Ellicott; that on the 3d day of February, 1891, the company had obtained the consent of the highway authorities of the city of James town. In view of the above-recited facts, the Board deems that it is justified in approving, and does hereby approve of the overhead singletrolley electric system as the motive power upon the extended routes herein before set forth in the petition of said company, with the following conditions, however, which are made a part of this approval: First. That the company shall conform in all respects to the requirements imposed by the Board in its approval of a change of motive power by the Jamestown Street Railway Company from horses to electricity, dated November 11, 1890; and also with the requirements in the agreement between the highway authorities of the city of Jamestown and the company made on the 3d day of February, 1891, so far as the extensions lie within the city of Jamestown. Second. That said company shall conform to all the requirements set forth in an agreement made the 3d day of October, 1890, with the local highway authorities of the town of Busti, so far as the extensions of the railroad lie within the said town of Busti. Third. That the said company shall conform to all the requirements set forth in an agreement with the highway authorities of the town of Ellicott, made the 17th day of November, 1890, so far as the extensions lie within the town of Ellicott. By the Board. XVIII. IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF THE ATLANTIC AVENUE RAILROAD COMPANY OF BROOKLYN, for the approval of THE BOARD OF A CHANGE OF MOTIVE POWER FROM HORSES TO THE OVERHEAD ELECTRIC-TROLLEY SYSTEM UPON THE FOLLOWING PORTIONS OF ITS ROUTE, TO WIT: ON ATLANTIC AVENUE, FROM SOUTH FERRY TO FIFTH AVENUE; ON FIFTH AVENUE, FROM ATLANTIC AVENUE TO TWENTY-SEVENTH STREET; ON TWENTIETH STREET, FROM NINTH AVENUE TO SEVENTH AVENUE; ON FIFTEENTH STREET, FROM NINTH AVENUE TO HAMILTON AVENUE; ON NINTH AVENUE, FROM FOURTEENTH STREET TO TWENTIETH STREET. June 29, 1891. This application, as to Twentieth street, Seventh avenue, Ninth avenue and Fifteenth street, dated April 11, was lodged with the Board. After due notice in the press of New York and Brooklyn, a public hearing was had at the Chamber of Commerce, New York city. The railroad company was represented by William Richardson, president, Albert B. Boardman, counsel. Assistant Corporation Counsel A. C. Salmon appeared in opposition, as did several citizens principally interested in property on Seventh avenue. The company at this hearing presented a further application for approval of a change of motive power on Fifth avenue from Twenty seventh street to Atlantic avenue, and on Atlantic avenue from Fifth avenue to South Ferry. At the request of Mr. Salmon, another public hearing was held in Brooklyn at the common council chamber on May 6, after widespread publication, in order to give citizens and the city authorities especially an opportunity to present their opposition. At this second hearing the railroad company was represented as before. No one appeared in opposition, however, on behalf of the city, either representing the mayor, the common council or any branch of the city government. The Board, therefore, has no knowledge whether the city authori ties of Brooklyn approve or disapprove of the proposed change. A number of property holders, particularly on Seventh avenue, as before, appeared in opposition. Others appeared in favor. The railroad company presented figures purporting to show a majority of consents in value of abutting property holders on each street and avenue as to which a change of motive power was proposed. The sufficiency of these consents was disputed by opposing property holders, at whose request an order was made allowing them thirty days within which to examine the same and secure withdrawals - the railroad company being permitted to secure such additional consents meantime as it could, a third hearing being agreed upon when final arguments would be heard as to the sufficiency of the consents. There was considerable discussion as to the merits and demerits of the proposed method of propulsion. It was evident that the opposi tion upon the part of a great many was the result of insufficient knowledge of its successful working elsewhere. The principal objections offered were: First. Increased danger from fire by reason of the trolley wire coming in contact with a broken telegraph or telephone wire. Second. Impairment of the appearance of the street by the erection of poles. Third. Danger of running over pedestrians or of collision with vehicles in consequence of increased speed and incapacity of cars to stop. Fourth. That the proposed system was no better than horses so far as the public was concerned; that it was proposed by the railroad company in the interest of economy, and that this was no reason for approval by the State Board. These objections are considered serialim hereinafter. A final hearing was had at the Chamber of Commerce on June 18, to determine the sufficiency of consents of abutting property holders, written notice of which was mailed to every one who had expressed a desire to be heard at the meeting, May 6. In the meantime the railroad company had withdrawn its application so far as Seventh avenue was concerned. That portion of the route is eliminated, therefore, from further consideration. At the latter hearing the company was represented as before. Sidney V. Lowell appeared alone representing opposing property holders on Ninth avenue. The undisputed figures presented by the railroad company, sustained by affidavits of Edwin Bolitho and Dominick H. Roche, clerks in the department of assessments of the city of Brooklyn, were as follows: Fifth avenue from Atlantic avenue to Twenty-seventh street: $3,433,700 00 Twentieth street from Ninth avenue to Seventh avenue: $87,650 00 One-half necessary Consents.. $43,825 00 68,412 00 Excess over majority .... $24,587 00 Fifteenth street from Ninth avenue to Hamilton avenue: $653,650 00 Ninth avenue between Fourteenth and Twentieth streets: $224,950 00 The correctness of the figures on Ninth avenue are disputed by Sidney V. Lowell on behalf of certain property owners. He insists that the property of the Church of the Holy Name