LAWS-PART II. "Condemnation Law." "To Change the Name of a Corporation." "General Corporation Law." "Stock Corporation Law." "Railroad Law." Grade Crossing Law-sections 60 to 69, Railroad Law. Sections of the Constitution relating to railroads. General acts relating to railroads not embraced in the above laws. Bonding of towns, and railroad aid debts. Rapid Transit Act (act of 1891 as amended). DECISIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. Complaints of Cities, Towns, Associations, Individuals, Etc. I. IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF S. D. MILLER AND OTHER RESIDENTS OF RENSSELAER AGAINST THE UNITED TRACTION COMPANY AND THE COHOES CITY RAILWAY COMPANY. December 14, 1904. This petition, by S. D. Miller and other residents of Rensselaer, constituting a special committee of the Chamber of Commerce of that city, was filed with this Board on December 12, 1904. It alleged that the United Traction Company proposed to lease or transfer all the rights, properties and franchises of said company in Rensselaer to the Cohoes City Railway, and asked that the said United Traction Company be cited to appear before your honorable body and show cause why they should not be restrained from making, or suffering the proposed lease or transfer to be made. The petitioners were informed that this Board had no jurisdiction in the matter, and the case was closed. (Case No. 3266.) * II. IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPLAINT OF WINANT V. P. BRADLEY AGAINST THE BROOKLYN HEIGHTS RAILROAD COMPANY, RELATIVE TO THE OPERATION OF PASSENGER CARS ON THE REID AVENUE LINE OF SAID COMPANY'S RAILROAD. January 3, 1905. This complaint, by Winant V. P. Bradley, of Brooklyn, against The Brooklyn Heights Railroad Company, was filed with this Board on November 3, 1904. It alleged that on the Reid avenue line of said company's railroad cars were operated at insufficient intervals. A copy of the complaint was sent to the company, which answered. A report in the matter was made by the electrical expert of this Board, from which it appeared that the intervals between cars on this line had been considerably shortened since the making of the complaint. The case was closed. (Case No. 3243.) III. IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPLAINT OF THE TWENTY-EIGHTH WARD BOARD OF TRADE OF BROOKLYN AGAINST THE BROOKLYN HEIGHTS RAILROAD COMPANY AS TO SERVICE RENDERED THE PUBLIC BY SAID COMPANY. January 3, 1905. This complaint, by the Twenty-eighth Ward Board of Trade of Brooklyn, against The Brooklyn Heights Railroad Company, was filed with this Board on November 19, 1904. It alleged that cars on the Broadway surface lines and the Lexington avenue elevated line of said company were greatly over crowded, and asked tnat the station platforms on the elevated line be lengthened. A copy of the complaint was sent to the company, which answered. A report in this matter was made by the electrical expert of this Board, and there was a conference between representatives of complainants and the company as to the matters. complained of. Additional trips were instituted and the station platforms on the Lexington avenue elevated line were lengthened. The case was closed. (Case No. 3254.) IV. IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPLAINT OF L. J. DOLAN, TOWN CLERK, AS TO BRIDGE SPANNING THE HUDSON RIVER. January 3, 1905. This complaint, by L. J. Dolan, clerk of the town of Moreau, Saratoga county, was filed with this Board on November 12, 1903. It stated that a highway bridge in said town, crossing the Hudson river and used by cars of the Hudson Valley Railway Company, was said to be in an unsafe condition, and asked this Board to have the bridge inspected. A civil engineer regularly employed by this Board inspected the bridge, and reported that it was unsafe for the operation of such cars, and this Board notified the company to cease operating cars over it. A new bridge was constructed in its place, as to which two reports were made by the same civil engineer, the last report being to the effect that the bridge appears to be in good condition physically, and to be safely carrying all the loads imposed upon it. This bridge carries one track of the Hudson Valley Railway. case was closed. (Case No. 3034.) V. * * The IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPLAINT OF THE ALLIED BOARDS OF TRADE AND TAXPAYERS' ASSOCIATION OF BROOKLYN AGAINST THE BROOKLYN HEIGHTS RAILROAD COMPANY AND THE BROOKLYN, QUEENS COUNTY AND SUBURBAN RAILROAD COMPANY, AS TO SERVICE RENDERED THE PUBLIC BY SAID COMPANIES. January 3, 1905. This complaint, by the Allied Boards of Trade and Taxpayers' Association of Brooklyn against The Brooklyn Heights Railroad Company and the Brooklyn, Queens County and Suburban Railroad Company, was filed with this Board on November 23, 1904. It alleged that the service rendered the public by said companies on the Broadway and other surface lines and on the Broadway and other elevated lines was not adequate. A copy of the complaint was sent to the company, which answered. A report in the matter was made by the electrical expert of this Board, who was present at a conference between representatives of complainants and the companies. The complainants informed this Board that The conference was held and the company agreed to shorten the headway on the Broadway and Reid avenue lines, and make such other concessions as would tend to better the service. The case was closed. (Case No. 3256.) * 66 # * # VI. IN THE February 8, 1905. This complaint, by James J. Lawless, of Buffalo, against the Buffalo Southern Railway Company, was filed with this Board on January 14, 1905. 66 # It alleged that # * (January). A copy of the complaint was sent to the company, which an.wered that the weather and accidents had caused the cessation of operation complained of, but that operation had been resumed. The complainant also informed this Board that operation had been resumed. The case was closed. (Case No. 3285.) VII. IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPLAINT OF W. C. COLEMAN COMPANY AGAINST THE LONG ISLAND RAILROAD COMPANY AS TO RECEIPTING FOR FREIGHT. February 8, 1905. 