If this were a question between the inconvenience and danger of such crossings, and the loss of important business by elevating the road, it would not necessarily follow that the tracks must be elevated. Absolute safety must sometimes yield to the necessities of traffic. There is a balance to be struck between different inconveniences. All travel is attended with some danger. And it has been well said by a great authority, "One can buy gold too dear;" for, if every known precaution is taken regardless of cost, it may not pay to work a railway at all. And, if the sole question were between the gradecrossing and the elevated railroad, the Board would have to consider the strong implication of legislative consent to a grade-crossing in this place, to which reference has already been made.

But this case does not present this simple question. It is possible to carry the highways over the railroad, and fortunately the situation of the land is such that the tracks can be lowered, and in that way aid in that method of separating grades. The possibility of doing this at an expense not inordinate appears from plans and reports of the city engineer. In speaking of the cost, the Board, of course, refers only to the expense of separating the grade. Any needed expenditure for repairs or widening either or both bridges, demanded by their present condition or by the increase of travel, is independent of this question, and should not be charged to the call for an overhead crossing. The details as to the method of carrying the highways over the railroad tracks are not before the Board under this form of petition. And the Board, under this petition, has no power to require that mode of separating the grades. If the whole subjcet had been submitted, it would have been within our jurisdiction to direct overhead crossings. But the city, as was its right, has specified the method of alteration that it desires, and confined us to a decision for or against that request. The Board can only grant or refuse that method. Yet it is one good reason for refusing it, that the Board believes that there is a better method. For the same reason the Board has nothing to say as to the plan of crossing the river and the railroad by a bridge from Charlestown Square over Causeway Street. It is not before us; and, if it were, such an order would seem a stretch of the authority of this Board.

Believing that the proposed change would, by its cost and inconvenience, and especially by its hindrance to business, be productive of vastly more harm than good, and believing that the desired end can be reached in a better way, the Board declines to direct the alteration of crossings requested by the city.

The question has been argued and considered upon the supposition that section 96 gives power to change the grade of a railroad upon

proper petition, when it is found necessary for the security or convenience of the public. And this seems to have been assumed by the numerous counsel for various remonstrants. But the decision in Boston & Albany Railroad Company v. County Commissioners of Hampden, 116 Mass. 73, renders this extremely doubtful. It was there held that no such power was given by chapter 262 of 1872. Chapter 305 of 1874 was passed to extend the power of commissioners as to changing the location of ways and railroads at crossings, and to confer the authority which was desired in Lancaster v. County Commissioners, 113 Mass. 100 (which was pending when that Act was passed). But this statute does not, in words, give the power to change a railroad grade. As the words, "Alteration in the method of crossing," in the Act of 1872, do not give that power, it would seem not to be derived from the same words in the Act of 1874. Authority to change location does not necessarily imply authority to change grade. It may be argued that power to change the method. of crossing taken in connection with power to change location, which might necessitate change of grade, confers that authority. But the reasoning of the Court in 116 Mass. would seem to apply to such a case as this, although the Court declined to pass upon the question, because chapter 305 of 1874 did not apply to pending cases (p. 81). In this case the parties have desired the opinion of the Board upon the merits, and it is such that it is unnecessary to decide whether the proposed order could legally be passed. By the Board.

WM. A. CRAFTS, Clerk.

MAY 24, 1881.

PETITION OF SAMUEL T. DAMON AND OTHERS FOR A CHANGE OF TIME OF RUNNING THE WORKINGMEN'S TRAIN ON THE BOSTON & MAINE RAILROAD.

A SIMILAR request was fully considered in December, 1880, and was refused for reasons then set forth (Twelfth Annual Report, p. 227). A rehearing was asked, and given solely because some of the petitioners wrongly supposed that they had suffered from defects. in the form of petition and the mode of obtaining signatures. At the second hearing the same facts and arguments were presented on both sides. And for the reasons given before, the Board declines to grant the prayer of this petition.

MAY 31, 1881.

15

WM. A. CRAFTS, Clerk.

PETITION OF MATTHEW BOLLES AND OTHERS v. BOSTON & PROVIDENCE RAILROAD COMPANY.

Tuis was a request from certain residents near Spring-street Station, on the West Roxbury branch of the Boston & Providence Railroad, that the morning and evening express trains between Dedham and Boston should stop at that station.

The testimony did not show a state of facts calling for such a recommendation. Of course, it would be pleasant to have stops made at all the stations. The sentiment expressed by a witness at another hearing was natural and amiable: "It is desirable to have an express train, and to have it stop at all the stations." It need not be said that this is impossible. If on a re-arrangement of the time-table it should be found desirable to stop at Spring Street, the Commissioners would be pleased to know that the petitioners were accommodated. But on the testimony the Board must decline to make any recommendation.

JUNE 2, 1881.

