Newark evening star and Newark advertiser. [volume] (Newark, N.J.) 1909-1916, 1914-01-15
TROLLEY PLANS i
UN|NDORSEDB BY /
UTILITY BOARD
Newark Franchise Agreement
Rejected and Sent Back
for Consideration.
BETTER TERMS FOR
CITY ARE SUGGESTED
State Board Intimates New
ark's interests Are Not
Properly Protected.

Properly Protected.
In an opinion fled todav the New
Jersey Board of Public Utility COM
nissloners refuses TO sanction plans
regarding the rearrangement Of the
trolley system Of Newark The plans
| were the outcome of recent confer
enoes between the Public Service
Railway Company and the Board Of
Works.
The Public Utility Commissioners
refer the entire matter back to the
Board Of Works and to the Public
Service for further consideration. It
| is evident from the statement Of the
Public Utility Commissioners that
the city's interests are not properly
protected in the agreement between
the Board Of Works and the owners
of the trolley lines.
1t is distinctly stated in the opin
ion filed by the Public Utility Board
that 1t has absolute power in the
matter Of franchises. This point has
been questioned by the railway COM
pany.
Action in the matter was a sequel
TO the granting by the Board Of
| Works of twenty-nine new franchises
to the Public Service Railway COM
pany. Five OF these franchises were
approved by the Public Utility Beard.
The opinion filed today by the Pub
lie Utility Board sustains the main
objections entered by Board of Works
Commissioner Gillen at the time the
franchise matter came up before the
Newark body. Mr.. Gillen at that time
made a vigorous fight against the
agreement on the granting of trans
4 a al f117r HI hat - fsf h.
agreement bearing on the problem Of
rerouting the Newark car lines in
connection with the proposed erection
of a s2.000.000 trolley terminal in
Park place.
In its report the Public Utility
Board says Newark is not sufficiently
protected In the matter Of transfers.
either by the unexecuted blanket
agreement or by existing ordinances.
which are at the present time sub
ject of court determination.
Conditions In Ordinance.
One of the main points raised by ths
Utility Board and which has been
steadfastly insisted upon by Commie-
sioner Gillen throughout the entire
controversy is that all conditions
Should he inclnded in the ordinance
to be drafted by the city giving fhaa
4 company certain powers. 1hR ofAer
commissioners held that these cozldi~
tions could be included IN the so>
called blanket agreement.
Anent this blanket agreement the
Utility Board holds that the ordi-
: nances make unconditional grants ana
> contain no reference to the so-cdiied
blanket agreement. The agreement,
therefore, has no direct bearing Inc
hoard further emphasizes the opinion
| that the conditions must be an inte-
eral part of the franchises. While the
franchises have been granted py
the municipality, the COMMISSION
claims that the blanket agreement has ~
: not been executed The agreement y
: denendent upon the approval OF lhe
2 ordinances themselves. =.
. with respect to the transfer PROB
1av,, ,,non which so much stress was
laid by Commissioner Gillen IN the
: several conferences between tne
5 Board of Works and the Punhc ser
vice, the Utility Board peneVes elas
. proper settlement of the transfer
rights of passengers must be made
. before the commission can grant its
tRSegarding the rerouting PLAN tho
Commission maintains that neither
} the ordinance nor the blanket agree
| ment contain any provision GOVERNS
an Immediate rerouting plan
Another important point raised -
4rat fhe mower of the municipality
to impose conditions or grant its con-
sent is greater even than its power 70
regulate the public highways
r nefning its own powers the Otllty
4 Roard maintains that it has aosolute
a nower and that no franchise
[ valid without its consent. Anls poili1
y u-as raised by Public Service ofnclais
: at the hearing before the eontfllss'o"
recently. -.
The commission further feels tnat
? the grants asked are not merely local
9 hu+ are of prime interest TO al tne
4 corn n,unities to be served. and tnat
i therefore the commission is ealieu
d upou to determine whether the grants
in addition to being pubhc conFsn-
fences also conserve the public's IN
+erests. The municipality may nx
e Lawful conditions which are benencfai
y N the nublic. and when the company
o | accents the ordinance with the con-
h ditions affixed these conditions are
binding on the company, the board
. holds.
: The Boards Statement
The statement by the Board OF
! Public Utility Commissioners is as
: follows.
e "The statute under which these
: ordinances are laid before tnls
board for approval Up. L. 1871. cnap-
d fer 1a5. section 24l provides that no
/: privilege or franchise granted to any
: nuhlic utility by any political sub
k division of this state shall be valid
/, until approved by this board, and
: that the boards approval shall be
: given when. after hearing the board
: determines that such privilege or
franchise is necessary and proper Tor
Y the public convenience and properly
% conserves the public interests.
'sIn reaching a determination under
: this statute. the board is REQUIRED.
therefore. to consider, first, whether
the privilege or franchise granted is
necessary and proper for the public
convenience.
granted are not to be employed as tn-
struments of local transportation
alone, but also in the transportation
e of messengers from and TO comnuni-
q ties lying without the borders. of the.
s municipality making the grant, th8
public convenience to be considered
a IS not merely that of the people of the
: n,unicipality making the grant. but
g thar of ali the communities to be
served.
r s.If the board determines that the
: grants are. on this broad view, neces-
5 sary and proper to the public corve-
e nience il Is next required to consider
t whether the grants properly conserve
q the public interests
ssIf the board determines this ques-
], ton in the Affirmative 1t Is then. In
performing its duty under the statute