The Bennington evening banner. (Bennington, Vt.) 19??-1961, 1921-10-04
TINGHAM DAM |
PROJECT IS CAUSE /
!. Of LEGAL ACTION
.v.rmoat state Library /
2OseptlS ard W;lr,;nctor
Road Seeks Injunction
-
RESTRAIN BIG POWER co.
Claim Work Started on Deer
field River VIII Cause
Loss Of 100000
RESTRAIN BIG POWER co.

Lig.tation involving the biz Whit
ingham dam project and the consti-
tutionality of Act No. 31S OF the
acts Of the Vermont Legislature, 1868
was begun Saturday at Brattleboro,
when the Hocsac Tunnel & Whining
ton Railroad Co, brought complaint
in equity in the United States court
Tor the district OF Vermont against
the Wilmington Power & Paper
Co., the Deeraeld River Power Co..
the New England Power Co. the New
Lhg'and Company IL Maine. anu the
loNer ConstrscIicn Co, waicn ashs
that Act No 31S be declared unr
constitutional and that the court is
sue an Injunction retaining the de-
PENDANTS from constructing g.ld main
tain!ng a dam upon any part OF the
plaintiffs railroad or property or
trepass.ng upon or flooding the
plaintiffs right OF way.
The complaint, which is signed by
j. n. kellas OF Malone, N. Y, trea-
surer OF the plaintiff railroad COM
p9nnAy, son Of Pres dent John P. Kel-
las of albany, n ", and by Attor-
ney Il. G Barber OF Bratt.eboro as
solicitor for the plaintiff, was served
on Attorney Harold E. Whitney,
clerk for the Wilmington Power a
Paper Co and the Deerield River
Power Co. Service on the other de-
fendant companies, which are So
called foreign corporations, will be
made by fling the bill Of complaint
with the secretary of state at Mont
pelies
After setting forth the incorpora-
ton of the Deerheld Valley Railroad
Co., in 1890 and the construction OF
the railroad on the easterly bank
cf the Deeriied river from Reads
boro past the hamlet OF Mountain
Mills, distance of about ~ miles
the complaint says that about Dec.
2s, 1856, the plaintiff company was
organized Under the laws of Massa-
chusetts to construct and operate a
railroad from floosac Tunnel up the
easterly bank Of the Deerfeld to the
Vermont line, a distance Of eight
miles. which was done, and in 1892
the legislatures of the two states au-
thorized the Hoosac Tunnel 4 Will
mineton company TO acquire the Deer
field Valley road, which was done
the road being since operated be-
TWEEN Hoosac Tunnel and Whining
ton, being an interstate railroad.
In 1908 the Vermont legislature
passed Act No. 3iS, Incorporating
the Wilmington Power G. Paper Co.,
and giving it the right to construct
dams across the Deertield river aud
branches in Vermont for developing
power and to buy lands for that pur-
pose and to flow or move public high
ways, bridges, cemeteries, railroads,
etc
For 20 years, the complaint says,
large expenditures have been made in
ballasting the roadbed to prevent
settling, and that trouble has been
materially overcome although not en-
tirely so
Ii is asserted in the bill that the
defendants propose to move the
plaintiffs railroad ard erect a dam
200 feet .,igh across the PLAINTIFFS
road and set the waters back over
the main line tracks about II miles,
some parts of which would be under
water to depth OF over l5O foet.
1t is planned to move the tracks in
some places over mile to such lo-
cation as the defendant may see fit
which It is claimed would leave the
roadbed soft and spongy and require
about 20 Years additional ballast at
a cost of many thousands of dollars.
The dam would food out the plain
uff's present Whtnsaam station and
Mountain Mills station, and it is
claimed that the business that would
be done on the contemplated new To-
cation would not pay for operating
and that the defendants thus upder
Act No 3lS would deprive the plain
tiff of property without compensa-
tion. they claiming that no com
pensation is allowable for Changing
locations, but which would be a real
damage to the plaintiff of about
100000 besides midinshed business.
It is CLAIMED that statute No, BIS
is a. cloud upon the plaintiffs title
to the railroad and that the defend
ants are now proceeding TO take the
railroad, having a gang of more
than 100 men engaged in the work
1'he nlaintiff dJ,lares that statute
No. S1S IS unconstitutional as it takes
private property for private use with
out the payment of an equivalent IN
money.
A hearing on the petition for an
Injunction wilt be held soon before
,.--.L-I a,Aal... LalarA IInrlnnA Ll