Perth Amboy evening news., 1922-04-20
new FIGHT IS LIKELY ON
RAILROAD SIDING HERE
Continued from cage ~
State of New Jersey

State Of New Jersey
Board Of Public Utility Commits
sioners.
In the matter of the application
Of the Lehigh Valley Railroad Com
pany for permission to construct
tracks in Washington street, Perth
Amboy; report.
Adrian Lyon and E. II. Boles for
petitioner; Leo Goldberger for OBJ
jector.
This is an application by the Le-
high Valley Railroad Company for
permission to construct four tracks
or sidings from an existing side
track in the city of Perth Amboy
across Washington street into the
plant of the Perth Amboy Dry Dock
Company. The Perth Amboy Dry
Dock Company plant Is located part
ly on the south side of Washington
street and partly On the north side.
The portion Of the plant on the
south side of washington street is
bisected from Front street. This
necessitates the construction of four
tracks instead of two which would
otherwise serve the plant on that
side of the street. The construction
for which permission is requested,
Is nothing more than q continuation
OF the spur which now exists in the
portion of the plant located on the
| north side.
Washington street at this point
Is practically a dead end. There
are no other buildings or industries
located on it than the Perth Amboy
Dry Dock Company's plant which
runs to the shore front on Kill von
Kull. No other interest can, there
fore. be possibly jeopardize and ii
is apparent that the Perth Amboy
Dry Dock Company is in need of
the railway facilities asked for. The
grade OF the street will not be per-
ceptibly affected and for the reason
stated there 10 no traffic over the
street except of the Perth Amboy
Dry Dock Company.
An ordinance of the city of Perth
Amboy was passed granting to the
railroad company the right to lay
the tracks in question. An applica-
ton was thereupon made by the
railroad company to this board for
the approval of the board as re-
quired by the statute.
The matter came up for hearing
and was adjourned. Upon the ad-
journed date several citizens and
some of the council Of Perth AM
boy opposed the granting of the ap-
plication. The principal ground of
opposition seems to be the posi-
bility of the location OF a ferry at
some time in the future at the foot
OF Washington street. 1t does not
appear that there is any ferry in
contemplation at this time or is
there anything in the case to show
that such a ferry ever will be built
or IL a ferry is to be built. whether
some other more available location
would not be selected therefor. 1t
is also objected that the other COM
panies located or intending to locate
on Washington street or the immedA
late vicinity may desire spurs of
their W which may be interfered
with by the tracks in Washington
street covered by this application.
These objections refer to something
that may happen in the future. II
and when either of these events
arises the board will deal with the
situation as then presented for the
purpose of protecting the rights of
the public to a safe approach to
the ferry n the claims Of manu-
facturers for sidings to their plants.
1t further appears that the move-
ment across the tracks will be infre-
Quent-probably less than n a
day, and that all movements of cars
will be safeguarded by having a man
precede each car movement across
the street.
A question was raised as to the
power Of the board to grant the ap-
prevail demands in this case in view
of the action or attempted action
Of the city council Of Perth AM
boy to rescind the authority granted
by the ordinance. 1t appears that
after the ordinance upon which the
application is based was passed a
majority Of the city council intro
duced another ordinance to repeal 1T.
The railroad company contends that
the second or repeater ordinance
Is illegal. 1t appears that when the
original ordinance was passed grant,
Ing permission to the company to
extend its tracks, it was passed after
public hearing, that the action
taken by the council to repeal the
ordinance was without public hear
ing, and that the action taken on
the repeater was by a different
council than the one which passed
the original ordinance.
This board 10 Of the opinion that
the passage OF an ordinance is not
q necessary condition precedent 10
kind. The authority Is conferred
upon 1t by statute to grant its APP
prevail when in its judgment condi-
tons justify 1t. While in most
cases il is the practice for a rail-
way company TO obtain an ordi-
nance from the municipality before
Applying to the board, the applica-
ton can very well be made to the
board in the first instance and the
board could give its approval be-
fore any action Of the municipality.
The board will grant its approval
of the construction Of the tracks in
accordance with the power Of the
petition but in its order will pre-
scribe that each movement of trains
shall be at not more than six miles
per hour across the street and shall
be preceded by a iagman.
Dated. April Is. 1922.
BOARD OF PUBLIC UTILITY
(Seal) COMMISSIONERS
IALFRED N. BARBER
BY
(signed) H. v. OSBORNE.
President
latest: