Perth Amboy evening news., 1907-02-16
SOUTH AMBOy.
TIE TROLLEY HEARING

The trolley hearing Tuesday night
continued, following what has been
previously published, as follows
Mr.. Steuerwald; Il would just
like to make a few more remarks
In Perth Amboy they run clear down
Smith street and then have to come
back up the same street. think
this trolley could come down joan
street and deliver its passengers and
then come back again the same as
they do In Perth Amboy.
E. r. Rose: Just one word more.
u feel very sorry that the name of
Rose has seemed to associate itself
with the objection to this trolley.
was asked 10 prepare a petition, NOT
by any gentleman by the name o.
Rose at all. / have not been paid BY
any man by the name of Rose or any
one else. Mr.. Buckelew argued very
strongly for people in their section
OF tRe town, he was paid to go around
AND get consents, which he did; and
M. Lovely has been paid by someone
9lse. The names on that petition l
Spresented here are all names of prop
erty owners, but the fact that they
are not all here present don't mean
they are willing to have a trolley
rack run on their sidewalk, and / do
not see why we should bear the brunt
OF the objection, the brunt of the per-
sonal abuse I would say one word
in regard to the remarks of your
honor; 1t is the interest of the coun
Gil to look out for the people of the
borough of South Amboy and in that
connection | think, without any OBJ
lection to the tenor OF your honor S
remarks, it might be modified so as
to say if the people of South Amboy
mainly desire a trolley track and if
the trolley track in itself would be Il
dangerous element and a nuisance to
other people you are not to force
that trolley track upon the people"
MrI Lovely had Just one more
w0fd' and the discussion followed on
NJ some length. Regarding the point
<raised of Mr. Rose that one trolley
company is prohibited from laying
any track without the consent of the
other company, Counsellor Pearse
Ysaid:
''Mr. Rose has quoted the act of
1889. but that matter was discussed
at the time the application was made
To come down Bordentown avenue so
far as Stevens avenue is concerned.
This traction company is not operat-
ing under the act of 1889 at ALL. but
is operating, | believe, under the act
of 1898, which, so far as l can gath
er. supercedes the previous act of
1889 and therefore they would not
come within the provisions of the
act of 1889, which limits them to one
thousand feet from the other trolley.
am free to conwess l am not very
clear on that subject myself anC that
Is the reason Il have been trying to
steer clear of any argument on it,
but / looked it up at the time the first
franchise was granted on the sixth of
December and I put it up to Mr.. Will
son, the counsel of the traction COM
pany, and he said it was up to him
ii there was any law prohibiting it and
/ really feel the act of 1893 super
codes the act of 1889, but | may be
mistaken on that point.
On motion the second reading of
the ordinance was laid over until the
next meeting.
Before adjourning, J. II. Gordon
made a motion that the representa-
tives OF the traction company, Mr..
Brown and Mr. Wilson, be asked to
attend the next meeting of the coun-.
ell to represent the traction company.