Waterbury evening Democrat., 1904-10-07


 men Monday night will be full of in- terest for everybody. There appears to be a good deal of misunderstanding about that whole matter, and as it is LOW coming to head it is no harm to state the facts and then let anybody who wants to criticize them. The first and the onl..- proposition submitted to the city was for permission to begin litigation tc compel the steam railroad company to remove the abutments and embankments out of the highway This they claimed they could do if au- thorized to take up the question: in the name of the city, the trolley to pay the costs of the suit. Their application was granted with a condition that in case they lost in the courts they would remove the abutnents at their own expense if they decided to build the road. They baked at this and ap' pealed to the railroad commissioners, who decided in their favor. Then the city toon an appeal and was ready to have the courts pass upon it. On the eve of the battle conference was held in the office of City Attorney Kel-
 
 Burpee and MT Kellogg at which the rros and cons of the subject were g"ne over with the result that they arrived at what they thought an amica ble adjustment of the difficultyA and left with the understanding that Col onel Burpee would submit the finding to the directors of the trolley com pany, Mayor Kilduff agreeing to bring the matter to the attention of the de pertinent of public works
 The terms of settlement were as follows: That the company immedi- ately begin litigation in the name of pei the New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad Go to remove its ablltments from the highway, and that pending a decision of the matter in the courts the company be permitted to lay it's tracks under the trestle as it TOW exists, the company to main taiu at it's own expense an electric arc light under the trestle and keep 1t burning from dusk until dawn; also that the cars stop fifty feet from the entrance to the bridge, both sides, and the conductor go ahead of the car uIl' til 1t cleared the abutments and en- tankments. If the company lost it's case ill the courts the city was to lay .oC the question of benefits, and damages in the usual way, and then let the company pay 55 per cent of the city's share of the expense. taa5s
 Mayor Kilduff reported the result of the conference to the board Of public. works and at an informal meeting called for that purpose he was author ized to settle the snarl on that basis. But the company never came back, and the only explanation the board of public works ever received as to why the negotiations terminated so abrupt ' was that owing to the strike which occurred at that time the directors were not prepared to take the matter in hand.
 2 Whether the conditions which the city finally agreed to accept were fair or not is something this article does not propose to enter into. The end in view is to put the facts within reach Of all so that they may be discussed inteIligently. None of these matters were inserted in the records because nothing definite had been reached, but the department of public works stood ready for nearly year to accept the conditions mentioned herein and rec ommend their adoption to the alder men. and tic only thing that deterred them from doing so was the absence of anything tangible from the petitioner Hut all the facts are fresh in the minds of those who had to do with iarize himself with them need not travel far for the information. Some people thought the board of public works went too far and others were of the opinion that they wanted too much. but the men who acted for the city at that time believed they were right and 1t remains to be seen how widely their successors will differ from them. But whether they were right or wrong. their position should be stated without prejudice, or left i'll the background altogether. The state ment that the trolley company offered to pay 55 per cent of the cost and that the proposition was ignored is incor- rect. Let us be gentlemanly, any way, and give in evidence nothing which we do not know to be true There are many interests involved in this matter and although the problem is not too stupendous for the ordinary mind to cope with, still it Is something on which good citizens may honestly differ.
 Everybody wants the trolley, but what marks the parting of the ways between the taxpayers is who'll foot 1 the bills? The largest real estate owners, which of course includes the manufacturers, as we'll as the smaller ones, believe that the most the trolley has right to expect Is the privilege or using the streets and put them in proper condition for the operation of | the service. The city has always done considerably more than this and was willing to 20 step further than ever be- fore on the Oakvflle trestle question. Where the deception comes in is in the imputation that city administrations have stood in the way of trolley exten- sion even when the company stood ready to pay all expenses. Nothing could be further from the facts than this. The present administration begged the company to double track North Main street from Exchange place to the Citizens bank before the new pavement was put down, but they gave the appeal deaf ear 1t would have been convenience to the public, but 1t meant little expense to the company and so long as they could get |