should be added, which he values at $105,000, and a portion of Prospect Park, say $8,000. The railroad company disputes the propriety of adding the church property at all, but claims if it is added, it should be at the value set by the assessors, not for purposes of taxation, but to show how much property in the city there is not taxed, which value is $45,900. The Board is of the opinion that both the church and park property should be considered, but it does not alter the situation in this case, for the reason that, in the words of the statute and under the decision of the Attorney-General in the case of the application of the Harlem Bridge, Morrisania and Fordham railroad for approval of a change of motive power, the company is only required to obtain the consents of "the owners of one half in value of the property bounded on that portion of the railroad as to which a change of motive power is proposed." The excess on the other streets far outweighs the deficiency on Ninth avenue. The Board finds, therefore, that the company has obtained a considerable excess of consents of the owners of abutting property over and above the one-half required by the statute on that portion of the railroad as to which a change of motive power is proposed. The Board has given to this case its most careful and impartial attention. The statute does not require that it should give public hearings, that it should examine the sufficiency of the consents of property holders, inspect the route of the road, or in fact do anything but give its bare approval to "any power other than locomotive steam power" which it may deem a fit system of propulsion for street cars. Notwithstanding the absence of specific provisions in the statute, however, the Board has twice carefully inspected the route, has held repeated public hearings and given every opportunity to all concerned to present their case so as to reach a just determination. The conclusions reached are as follows: First. With regard to increased danger from fire. The Board deems that if a guard-wire be strung over the trolley wires to prevent broken telephone or telegraph wires coming in contact therewith, the increased danger from fire is not appreciable. Second. Impairment of the appearance of the streets by the erection of poles. It is true that some streets would be impaired by such erections. On a large portion of the route under discussion, however, the impairment would be of little consequence in comparison with the improvement in transit. On Atlantic avenue, a very wide street, poles between the tracks with brackets to support the trolley wire would impair the street little or none. The brackets would, furthermore, protect the trolley wires from contact with other wires. On Fifth avenue there is an elevated structure already. The wires could be suspended from it. If poles should have to be erected, however, they would make no appreciable difference in the cndition of the street. On a large portion of the remainder of the route the ground is sparsely built upon and the erection of poles would cause no inconvenience. On a small portion of the route the erection of poles is unquestionably an objection to some persons. These poles, however, should be small, sightly in appearance, and so constructed as to impair the appearance of the street to the least possible extent. The Board does not discuss at length the legislation to be found in chapter 397 of the Laws of 1879, as amended by chapter 483 of the Laws of 1881 and chapter 499 of the Laws of 1885, providing for the abolition of overhead wires and creating a board of electrical control to supply subways, for the reason that the board has gone out of existence without providing any subways in the streets or in any way disposing of the problem. The only logical conclusion is that the law was impracticable of enforcement. The question whether the approval of the Board of Railroad Commissioners carries with it to the railroad company the authority to erect poles and string wires was not raised at the hearings. The Board will not discuss it further than to say if it be raised it can only be decided by the courts. Third. Danger of running over pedestrians or collision with vehicles in consequence of increased speed. The Board deems this danger to be inconsiderable, inasmuch as the wheels of the cars can not only be stopped, but can be reversed by electric action, thus enabling the car to be stopped as quickly or more quickly than a horse car. Fourth. That the proposed system is no better than horses, etc. The Board deems that the system is better than horses, and would unquestionably prove itself so on the route under discussion. It is more cleanly and much more rapid, particularly on up-grades. There is a considerable up-grade from the ferry on Atlantic avenue, on Fifth avenue and other portions of the route. Much better time could be made, with benefit to all parties concerned and without detriment to any one. This system of propulsion is in successful satisfactory operation, within the personal knowledge of the Board, in a majority of the large cities of the United States. It has received the approval of the Board for the cities of Buffalo, Syracuse, Utica, Binghamton, Auburn and the upper wards of the city of New York. With what propriety then could the Board say that it is unfit for the city of Brooklyn, when a large majority of those most vitally interested the abutting property holders- have given their consent? CONCLUSIONS. In view of the above facts, to wit, that a large majority of the abutting property holders have given their consent; that the proposed system is in general successful operation elsewhere and is an improvement upon horse power, and that no expression of disapproval has been given by the mayor or common council of the city of Brooklyn, the Board deems that it is its duty to approve and does hereby approve of a change of motive power by the Atlantic Avenue Railroad Company from horses to the overhead electric trolley system upon the following portions of its route, to wit: on Atlantic avenue from South Ferry to Fifth avenue; on Fifth avenue from Atlantic avenue to Twenty-seventh street; on Twentieth street from Ninth avenue to Seventh avenue; on Fifteenth street from Ninth avenue to |