Perth Amboy evening news., 1911-01-13
A CROSSINGS.

A timely discussion OF the grade
crossing problem was given by Bor-
den D. whiting before the Board OF
Trade at Summit, Tuesday night
Mr.. Whiting was one of the members
Of the old railroad commission and
was an advocate of abolishing grade
crossings at the entire expense of the
railroads. When his term expired
| he was turned down for sreappoint-
ment and Thomas j. Hillery, of
Morris county, was named in his
stead. Mr.. Whiting has not changed
| his opinion as to grade crossings
since he has quit the board. His
| talk at Summit was inspired by the
recent report of the Public Utilities
| Commission in which 1t was recon-
mended that the grade crossings be
abolished, the expense being divided
between the railroads, the states and
the municipalities benefited.
A strong argument Is put up by
Mr.. whiting as to why the railroads
should bear the entire expense. Mr..
Whiting takes the various reasons
| given by the Public Utilities Com
mission as to why they stand in favor
of a division of the costs, and ans
| wers each one OF them. He then
clearly sets forth why the abolition
should. in the first instance, fall upon
the railway industry itself.
In reply to the suggestion that
the public is jointly responsible with
the railroads for creating a condi-
ton requiring the crossings to be
abolished and that tho public will
jointly benefit with the railroads by
the abolition, he calls attention to
the fact that the public and the rail-
ways are Jointly responsible for the
enormous growth of traffic in New
York City. He declares that the
public will jointly benefit with the
railroads by the necessary and cost
ly stations of the New York Cen
trail and Pennsylvania railroads. TIe
points out, however, that the cost of
these improvements are borne direct
ly, and in the first instance, by the
companies.
Regarding the statement that as
long as the public refuses to con-
tribute directly to the cost of cross
ing elimination the crossings will
not be abolished, he refers to the
Pennsylvania railroad, which has,
for years, been abolishing dangerous
crossings at its own expense, citing
jersey City, New Brunswick and
Elizabeth as examples, He says that
It Is not aiscrInauar agasnss
rr-TEnnsylvania railroad by now
assisting other railroads to do what
the Pennsylvania railroad has done
alone. He declares that the cost
should fall upon the company and
be distributed where IT properly be-
longs. in the category of railway ex-
pensss.
The fact that the process Of OBJ.
tanning relief in the courts is very
slow, Mr.. Whiting says. is no reason
why the people should be forced to
pay some of the expense. He says
the fault lies with the court proceed
ings and we should work rather to
relieve the court of its vast amount
of routine SO that these cases may
be considered more promptly.
Mr.. Whiting disposes of the legal
phase of the question by pointing out
the decision of the United States
supreme court in the case sustaining
L-U~.f Llc-
the constitutionality of the grade.
statue of the state of Connecticut.
1t requires its railways to abolish
some grade crossings every year at
their own expense. He says 1t Is
within the province of the state
legislature to pass such a law for
New Jersey.
Arguing further, Mr.. Whiting
points out that placing the entire
expense upon the railways, in the
first instance, is more scientific than
to attempt some apportionment be-.
tween the companies and the public.
There is positively no sound basis
or principle for the apportionment.' n
he declares. "Why shall the-city
pay 10 per cent. Of the cost any