about any of these things, which I have come a great distance to hear about. I am ignorant of the best methods of running a horse railroad and I came here to be instructed. It is not very instructive for these gentlemen to tell you how to run a road by electricity or cable. It requires a great deal of money to undertake these things, which most of us have not. Perhaps all we have is in our horse railroads, and we want to know how to manage them with the greatest economy and success. I am a practical fellow, and I run a railroad with horses. I want to know how best to feed horses, how best to accommodate passengers, whether there is any better method of lighting cars, how to come down steep grades and keep from killing horses and passengers I want to know all these things at this Convention, and instead of that I hear nothing about them. At our Convention at New York City we heard about cleaning our tracks from snow and ice; and we got more practical knowledge from that meeting than any other. Why is it that the New York gentlemen do not come to these meetings any more? Is it not because they do not run their cars by electricity or cable, and they do not care to hear about them? Why is it that we do not hear from our friend Richardson any more? We used to get information from him, and now we get nothing. What is the use of my coming here? I say that we ought to get a little information as to running our cars by horses, which some of us must always do. I have a road at home four miles long; and the same conditions will not apply to that road which will to one fifty miles long. Now let us get back to the first principles for which this Association was formed; to teach us something. I want to be taught; I want to learn; I want to put money in my pocket, which I have never been able to do yet in running a street-railway. I want something practical; I do not want theories. I want to consider the present circumstances in which we find ourselves.

Mr. Eppley, of Orange: I would like to ask whether this discussion will be renewed after lunch? I would like to ask the gentleman a conundrum.

Mr. Eppley was assured that the discussion would be resumed at the afternoon session.

On motion, adjourned until two o'clock.

THURSDAY'S SESSION-AFTERNOON.

The President called the meeting to order at 2:20 P. M:

DISCUSSION RESUMED ON ELECTRICITY AS A
MOTIVE POWER.

The President: The gentleman who wished to ask a question, Mr. Eppley, of Orange, is entitled to the floor.

REMARKS OF MR. FRANCIS M. EPPLEY RELATIVE TO OBTAINING CONSENTS OF PROPERTY OWNERS.

Mr. Eppley, of Orange: Mr. President, I wish to call the attention of the meeting to a question which has arisen in my mind as to whether the Companies which use the electric systems will not be liable for damages to property owners along the line of the road. I will cite an experience of our Company in the city of Orange, New Jersey. We concluded to try a motor, and the experiment was made on one of our tracks. On this track we operated the motor car for about two weeks, and finally in extending our tracks my Company came to the point where it had to cross the tracks of the Delaware and Lackawanna Railroad Company. I asked consent to cross the tracks of that Company, and they said no. If you will pay three hundred dollars a year for the expenses of a watchman at the crossing, we will let you cross the tracks. After considerable wrangling over the matter they filed a bill in chancery, and in this bill they prayed for an injunction restraining us from crossing their tracks, on the ground that we were going to cross their tracks with an electric motor, which had not been recognized by the municipal authorities or in law, and that, therefore, they were not compelled to allow us to cross the tracks with that motor, and prayed for an injunction restraining us. I consulted with my associate counsel in the matter, an ex-Governor of the State, and we came to the conclusion that we would settle. At that time we expected to run all our cars by electricity; we thought that it was the coming power; we were about the first in that field. In March, 1887, we started. Many of you are aware of the suits in New York against the Elevated Railroad Companies. In one instance the case went twice to the Court of Appeals, and that Court decided that notwithstanding the fact that the New York Elevated Railroad Company came into Court fortified with an Act of the

Legislature, granting them the right to erect the structure in the streets, and to propel cars by steam, and notwithstanding the road had secured a franchise from the municipal authorities which gave them this right, the Court held that the Act of the Legislature was unconstitutional, as it was a taking of private property without just compensation, and that the Railroad Company was liable in damages to property owners. Every property owner along the line of the road has an easement in the street, that is, the right to an unrestricted enjoyment of light and air consistent with the proper use of the street. I claim that you

have no right to erect poles in front of any man's property without his consent; and in doing so you take private property without the right to do so. There are two cases in the Court of Appeals, and I will cite them here, so that before you put in your electrical plants it will be well for you to consult your attorney, to see that you start well. The cases are Story vs. The New York Elevated Railroad Company, and Lahr vs. The Metropolitan Elevated Railroad Company, 104 New York Court of Appeals Reports, page 260. I am not opposed to electricity, but am in favor of it. It is only a question of damages, and there are lots of lawyers who will take a case on speculation and give trouble to railway companies. I think it would be a good thing for all street-railroad men to know of these cases. It would prompt many of them to secure consents before undertaking to construct the roads, which would be a very wise thing, and as I have abandoned the law and taken up the street-railway business, I feel that I am justified in making this statement to you, in the hope of saving trouble and expense.

