Newark evening star and Newark advertiser. [volume] (Newark, N.J.) 1909-1916, 1910-06-07
during the remaining year a strong
movement against 1t.
Many resolution. Presented.

s hhONcAiChL A6HihSA IL
Many Resolution Presented.
Are there any steps that the cit
n ay take in retaliation of this actio
of the railroads against us is anothe
question the committee may take III
Do they pay their fair share of locs
taxes? Is there any way to asses
them for street improvements along tn
line of their property as private indi
viduals are assessed? A proper investi
cation of these questions may result |
our benefit and at any rate will sho,
us lust what relation we bear to ther
and, IL unsatisfactory, we can do som
appealing for legislative action our
selves"
Following the suggestions of Mayor
Seymour several resolutions were pre-
sented by members. City Counsel Will
lam A. Lord, In an opinion. suggested
an application to the Legislature fol
necessary statute changes; that a pro-
test be made against proposed increases
in rates, and an appeal to Governor
Fort for a special session of the New
Jersey Legislature to either fix rates
to be charged by railroads at figures
not to exceed present charges, or the
delegation of rate fixing powers to the
Public Utilities Commission.
A resolution urging Governor John
f. Fort to consider the advisability OF
calling a special session of the Legisla
ture and protesting against the pro-
posed increases in fares was presented
by Councilman Harry w. Bergman
and passed. with Councilman Calhoun
alone opposing the measure.
Council, on motion Of Councilman Jo-
seph A. Birkholz, passed on first read
ing In ordinance prohibiting trains
from going through the city at a great
er rate of speed than twelve miles an
hour, fixing as penalties for violation
a $50 fine or thirty days in Jail. The
railroad committee was also directed
to attend the East Orange massmeet-
ing of commuters on Saturday night
on motion of Councilman John G. Fin
eran.
City COunse1's Opinion.
City Counsel Lords opinion in the
matter was as follows:
l am requested by Alderman Bergman
to give you my opinion as 10 the power OF
posed raising of the rates of fare Tor the
transportation of passengers on railroads
operating in or through the city OF orange.
In reply to said request for an opinion,
! would say that the charter of the city
of Orange unfortunately invests the Com
mon Council with no powers In this direc-
ton.
The original charter of the Morris and
Essex Railroad Company. with which this
city is principally concerned, provided IN
section 10 C. l.. 1896. %, 2) that not more
than six cents per mile per ton for prop
erty and not more than six cents. per mile
per passenger should be charged for trans
portation in carriages belonging to the
company. and not more than three ceats
Dnr mile npr ton for r0nHrfV and not more
than three cents per milo per passenger
should be charged for transportation over
said line in carriages belonging to others.
Section IS of the revised railroad act
Up. l.. 1903, 645, 665) provides that any rail
road company may demand and receive
such sums OF money for the transportation
OF persons on it's railroad and connections
as it shall from time to time think rea-
sonable and proper, not exceeding, in the
case of railroad companies organized I'M
der that act, 3 cents per mile for carrying
exceeding, in the case of railroads con-
structed or operated under a special char
Ter, w cents per mile for carrying each
passenger on such railroad and not ex-
ceeding the rate per mile limited by the
charter.
This provision of the railroad act, in the
case of Shelton VS.. Erie Railroad Company
"a Vroom, $3.50 was held to be constitu-
tional, although it reduced the limit which
the Erie Railroad Company was permitted
to charge under its special charter by Il
cent per mile, and it Is therefore settled
beyond question in this State that the
State Legislature has the power to limit
rates for the transportation of passengers
and property by railway. even where spe-
cial charters Of the railway obtained years
ago establish other limitations; provided
that what Is done by the Legislature in
I this dire tfon, does not amount TO a regu-
Ilation of foreign or interstate commerce,
over which the Federal government has
exclusive Jurisdiction.
In the case Of Raritan River Railroad
Company VS.. Traction Company al Nroom,
1922 it was held that courts have no general
supervisory jurisdiction over the question
only remedy that the city of Orange or its
citizens have against a proposed increase
OF rates for transportation within this
State. where such rates do not exceed the
limits already provided by law, is by an
application to the Legislature to change
such statute, and / would suggest that
your honorable body simply pass a %resolu-
ton protesting against the proposed in
ernor of the State to call. If necessary. a
special session of the Legislature to pass
a law either fixing the rates to be chafged
by the railroads for the transportation of
Passengers at figures not in excess of those
heretofore In force. or else d~elegating to
the Board of Public Utility Commissioner
the power to fix such rates.
G. o. p. Leader Dissents.
After the reading of City Counsel
Lords opinion, Councilman Bergman
offered the following motion, which
was passed, Councilman Calhoun alone
dissenting:
Resolved That on behalf of the resi-
dents of the city of Orange we take this
occasion vehemently to protest against
the proposed increase In rates for the
transportation of passengers upon the
railroads used by the citizens of Orange,
and which increase we consider un-
called for, unnecessary and even ex-
tortionate in the case of the Delaware,
Lackawanna and Western Railroad
Company, which is and has been maxi
ing such inordinate profits for Its
officials and stockholders, declaring
dividends out of all proportion to the
amount of money invested in said com-
pany; and be 1t further
Resolved, a we appeal to the
Honorable John Franklin Fort, Cover
nor of the State of New Jersey. to CON