Newark evening star and Newark advertiser. [volume] (Newark, N.J.) 1909-1916, 1914-03-20

| ordinances exercised Its judgment
and imposed the cost either upon
itself or such other company. In this
situation no question nf service ar Of
rates in connection with the grants
made BY the ordinances slbm tied
is involved For this reason. as
! hereinbeiore pointed out il does not
lac within the province of the board
to consider this Objections II this
board were to cons der the objection
and were to reach a conclusion OPP
uused to that reached by the NUM-
ipal authorities in the enactment of
these ordinances. 1t would not be
warranted in w.thhohing its APP
prevail.
Flfty-Year Franchise.
Objection was also made for the
reason that, while the grants of con-
sent and permission made by the ordi-
nances. other than that relating to the
subway, are limited to a period of
fifty years the ordinance relating to
the subway fixes a term Of seventy
five years To the exercise of the
rights to which the ordinance, other
than that concerning the subway re-
late, the municipal consent and per
mission is requisite. In granting
such consent and permission the
municipality is bound by the pro-
Under that act the grant by the NUM-
cipality must be limited TO a definite
period of years moi exceeding nifty
In these ordinances tie munich
pality liked the period of its grants
of consent at the maximum period of
fifty years. Since these ordinances
make grants If privileges II is re-
uuisite under The public utility act
that they he approved by this board
Ia, L., .,fF.,
AS before stated the approval of this
board is dependent upon finding by
II that the grants are necessary and
proper for the public convenience and
that the public interests are by the
ordinances properly conserved.
The limited franchise act definitely
imposes upon the municipal authOri-
ties the duty of fixing the term during
hich the grant of consent made by
them shall endure In the perfur-
nance of that duty discretion is
vested in them. limited only by the
fixing by the statute of the maA inum
period of fifty years.
This board Is of opinion that the
duty and the power tn fiN the period
OF duration of the municipal consent
is cast by the statute solely upon the
municipal authorities that in this re-
spect they are the sole judges of the
yhbNC AllttAG6la anu That lIilS bOdIO
is without authority TO affect or dis
turb the action of the municipal body
in the performance of such duty and
the exercise of such power
subway Grant Differs.
The right TO construct the subway
has a wholly different status The
grant of this right is made to the
company directly by statute. Up. l..
1918, Oh, S2). The municipal consent
is not requisite to its exercises.
Hudson x M. T. x T. Co, v. Town
ship committee of Lindon Township,
IS All. Rep. 445.
The limited franchise act and the
limitations placed by that act upon
municipal action are consequently
not applicable. The municipalities
have, ii is true, power 10 prescribe
terms and conditions The Hud-
son e Manhattan Tunnel and Ter
minal Company case before cited
raises grave question as TO whether
this power to impose terms and
conditions" is sufficiently comprehen-
siVe to entitle the municipality in
anywise to limit the duration Of this
right granted to the company direct
~ 10y the State. The city, neVerlhe-
less, in the ordinance relating to the
subway has limited the period of the
right to seVeuty-ilve years. To this
the company has asSented. The duty
iS imposed upon this board to approve
or disaprOve the terms and condi-
tions" imposed by the municipality.
In this situation the board would
not be warranted In Withholding its
approval of this ordinance on the
srOre that the limitations should have
been fifty years rather than seventy
ave years, and 50 identical with the
imitation imposed by the other or
Jinance, the right to impose any
limitation of time is a matter of Sc
rlouS doubt 1t WIS also urged that
the.5rdina noes should have #bern linn
tied in their operation To an indie
terminate term or during good be-
naliur" The board has already
pointed out its lack of control over
the Limitations of the duration of
grants. Aside from this, however, il
would, for reasons already given, have
'Deeu without the power Of the mu-
nicipal authorities as TO limit the
grants.
The CITY in the adoption of the or
diuances. other than that relating TO
the subway, was as already indicated
subject to the provisions of the
limited franchise act and Obliged to
prescribe a definite term Of years not
exceeding fifty, as the measure of
it's grants.
City without Power.
In its adoption of the ordinance
relating to the subway the city, un-
der the adjudication before referred
to, was as before noted probably
without power to limit to any eX-
tent the enjoyment by the term nal
company of the right to construct
tIe suUwav which the State had con-
ferred UPON it. Desirable as it may
be to limit the enjoyment of special
lights m pub IL highways and y aces
to an 'indeterminate term" or dur
ing good behavior" the municipality
is. under the statutes as they now
are. without power to impose such
limitation. Power To impose such a
initiation must come through the en-
aCtment of new legislat tim making a
hange in the present general policy
of the State to confine such rights to
fixed terms of Years not exceeding
prescribed maximum
Finally. in connection with the sug-
cstion that the Investment IN the
proposed terminal may be ever CAPT
allied 1t may be noted that the