By the Board.

WM. A. CRAFTS, Clerk.

PETITION OF J. W. ROLLINS AND OTHERS v. BOSTON & PROVIDENCE RAILROAD COMPANY.

THIS petition asks the Board to recommend that the express train leaving Dedham for Boston at 7.55 A.M., and the express train leaving Boston at 6 P.M., may stop at Highland station. Considering the number of season-ticket holders who take the cars at this point, as compared with those at other stations where stops are made, the Board thinks the request reasonable; and it is believed that if the number of season-ticket holders from this point had been known to the management, such stops would have been ordered originally.

The returns of sales of tickets are, as the president stated, deceptive, showing too many passengers from West Roxbury, and too few from Highland station.

The Board recommends that the request of the petitioners be granted, and that the express trains above named may stop at Highland station.

JUNE 2, 1881.

By the Board.

WM. A. CRAFTS, Clerk.

PETITION OF ALBERT HALE AND OTHERS FOR FACILITIES FOR LEAVING TRAINS ON THE BOSTON & PROVIDENCE RAILROAD, NEAR THE BOSTON & ALBANY CROSSING.

THIS was an application from more than fifty season-ticket holders, chiefly teachers and pupils of the Latin and English High Schools, asking that a recommendation be made to the Boston & Providence Railroad Company to construct a platform and steps near the intersection of their road with the Boston & Albany, in Boston, so that passengers by inward trains might leave the cars with comfort and safety. The schoolhouse is only a few minutes' walk from this point, and many of the petitioners now leave the cars there. This is also the practice of many workmen who arrive by an early train; but they have expressed no desire in the matter. The Boston & Providence station is sixteen hundred feet from the crossing, and twenty-two hundred feet from Yarmouth Street, where these passengers leave. By so doing they save the time consumed in going thence to the station; and they also save four minutes which represent the difference of distance from the station to the schoolhouse and the distance from this point to the schoolhouse. About a hundred and fifty passengers now avail themselves of the opportunity for leaving the trains at this place, and the numbers would be increased to two hundred, at least, if the proposed facilities were furnished.

The views of the petitioners were fully and ably presented by Mr. Hale and others. The desired facilities would undoubtedly be a convenience; and they would be regarded as of more than their real value. For it is annoying for any passenger to be unable to leave when the train stops near his place of destination, and to be carried beyond it. A short walk back is more objectionable than a longer walk in another direction. And it is probably this feeling, rather than regard for the intrinsic value of their time, which leads so many young persons to leave the train at this dangerous place. But this convenience does not constitute such a need as would justify this Board in recommending, or the corporation in establishing, a stopping-place so dangerous as the proposed station would be. It would be a station in the middle of a railroad yard, at a spot crossed by two hundred and fifty or two hundred and seventy-five locomotives every day. A passenger leaving the train, if he goes west, must cross a track. Going east he must cross five tracks; and most persons leaving at this point have occasion to go east.

It is true that the passengers who were represented at the hearing

But

come at a time when it is rare for trains or engines to pass. the construction of a platform is what the law calls an "invitation" for passengers by any train to leave. All trains are compelled by law to stop at this point, and the platform and steps would be an inducement for any one to leave any train.* It can hardly be doubted that a jury would find, and would be warranted in finding, in case of accident, that the company was guilty of culpable negligence in leading its passengers into such a peril. If this be so, this Board would not be warranted in sanctioning the establishment of a station so dangerous.

It was suggested that the danger might be lessened by placing the platform on the west side of the tracks, with a stairway and a bridge leading to the easterly side of the track. This would diminish the danger, but would not remove it. The "third track" would still remain to be crossed. And it is doubtful whether all passengers would use the bridge. The younger ones especially would be likely to prefer the more direct route with less ascent. And this has proved to be the case where an attempt to lessen danger by like structures has been made at other places.

It was ingeniously argued, that, if this is a dangerous point, the Boston & Providence Company is wrong in not preventing passengers from leaving the cars; and that, as they do not prevent it, they are bound to furnish a safe and convenient stopping-place. But the company cannot furnish a safe station, and it has done its best to warn passengers not to use this crossing as a station. No effectual way of preventing persons from leaving the trains at this point has been suggested. But, because the company cannot always prevent travellers from voluntarily risking their limbs and lives, it does not follow that it ought to tempt them into danger.

For the reasons stated, the Board declines to give the recommendation desired.

JUNE 3, 1881.

By the Board.

WM. A. CRAFTS, Clerk.

By an Act passed at thelast session of theGeneral Court, "know-nothing stops" may be discontinued upon certain conditions. But it is doubtful whether they will be soon dispensed with at this crossing. And, if they are, it would hardly be asked, that, when the necessity for stopping at this point is removed, a new station should now be established twenty-eight hundred fect distant from the main station.