Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1905-03-16
OPPOSITION TO WHARF
Rutland Railroad Will Contest
City's Right to Build.
letter ~ Tint Eject Written by n. 10.
Powers. General COunSri-Nny yer
says wharf VIII nc build Dcs-
pitc Opposition.

Objection TO the construction OF the
public wharf at The foot of Maple
street appeared in now form Satur-
day. when Mayor Burke received II let
ter from II. IT, Powers. general coun
sci for the Rutland Railroad company,
in which he stated that the company
would contest tho right of the city to
build the wharf in the manner which
is contemplated. The proposed public
wharf is to hc built between two docks
owned 10y til. Rutland railroaG and be-
cause of this fact their opposition is
developed The letter written by At
tornoy Powers is as follows:
Hon. James y. Burke Mayor Of Bur
lington, Burlington, Vt.
My Dear Sir
Il has come 70 .hc notice Of the Hut-
land Railroad company that tie ci,y "i
Burlington. IN order 10 obtain Il publ"
dock. proposes to extend Maple street
10y Hlliug in the Sip between the old
south dock aud the dock row occu
plea nH the Lyman Goa! company aud
80 construct the city dock ~ The foot
uf Maple street thus extended
rho Rutland Railroad company is the
Owner of the old south dock and also
the Lyman dock. subject - Il term
lease 10 Lyman. and Us will he readily
coon would be very seriously incom-
rud'd il access 10 the old south dock
ON the south side and the Lyman dock
On the north side was cut off by the
proposed extensions Of Mupi" street
Both these docks were constructed
many wears ago. and. as I apprchcud.
the ownership OF each comes with it
the right OF an unobs;ructcd access
| from tho public waters OF Lake Cham
plain. 50 that tho title to This access
, is vested IN tho owner OF the dock and
cannot be taken from MIN. except by
legal proceedings.
Tho Eutluud Railroad company has
40 wish 10 throw any obstacle in she
way of obtaining a public dock for the
city Of burlington; on The contrary
/ from n railroad standpoint it would
obViousl> I've hcaclittcd in many ways,
if such Il dock w,rc constructed. but
while his Is true it is also true that
this company could hardly afford to
surrender is vested rights for tho
small advantage that might be gained
bv the construction of your public
dock.
( IF Your plan is not to ill in bctwcc.
tho two docks referred to in the man
ncr Indicated, then, of course. this let
tor is harmless. but il it is. please
trca- it as Il notice that this company
vii. contest the right of the city Ia
make the extension Of Maple street in
the manner suggested.
Very truly yours.
II. II. POWERS.
Genera. Counsel.
'Iiavc YOU answered the letter yet. Mr.
Mayor" was asked of Mayor Burke
49, WIS the reply.
Arc VOW gong to answer it, was
asked. NO There is nothing 10 answer,
replied Tho mhyni.
"pn N"u intend to iii in and build
th" foot of Maple street
"Ncs How else could it he done" W.
intend 10 build i dock and to build it al
the foot of Maple street"
"Nou think. then. tina, the vos,ct
rights If n" Rutland Railrodd companl
are not of such Il character ~ to pre-
vent tho building of the WHARF
Not by = iuc fuli. We have just a,
muoh ri-ht IL build 81 dock on our prop
orty as they have on theirs and VIC are
going To do It,"
do lou consider that this movr %,
Inc part of the railroad comes primarily
from the road officials OF was it inspire,
by outside PARTIES
II thin. it WAS prompted by outsid'
pai ties but. we are gong to build tina
dock and the Rutland ana Central Yer
mont roads will lind out that they don
own tho urcScn. SuDrpr1C cOurt of Yer