Montour American. (Danville, Pa.) 1866-1920, 1908-04-16
COURT REVERSES
JUDGMENT.

Judge Evans Saturday handed down
an opinion in the case of tho Borough
of Danville VS.. the Delaware. Lack
awsnna and Western Railroad COM
pany: No. 30 January term, 1907.
Certiorari. The court Is Of the opin-
ion that boroughs can not pass valid
ordinance to regulate the speed of
railroad trains within the borough
limits.
According to the transcript in this
case the plaintiffs demand is for the
sum of twenty dollars as the maximum
penalty for violation of a borough or
dinauce.
Section one of the borough ordinance
for the violation of which this suit is
brought provides that it shall not be
lawful for any railroad locomotive,
engine or engines, car or Jars, train
or trains TO be run or propc lied through
any portion of the borough of Dan
Vile at greater rate of speed than
eight miles an hour. A penalty of not
less than ten dollars nor more than
twenty dollars for each offence is i'm
posed by the ordinance.
The transcript contains this langu-
age, LATTER hearing the testimony,
proofs and allegations, l, William V.
Oglesby, justice of the peace of the
first ward OF Danville, do find that the
Delaware, Lackawanna and Western
Railroad company, defendant herein,
did OH the 9th day of November, 1906,
run or propel a passenger train through
a portion OF the third ward of the
borough of Danville. Montour county,
Pa, between the hours of 10 and II q.
M. at a greater rate of speed than
eight miles an hour, to wit 20 miles
an hour, contrary to the above recited
ordinance and do adjudge that the
said defendant does forfeit, therefor,
to the plaintiff herein, the borough of
Danville, the sum of twenty dollars
together with costs of suit
The court after citing the specifica-
| tions of error assigned to the record
in this case, proceeds to the main
question involved, which is whether
or not the borough of Danville can
pass a valid ordinance to regulate the
speed of railroad trains within the
borough limits.
The question is as to the power Of a
borough to require a railroad company
TO Go a particular thing. which. i'll the
Judgment Of the borough the company
ought to do within the borough limits
for the safety of the public in connec-
tion with the operation Of its road. ln
other words, can the borough of Dan
Vile require the Delaware, Lack
awanna and Western Railroad COM
pany to adopt what IL regards as pro-
per means, viz: not to run nor propel
its locomotives, engines, cars or trains
through any portion of the borough of
Danville et greater rate of speed
than eigh miles per hour, for the pro-
lection of he public.
This ca is ruled by Pennsylvania
Railroad ,ompany's case 2l3 Pa. 373
and the Grafton Borough case 18th
Dist. Report 204
In the Pennsylvania railroad COM
pany's case the borough of North
Braddock passed an ordinance requir-
ing the Pennsylvania Railroad COM
pany to erect and maintain and oper-
ate safety gates at the point where
the tracks Of said railroad company
cross Fourth street in the borough of
North Bradook and imposing PEN
atty for any failure to comply with
the provisions thereof The supreme
court declared the ordinance invalid
in plain terms.
Mr.. Justice Brown in speaking for
the supreme court says: beginning on
page 375, "In the operation OF its road
and in the running of its cars the
Judgment of the board of directors Of
a railroad company, in the absence of
statutory provisions, is supreme and
exclusive. I" public safety impera-
lively require that there be no divis-
ion of tEis great responsibility with
others-not even with the munioipali-
ties through whose limits railroads
may run-for division of it would be
the shifting of it in every case of ac-
countabiilty for failure to properly
operate the road or run the cars.
What particular means, however, shall
be employed to protect the public
when using streets or highways at rail
road crossings is left to the company
operating the road, the law merely de-
manding and requiring reasonable care
in view of all the circumstances.
"What is attempted by the appellee
in the present case? Having no voice
in the operation of the appellants road
ityundertakes to do what the common
law itself does not do. 1t assumes to
declare how the railroad shall perform
public duty at particular point and
would substitute its judgment for that
of the board of directors as to what
kind of protection shall be offered at
the grade crossing, but with no cor