Newark evening star and Newark advertiser. [volume] (Newark, N.J.) 1909-1916, 1910-07-01
MEASURE
FOR Restricting
SPEED OF TRAINS
Orange Mayor Says Ordinance
Is Deemed RetaliatOry for
Increase in Rates.

Formally rejecting the ordinance
passed by the Orange Common Coun-
ell restricting Laekawanna and Erie
railroad trains to a mile in five min
utes while passing through Orange,
Mayor Arthur B. Seymour today filed
his veto of the measure with City Clerk
Willett B. Gano. The veto follows:
II return herewith without my ap-
prevail an ordinance passed by your
honorable body June 20, 1910, entitled
An ordinance to regulate the speed
OF locomotive engines pom any rail-
road in the city of Orange
THE ordinance provides that no loco
motive engine hall be driven upon a
railroad at any crossing at a greater
rate of speed thar one mile In five min
utes.
my reasons for vetolng the ordnance
are as follows:
THE ordinance being passed at this
time, when there Is great complaint
n protest on the part of citizens
about the raise In communication rates,
is deemed and taken to be a measure
of retaliation on the part of the city
against the increase in rates. If this
Is so 1t ought to be vetoed for that
reason alone, for no ordinance should
be adopted In a spirit of retaliation,
but only for reasons of justice. The
railroads can Tetaliate as well as the
city and the Hinal result may mean
great damage to us. The increase in
rates is not entirely a local question,
and a public utilities commission, with
rate-rgdking power, can properly handle
the Question. Let the proper h
tiN, tbs Governor and the Legislature,
IN special session, settle the matter.
I'm addition to the increase in rates
imposed by the railroads the added in
Fiction upon the commuters of slow
transportation is imposed by the or
~dinance, and it seems to me that 1t
simply multiplies the injustice to the
commuters instead Of in any way re-
lieving them, for it canno be reason
ably thought that The railroads will de-
crease their rates because of the adop-
ton OF, this ordinance. If the ordinance
We're adopted we would see the future
proceedings as to it's enforcement some
,hing like this: The city you'd employ
men TO mark the speed Of the trains
cunning through the city and upon
roper evidence bring suit for the vio-
alton of the ordinance.
Assuming that the court would find
ne railroads guilty there would then
be an appeal upon the part of the rail-
roads to the higher courts, which would
take q year or a year n q half to
.nally decide. This appeal would
probably be upon the ground that the
ordinance is unreasonable and invalid.
In the meantime the city would be
compelled to employ the time-keepers
with the uncertainty always before us
of ever having any results from the
work OF the men. 1t seems to me, there
fore, that the ordinance is not capable
Il practicable enforcement.
II would not deem the ordinance a
proper one to pass, assuming that It's
object Is not retaliatory, but is only
- safeguard the public crossings and
limit the speed of railroad trains to
twelve. miles an hour. Yet we allow
by cur ordinance trolley cars to be run
through the public streets without any
safeguards Except so-called fenders),
at = rate of ten miles an hour, where
al the railroads have all the modern
appliances as to safeguarding the cross
ings such as gates, bells n flagmen,
n they are only allowed to run Upon
their own private right-of-way at a
rate of twelve miles an hour. How can
it be said that If the ordinance relating
to the speed of the trolley cars upon
the public streets is a reasonable one,
the ordinance relating to the speed of
railroad locomotives upon their rail-
roadbed is also reasonable?
Another reason for vetoing the ordi-
nance is thar it would seriously inter-
fere with the delivery of the United
States mails. Postal timetables are
to a certain extent upon the
timetables, and any serious
Interference with the latter would
the former.
Another reason is that t~ransporta-
ton upon the trolley line known as the
Orange n Passaic Valley line, which
the Lackawanna and Erie
in this city, would also be great
y interfered with and the public more
inconvenience than ever. 1t is al
.eady known that the railroads interfere
the present trolley transpo. tation.
Ind the result of compelling Iower
speed upon the railroads would make
conditions almost unbeara 5le.
I have interviewed many of our citi-
.ens upon this question and find them
to the ordinance; indeed, I
not heard anyone speak in fay or
If 1t. I do not believe that the COM
themselves desire such an ordi-
nance. but would protest against it's
enforcement with the same vehemence
hat they now protest against the in
In rates"