South Bend news-times. (South Bend, Ind.) 1913-1938, 1920-01-27
TRACK ELEVATION
SUBJECT OF TALK
City Attorney Declares Sepa-
ration Fund is Intact
at City Hall.

elevation in South Bend viii probab-
y be given the early attention of
railroad officials, according 10 CITY
att. Thomas ". Slick. who address
ed the members OF the Chamber OF
Commerce az their weekly MONDAY
luncheon meeting Monday.
Mr. Slick reviewed the law con-
corning the elevation OF railroad
tracks through "A city. and touched
upon the work toward the elevation
Or the Grand Trunk and New York
Central tracks in this city by the
city government Tie told of many
conferences held between CITY Off
Gals and railroad representatives.
and declared that the track separa-
ton fund az The city hall is intact.
although Il has been depleted sew
erai times by the Carson adninistra-
ton IN operating other departments
u the city government Mr.. Slick
said iu part.
Track separation. 20 be correct.
not Track elevation IS the subject
OF my proposed remarks 10 is term
cd track separation because the
law authorizing the action grants
the power 20 the city TO compel any
railroad. crossing any of the public
streets. 20 either elevate or depress
its tracks at such street crossings
I'm clevating or depressing the rail-
read tracks they are separated from
tho grade Of the streets. hence the
expression Track separation.
State Law
''The state law under which the
city Of South Bend derives it's power
10 proceed i'm the matter OF track
separation was enacted i'm March
1911 The board OF works is given
very wide. full and complete power
and the decision OF the board on the
question Of the necessity or con-
venience Of the work and the clear
ance and grade Of streets is final. An
appeal lies from the decision OF the
board. on other questions to the
circuit or superior court and the de-
cisiOn OF either Of these courts on
any appealabIe question is final
"The law further provides that an
expense OF elevating or depressing
the tracks OF railroad company
iii nuAM AlAt NllN cElLA ne NQIUt IA
the railroad. except the expense en-
tailed at the street crossings and
that IS per cent OF this shall be
paid by the railroad. leaving 20 per
cent OF the cost Of the street cross
ings TO be paid by the city. This ? 5
per cent applies to all streets not
occupied by street cars. on these
tracks tho expense is divided be-
tween the city and the street car
company The street car company
being required 10 pay 10 percent.
not i'm excess of $40. 600 for streets
where there are more than one
road and $4,000 where there is only
one road.
THE cost OF the street crossings
includes work actually done i'm the
way Of changing the grade of the
street and sidewalk, construction or
reconstruction Of pavements side
walks, drains sewers. retaining
walls. and damages paid 20 adjacent
property owners. but not including
damages paid TO any railroad COM
pany.
Appeals For Damages.
Appeals ON questions of damages
do not delay the prosecution of the
work. This law which seems TO be
very broad and comprehensive. en-
powers the board of public works TO
provide for track separation 10y con-
tract with any railroad company,
such contract however. TO be limit
ed 10 the provisions of the law it.
self which are the basis for the
proceeding either by formal action
or by contract and i'm default OF
any railroad company i'm the matter
Of paying for the work. the cost of
the same is placed upon the tax
duplicate and collected as other
taxes against such company are
collected.
1.-THE city began i'm 1911 20 raise "a
fund out OF which 20 pay its share
as provided by law. of track sep
aration and each year small
amount has been added 20 the tax
levy until there IS now i'm the fund
s217,1O966. This fund is intact
and Is drawing interest
since the entrance OF this coun-
Try into the world war and the TAX
ing over OF the railroads by the gov
eminent. the question or improve
rnents of this nature have been de
iayed. but now that the roads are
about 10 be returned 10 private con-
troll Il is confidently expected that
the matter viii receive the early at
tsntion OF those in authority and
that considerable progress may be
expected i'm the very near future
Grand Trunk Question.
"One OF the most perpleXing and
- the same time one OF the most
important questions with which the
board OF works has had 20 contend
il the removal OF the Grand Trunk
tracks from Division ST. The board
early realized that II this could be
accomplished the result would
Justify any reasonable delay. and
considerable progress has been
made along this line. Many con-
rersnces have been had with the
railway officials and many more
will doubtless be necessary before
satisfactory results are obtained,
but the proposition IS large and inn