" replied the at
torney for the company.
Mr.. Barney say that when a com
pany comes to the Legislature and asks
permission to run 1t. rails through the
residential section OF the city then the
protection for the people liable to thus
be deprived Of their homes.
Mr.. Buckand asked II the people could
not get damages as a private nuisance
In such an event
"T'hey might II II were a private nui-
sance," replied Mr.. Barney. but when
authority is conferred by the general as
sembly of the state then II IL no private
nuisance"
WAY OPEN
Mr. Buckland said that by the amend
ment way. was opened up for unlimited
and that he did not care to
accept II for the company.
Mr. Simmons said that the company
did not show itself disposed to trust the
citizens Of Providence and that when
a man was afraid to trust him he did not
care TO trust the man and thought that
the city should reciprocate the evident
lack OF confidence and not trust the COM
pany.
Mr.. Buckland said that there was no
other act in which such provision OF this
sort was included
This Is not like any other act This
wishes tn run through the resi-
Dental section Of the city. and II the
company does not intend to concede the
city any rights then the city will NOT
stand for any such a thing. that's all"
-etorted Mr.. Coiweil
II don't agree with you and fail 10 see |
now we can agree on this point" An |
'wered Mr.. Buckland. This was taoitlv |
aiken as an agreement not 10 acre. and !
ne matter was passed for the consid
Grafton OF the next amendment which |
vas relative to the bond issue.
L claim that the company IL perfectiv
Competent TO finance the matter and /
mould be allowed TO do so unhampered. |
aid Mr. Buckhnd. IT will not allow
'uch provision. which IL different from |
ne provisions OF the charters OF any |
'ther large corporations In the city ar |
'tate, 10 be injected into f." He vas
Wiling to admit provision. however.
hat the use Of the bonds be restrtc,ed |
o the purposes OF the act
REsENTs INsINuArToN.
Gentlemen, resent the insinua ,ions
which have been made concerning the An
lncial status OF this company; and / vrjsb
% say that IL is not fair or even dacent
o have IL constantly insin,atod that the
ompany Is trying to use bonds for other
purposes and that this project is sim
'ly gag 20 cover the floating OF soma
tocks"
What is the objection 10 the insertion
u this clause7' asked Mr.. Robinson
Just because ! do not intend 10 insert
l." replied Mr. Buckland.
He did not think that the amendment
living the city a voice In the regulation
nd control Of the road was n reasonable
roposition.
I'VE do not intend 10 take any part of
he streets except such small parts as are
ecesssry for the foundations OF the
racks overhead 70 rest upon. which will
OF interfere with travel In any way. and
70 do not intend 90 cross any streets AZ
rade
In relation TO the idea Of making the