Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1915-05-14
COMMUNICATION
RELATIVE TO
BRIDGE CASE
Ex-City Solicitor Mclean Gives
Very Clear and Comprehen-
sive Statement, Fully Setting
Forth the Essential Facts
Editor of Kennebec Journal:


have read with interest your report
in Wednesdays Journal Of the hearing
before the Public Utilities Commission
on the motion of the Lewiston, Au-
gusta and Waterville Street Railwa.-
to dismiss the position brought by the
City of Augusta with reference to the
repairs on Kennebec bridge in 1914,
under the heading. Somebody's Error
May Cost the City Of Augusta $1,000
Wrong Course in Bridge Repair" /
note that in this mornings Journal
YOU say that the purpose Of the head
line was ito indicate the text Of the
story" and to show that at the hear
ing statements were made before the
commission to the effect that somebody
had made an error"
From remarks which / have heard by
your readers it is evident that a great
many Of them. at least, concur with
you that the purpose Of headline Is
"to indicate the text of the story" and
have taken your headline at its face
value. So taken it can only convey the
meaning that someone connected with
the last city government-presum
MI Newbert or mysef-had made a
blunder which might cost the city
IS, 600.
This is so obviously wrong that feel
in justice to Mr.. Newbert and myself
the public should know all of the facts,
at least so far as it is proper to dis
close them in advance of a hearing on
the merits.
AS is generally known. extensive re-
pairs were made on the bridge in 1914.
The necessity Of these repairs was ad-
mitted by both the railroad company
and the city: indeed. the railroad was
SO strongly convinced of the necessity
of the bridge being strengthened that
it placed stringers under that portion
of the bridge occupied by its rails. The
city and the railroad also agreed on the
nature and kind Of repairs. This is
evidenced by the fact that the repairs
were made. They could not agree on
the division Of costs.
The railway contended that it should
pay only for the repairs and improve
ments made to the floor system be-
tween its rails and one foot outside.
The city commended that by its charter
the railway was bound to maintain and
keep in repair such portions of the
bridge as it occupied by its tracks and
that the piers and trestle work were as
much a part of the bridge az the floor
| ing. The city further contended that
the bridge vas subjected TO a very
substantial wear due to its occupancy
hn xNhi
the company was bound to pay. In
this connection, / would call attention
to the following extract from the
railway company's charter:
said corporation shall maintain
and keep in repair such portion Of
the streets or roads as shall be occu-
pied by the tracks Of its railroad, and
shall make all other repairs of said
streets or roads which may be rem
dered necessary by the occupation OF
the same by said railroad"
In considering the above, it should
be borne in mind that the bridge is
in law part of the streets or
roads, otherwise the railroad COM
pany would have no charter right to
occupy the bridge.
The city endeavored to get a salts
factory adjustment Of costs with the
railway. but falling in this I was di-
rected by the city government 10
bring an action against the railroad
in such tribunal as / might deem adj
visable Realizing that the matter
would have to be tried by Mr.. Saw
telle, the newly elected City Solicitor,
I took the matter up with him, and
after consideration with him. I draft
ed a petition to the Public Utilities
Commission setting forth in sub
stance.
/. That the railway company and
the city had agreed on the kind and
amount Of repairs necessary, and als1
that the repairs would be made un-
der the direction and supervision of
the city, the expense to be borne BY
the city and the railway in such pro-
portion as might thereafter be de-
termined. but that they should be
paid for in the first instance by the
city.
Q That pursuant to said agree
ment the bridge was repaired under
the direction and supervision Of the
city at a cost of s12.590.50.
The prayer of the petition was that
all matters sets forth in the petition
might be reviewed to the end that If
public safety required additional re-
pairs the Public Utilities Board Nigh.
so order, and that the board would
make such apportionment Of the ex-
penses for the repairs already made
and for such further repairs as it
might order as to it seemed just and
fair.
The railroad filed a motion asking
that the city's petition be dismissed,
/. Because the petition set forth
that the repairs were made by virtue of
an agreement, and that the Public
Utilities Board had no power to con-
strue the agreement or enforce the
terms Of same.
2. Because the repairs had been
made and paid for by the city and that
therefore the board had no Jurisdiction
under Section Is Of Chapter 81 Of the
Revised Statutes. to determine what
repairs were necessary previous to or
at the time they were made, or the
manner or making the same or to de-
termine how the expense should be
apportioned between the railway and
the CITY.