Mr. Wm. Richardson: As supplementing the remarks of the gentleman, it may be well to state right here that the members of this Association will find both the cases which he refers to, which have been decided by the New York Court of Appeals, in their own collection of street-railway decisions, issued monthly by the Secretary.

Mr. Eppley: Perhaps all the gentlemen here do not read as much as Mr. Richardson. [Laughter.]

Mr. Sinclair: Would not that statement apply equally to telephone and telegraph companies, and have there not been decisions in cases where damages have been claimed and recovered for the erection of telephone or telegraph poles?

Mr. Hall, of Peoria: The people in our city, so far as our line is concerned, can speak very decidedly in favor of electricity. I circulated a petition personally for twelve days along my line, and after interviewing three hundred and sixty-eight property holders, in running over the petition I found that I had three hundred and sixty-one names to the petition in favor of erecting the necessary poles and wires for the electrical propulsion.

Mr. Wason: I would state that in Cleveland before we accepted or made the proposition to put in electricity, we got the consent of over three-fourths of the property owners, who signed a petition granting us permission to erect the necessary poles in front of their property, although our Council did not think it was absolutely necessary; but to avoid any possible question or contingency that might arise hereafter, we thought it best to get their signatures.

Mr. Eppley: In attempting to get the right to erect the poles in Orange, I went into the Common Council meeting, and I thought they would put me out; but I got out none too soon. I did not get the consent. [Laughter.]

Mr. Maxon, of St. Louis: In the State of Missouri it has been adjudicated that a telephone pole placed in the sidewalk on a man's property is not unlawful, which I think would also cover poles for railway purposes-it was the case of the Bell Telephone Company vs. the Julia Building Company of St. Louis. Our Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court of the State decided in favor of the Telephone Company, and held that a street dedicated for the public use was for the purpose of supplying public wants not only at the time the street was dedicated, but for all appropriate purposes thereafter, and if it became necessary to put the street to a public use, then it was not private property. So far as the State of Missouri is concerned, we have the right to erect poles, provided we have permission of the proper authority. and property owners cannot interfere.

Mr. Winfield Smith: I do not think that I can throw any light upon this suject, for the simple reason that the decisions of Supreme Courts of the several States are based generally upon the clauses of their own constitutions and upon their own statutes, and these vary so much, that a rule or decision in one State is of very little service, ordinarily, upon such topics in another State. A number

of years ago it was decided in Wisconsin that the Common Council of the city had the right to authorize street-railroads to be laid in the streets without compensation to property owners upon the sides of the streets; but at the same time decisions were cited from other States and from highly respectable Courts, requiring that compensation should be made, thus showing an entirely contrary state of the law. In the State of Wisconsin, the same Court which decided this in respect to street-railroads decided that the Common Council could not authorize a steam-railroad to be laid in the street without compensation to the property owners, drawing that distinction between the two methods of using the streets. I think, therefore, that while these discussions are interesting and in the main the facts are pleasant to know, yet we cannot draw from any number of such decisions any uniform rule or principle.

DISCUSSION ON MISCELLANEOUS SUBJECTS.

The President: The Chair takes the liberty of stating that it has been his feeling for some time that opportunity should be given for the answering of any question any gentleman feels like making in connection with our business.

INQUIRY RELATIVE TO CAR-BRAKES.

Mr. Kerper, of Cincinnati: As Mr. Sage asked the question this morning in regard to brakes on steep grades, I would like to ask the question what is the best brake, for an auxiliary brake, in addition to the Johnson brake, on grades of six to ten per cent., under the worst possible conditions.

The President: If Mr. Britton, of San Francisco, is here, I wish he would answer that question. Mr. Britton has been con nected for a number of years with a line that runs up tremendously steep grades; one foot in five, twenty in a hundred.

Mr. Britton was not present.

REMARKS OF MR. EDWARD J. LAWLESS RELATIVE TO
SANDING RAILS.

Mr. Lawless, of Kansas City: We use on the rails the best and the only reliable thing we have found to put on a slippery rail; and that is sand. Some people have advocated track brakes, brakes with a wooden shoe; but from my own experience, and from observation, I have found that the very time that you want