February 6, 1889-Rochester City and Brighton Railroad Company of Rochester. Issue, $500,000.

February 14, 1889-New York, Ontario and Western Railroad Company. Issue, $10,000,000.

March 18, 1889- Elmira and Horseheads Railway Company. Issue, $100,000.

April 10, 1889-Bath and Hammondsport Railroad Company. April 10, 1889-Watervliet Turnpike and Railroad Company. April 15, 1889 Saratoga and St. Lawrence Railroad Company. Issue, $100,000.

May 30, 1889-Eleventh Ward Street Railway Company of Syracuse. Issue, $25,000.

May 16, 1889-Port Chester and Rye Beach Railway Company. Issue, $100,000.

May 28, 1889-Utica, Clinton and Binghamton Railroad Company. Issue, $800,000.

June 11, 1889-Washington County Railroad Company.

June 14, 1889- Campbell Hall Connecting Railroad Company. Issue, $450,000.

June 17, 1889-Adirondack Railway Company.

June 18, 1889-Niagara Falls and Suspension Bridge Railroad Company. Issue, $30,000.

June 27, 1889 Central New England and Western Railroad Company.

June 28, 1889-Utica and Unadilla Valley Railroad Company, Issue, $250,000.

August 6, 1889-Kinderhook and Hudson Railway Company. Issue, $375,000.

APPLICATIONS TO SUSPEND OPERATION OF ROAD.

In 1886, chapter 605 was passed, providing that any railroad constructed and used principally for transporting lumber or ores during the summer months, or constructed and used principally for summer travel might cease the operation thereof, upon the consent of the Board of Railroad Commissioners thereto, having been first obtained. Under this law, the following applications have been made:

I.

IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF THE STEINWAY AND HUNTER'S POINT RAILROAD COMPANY, FOR LEAVE ΤΟ SUSPEND THE OPERATION OF THE RIKER AVENUE AND SANDFORD'S POINT RAILROAD BRANCH, FROM DECEMBER 1, 1888, TO APRIL 1, 1889.

October 1, 1888.

Application having been made to the Board of Railroad Commissioners by the Steinway and Hunter's Point Railroad Company, for leave to suspend the operation of the Riker Avenue and Sandford's Point Railroad Branch from December 1, 1888, to April 1, 1889, in accordance with the provisions of chapter 605 of the Laws of 1886, and it having appeared from the papers submitted to the Board by such company that public interests would not at present be prejudiced by the suspension of the operation of said branch during the period specified, it is hereby

Ordered, That the said Steinway and Hunter's Point Railroad Company shall be relieved of the duty of operating the Riker Avenue and Sandford's Point Railroad Branch from Decrmber 1, 1888, to April 1, 1889, after it shall have complied with section 3 of said chapter 605 of the Laws of 1886, with regard to publishing notices of such intended suspension.

II.

IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF THE ROCKAWAY VILLAGE RAILROAD COMPANY FOR LEAVE TO SUSPEND THE OPERATION OF ITS ROAD FROM THE 1ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1888, TO THE 1ST DAY OF MAY, 1889.

October 1, 1888.

Application having been made by the Rockaway Village Railroad Company for leave to suspend the operation of its road from the 1st day of November, 1888, until the 1st day of May, 1889, and it appearing, by papers on file with the Board, that public interests would not be prejudiced by such suspension of operation, it is hereby

Ordered, That the Rockaway Village Railroad Company shall be relieved of the duty of operating its road from the 1st of November, 1888, to the first of May, 1889, in accordance with chapter 605 of the Laws of 1886, upon compliance with section 3 of said statute, with regard to posting a copy of such order and of the intention of said road to suspend operation.

III.

IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF THE LONG ISLAND RAILROAD COMPANY FOR PERMISSION TO DISCONTINUE THE OPERATION OF THE BAY RIDGE BRANCH OF THE NEW YORK, BROOKLYN AND MANHATTAN BEACH RAILWAY COMPANY, FROM AND AFTER OCTOBER 1, 1888, DURING THE WINTER SEASON OF 1888-89.

October 9, 1888.

The formal application of the Long Island company for permission to discontinue the operation of the Bay Ridge branch, in accordance with chapter 605 of the Laws of 1886, was lodged with the Board, dated August the 28th, 1888.

The branch, in question, extends from what is known as the Manhattan Beach Junction to Bay Ridge, a distance of four and seven hundredths miles. This branch of road has been discontinued during the winter months for the last ten or twelve years, the last two years with the consent of the Board, in conformity with the statute of 1886, it having appeared, after a careful examination, that the public needs did not require a continued operation of the road during the winter.

Opposition to granting the application for the coming winter having been made by residents along the line of the road, a public hearing was set down at the rooms of the board of trade and transportation, in the city of New York, on Thursday, September the twentieth, at 10 A. M. At the request of Mr. John Mackay, representing the remonstrants, upon the ground that the notice of hearing was too short to enable testimony to be adduced, the hearing was adjourned to Thursday, October the fourth. Upon the latter occasion, the railroad was represented by E. B. Hinsdale, Esq., counsel, Mr. I. D. Barton, superintendent, and other employees. The remonstrants were represented by H. B. Hubbard, Esq., Mr. John Mackey and others.

Mr. Hinsdale contended in behalf of the road that the Board would be justified in permitting the Bay Ridge branch to cease operations upon the grounds:

First. That it was constructed and used principally for summer travel; that consequently it came clearly within the operation of chapter 605 of the Laws of 1886.