66 # * This complaint, by W. C. Coleman Company against the Long Island Railroad Company was filed with this Board on December 29, 1904. It alleged that the agent of the company at Setauket compelled complainants to sign for freight before seeing the freight. A copy of the complaint was sent to the company, which answered that, W. C. Coleman has never been refused the opportunity of seeing his freight, nor requested to sign for same before he has seen it, nor refused the right to note on receipt the condition freight was in when delivered. I now have in my freight house a barrel of scrap rubber which he opened and looked at; have also a receipt in my books which he made a notation on. This party who represents himself as W. C. Coleman & Co. came here and wished part of his goods and demanded that I make delivery to him before he would sign for same. I told him I had to have his signature before I would deliver. then went out and gave a man an order to get the goods, who signed for them and took them." A copy of the answer was sent to complainant, who did not reply. The case was closed. (Case No. 3272.) * He VIII. IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPLAINT OF THOMAS A. NEWELL AGAINST THE CITY ISLAND AND PELHAM PARK RAILROAD COMPANIES AS TO RATE OF FARE CHARGED. February 8, 1905. This complaint, by Thomas A. Newell, of Van Nest, New York city, against the City Island and Pelham Park Railroad Companies, was filed with this Board on August 4, 1904. It complained of the practice of these companies charging a total fare of ten cents, five cents for each road, although, the complaint alleged, the two roads are operated as one, and are entirely within the city of New York. This case was closed; it is involved in the case following. (Case No. 3198.) IX. IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPLAINTS OF A. V. PETERSON AND JAMES H. NORRIS AGAINST THE CITY ISLAND AND PELHAM PARK RAILROAD COMPANIES AS TO RATE OF FARE CHARGED. February 8, 1905. These complaints, by A. V. Peterson and James H. Norris, of New York city, against the City Island and Pelham Park Railroad Companies were filed with this Board on May 20, 1904. They alleged that these two roads, although connected and operated as one, charge two fares of five cents each, and that disputes arose as to the point at which the first fare charged should terminate and the second begin. A hearing in the matter was held by this Board in New York city on October 25, 1904, at which Mr. Peterson appeared, and the companies were represented by counsel. The railroads were measured by a civil engineer employed in this department, who reported. Copies of this report was sent to complainants, and the case closed. (Case No. 3150.) X. IN THE MATTER OF COMPLAINTS AGAINST THE BROOKLYN HEIGHTS RAILROAD COMPANY AS TO SERVICE RENDERED THE PUBLIC BY THAT COMPANY ON THE STREET SURFACE AND ELEVATED RAILROAD LINES OPERATED BY IT. Determination. February 9, 1905. The following recommendations of this Board are the result of investigations made by it, including three public hearings in Brooklyn and one in New York (on the roulson bridge plan referred to hereinafter), of complaints against the Brooklyn Heights Railroad Company, as to service rendered the public by that company in the operation of its street surface and elevated railroad unes. Before stating the recommendations, we think it proper that we should comment on the general situation with respect to passenger traffic between Brooklyn and Manhattan. In our opinion, permanent relief can best be obtained through building several tunnels connecting the boroughs. These should be commenced at the earliest possible moment and pressed to speedy completion. We are of the opinion that the quickest and best plan of relieving the present congested condition is to connect the Brooklyn and Williamsburg bridges by an elevated structure, with ample platforms for the prompt loading and unloading of passengers; the trains to be run continuously in both directions, thereby at least doubling the present capacity of the bridges to handle trains. From this structure a connection can be made with Manhattan bridge when completed, and in this connection it is proper to say that work on the Manhattan bridge should be accelerated. The board of estimate and apportionment has adopted a plan (suggested by Bridge Commissioner Best and Chief Engineer Nichols) for the reconstruction of the Manhattan terminal of the Brooklyn bridge, which will, in part, relieve present conditions. It being well understood that all the space at the Manhattan terminus of the Brooklyn bridge is not utilized to the fullest extent, several plans to remedy this condition were suggested to the Board. One, originated by Mr. Neils Poulson, has attracted much attention, and has been favorably received and endorsed by representatives of various influential bodies of citizens. We, therefore, concluded to give it a thorough investigation, and requested the companies operating the principal railroads running into New York city to send their terminal experts to a public hearing before the Board in relation to this plan so that they might, in connection with our own experts, examine and report upon its practicability. At such hearing W. J. Wilgus, fifth vicepresident (in charge of engineering work) of the New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company; J. C. Stuart, general manager of the Erie Railroad Company, and C. L. Addison, general superintendent of the Long Island Railroad Company, appeared and considered the plan, and while not expressing a final conclusion, through lack of time to consider it, this Board decided from their comments that it did not meet with the approval of those gentlemen. Mr. John Cade, with 25 years experience as a switch and signal engineer, discussed the plan in detail, and stated that, in his opinion, it would result in creating at least six danger points. Engineer Nichols of the bridge department called attention to the fact that practically the same thing is in operation at the Culver station at Coney Island, and permits of but 40 train movements per hour, whereas the present operation on the bridge per |