Secondly. That the local business of the road between Bay Ridge and the Junction was so small as to warrant and justify the cessation of operations during the winter.

A map showing the locality through which the road runs was exhibited, and the claim made by Mr. Hinsdale that other roads, viz.: the Brooklyn, Bath and West End railroad, the New York and Sea Beach railroad, the Prospect Park and Coney Island railroad, and the

Brooklyn and Brighton Beach railroad, all of which propose to run during the winter months, amply and completely serve all the necessities of residents along the line of the Bay Ridge branch of the Long Island road during the winter season. Mr. Hinsdale presented figures purporting to have been taken from the books of the company, which, if perfectly reliable, would have seemed to justify his position as to the merits of the case. The aggregate receipts were $2,709.16 for the whole year, for business between local stations on the road and New York, and local business between the same stations and Sheepshead Bay and Manhatten Beach. It was shown, however, by the remonstrants that these figures could not be relied upon for the reason that the trains of the Prospect Park and Coney Island road ran over the tracks of the Bay Ridge branch during a large portion of the year, and carried the local travel at a considerably less rate than that charged by the Long Island road, that consequently they got the bulk of the travel. Such having been admitted to be a fact by Mr. Hinsdale, the Board does not consider that the figures presented need further consideration.

Mr. Hubbard, on behalf of the remonstrants, contended :

First. That the Bay Ridge branch of the Long Island road did not come within the contemplation of the statute, for the reason that it was not "constructed and used principally for summer travel;" and, Second. That even if the road did come within the provisions of the statute, the merits of the case did not justify the Railroad Commission in granting the permission applied for.

In support of his first ground of objection, Mr. Hubbard stated that the Bay Ridge branch of the Long Island road was originally part of the New York, Bay Ridge and Jamaica railroad; that this corporation had been created for the purpose of building a railroad from Bay Ridge in the general direction of the present road, through East New York and to Jamaica; that it had been the object of the incorporators of this road to build a line to compete with the Long Island railroad; that land had been deeded by various parties and accepted by the railroad company upon the express condition that suitable stations and depots should be built upon the line of its railroad, and that passenger trains should be run thereon at least twice in each day, each way, morning and evening. A copy of an agreement to this effect, made by Peter Wykoff and Abigail Wykoff, his wife, duly acknowledged and recorded in the office of the register of deeds of the county of Kings, was filed with the Board. In a letter accompanying the same Mr. Hubbard asserts that like grants were made by Montford, Robert and others.

In support of the second ground of objection, viz., as to the merits of the case, a petition signed by fifty-six names, purporting to be those of residents of Bath Beach Junction, town of New Utrecht, has been lodged with the Board, protesting against the cessation of operations. Several witnesses, residents of Parkville, testified that the convenience of themselves and of other residents of that place would be greatly served by the running of such trains. It was also shown that lots of ground for building purposes had been bought at various points along the line of the railroad company by persons expecting to build thereon. A cross-examination of one witness,

however, developed the fact that many of these lots had been sold under either a misrepresentation by the sellers, or, certainly, a misunderstanding on the part of the purchasers, as to the running of trains, purchasers having understood that much more frequent trains would be run than had been the habit of the railroad company for many years past.

The history of the building of the Bay Ridge branch, as developed by statements made at the hearing and by the official reports of the companies to the Board, shows that about two miles of the original New York, Bay Ridge and Jamaica railroad was built from Bay Ridge in an easterly direction, by the original incorporators. It would then appear that they had been unable to complete the road and that they had sold their stock to Mr. Austin Corbin; that he and his associates had completed the road to the junction with the Long Island railroad; that the New York, Bay Ridge and Jamaica Railroad Company and the Long Island City and Manhattan Beach Railway Company, and the New York and Manhattan Beach Railroad Company, had then become consolidated into a corporation with the title of the New York, Brooklyn and Manhattan Beach Railway Company; that the latter company, as the successor of the New York and Manhattan Beach Railway Company, is leased and operated by the Long Island Railroad Company, under a lease dated May the 1st, 1882. articles of consolidation bear date of July the 17th, 1885.

The

While it is probably true that the original incorporators of the New York, Bay Ridge and Jamaica Railroad Company intended that the road should be operated throughout the year, it is also true that these original incorporators built but a very small portion of it. When Mr. Corbin bought their franchises and property it is no doubt the fact that he only intended to construct a road for summer travel. Such was positively asserted to be the fact by Mr. Hinsdale, and other circumstances corroborate it, although Mr. Corbin himself was not present to testify thereto. Parties associated with Mr. Corbin did go on and build the road, and for many years since completion it has been operated principally for summer travel, and would, therefore, appear clearly to come within the provisions of the statute.

It is to be observed that the statute reads, "constructed and used principally for summer travel." Did it read "used exclusively for summer travel," a single person who would be benefited by the operation of a road in winter could prevent the cessation of such operation. With this idea in view the Legislature unquestionably inserted the word "principally," otherwise the statute would have no force or effect.

With the parties who deeded land to the original corporation with the provision that trains should be run daily, there is clearly a contract obligation to so run the trains. The Board is of the opinion that such parties could secure redress by a suit for damages. Whether or not they could, through the courts, compel the running of the trains, however, under all the circumstances, is another question. It seems to the Board, however, that the statute of 1886, hereinbefore quoted, lodges with it a discretion which can be properly exercised in this case. Whether the road was constructed and used principally for summer travel is a matter of fact, and that fact appears to be