HIGHWAYS ACROSS RAILROADS.

The last legislature passed an act providing that whenever a highway, or portion of a highway, had been or should be laid out or ordered to be laid out across a railroad, and the Railroad Commissioners should direct the highway to be carried over the railroad, the commissioners should determine the length, width, and material of the bridge over the railroad before the damages, which might be occasioned to any person by the taking of land for such highway, are finally assessed, but authorizing us to make such determination at any stage of the proceedings in cases then pending. We have been called on in four instances during the year to decide whether a proposed highway should go over or under the railroad.

MANCHESTER.

In the case of a highway laid out in the town of Manchester across the South Manchester railroad, it was agreed that it should go under, and we made our order accordingly.

NEW HAVEN.

So also in the case of James Street laid out across the Shore Line railroad in New Haven. In the case of Jackson Street in that city, which had been laid out across the Hartford Division of the New York, New Haven & Hartford railroad, and which we directed to be carried over the tracks, all the parties were agreed as to the length, width, and material of the bridge, so that no question as to our authority to act was raised, but in the case of the proposed extension of Grand Street in that city our authority to determine the length, width, and material of the bridge was denied, and a singular condition of the law was developed. The selectmen of New Haven having refused to lay out a highway to connect East Grand Street with an extension of the same, which highway or street would cross the Shore Line railroad in Fair Haven, a committee was appointed by the Superior Court to hear the matter, who surveyed and laid out the proposed street, or a

portion of it, crossing the railroad. A remonstrance having been filed to the acceptance of the report, on the ground that the committee had assessed the damages before the Railroad Commissioners had determined the length of the bridge, we were called on to make our determination. At the hearing appointed by us the counsel for the town objected that we could not act because the law only empowered us to do so when a highway had already been laid out or ordered to be laid out, and that the highway in question had not been laid out because the report of the committee had not been accepted. If this claim is correct, it would appear that the law is so that that highway cannot be laid out till the Commissioners have determined the length, etc., of the bridge, and that the Commissioners can not make the determination till the highway is laid out. In the case before us it was not necessary to decide this question, as proceedings were pending in that case at the date of the passage of the law, and we were therefore at liberty to act at any stage of the proceedings. We therefore overruled the objection, and decided to hear the question as to the mode of crossing. A more full statement of the questions involved, and of our opinion, will be found in the Appendix.

WATERBURY.

On the 26th of August, the city of Waterbury brought its petition, representing that it had laid out a new street in that city, being an extension of Burnham street, and crossing the lands and tracks of the New York & New England Railroad Company, and asking us to designate whether it should pass over or under the tracks. There was no question but that it should go under the railroad, but during the pendency of the proceedings the railroad company filed its petition, asking, in accordance with what they claimed was a provision of an act of the last General Assembly, that in consideration of the proposed alteration at Burnham street we should consider in connection therewith, as a part of the same subject, the crossings of said railroad by Riverside street and Bank street, and

order such alteration of all such crossings and of said highway as in our judgment public convenience and necessity and the safety of travel might require. These petitions were heard and considered together. It was agreed between the city and the company, and generally assented to, but strenuously denied by some, that there was no occasion for maintaining three crossings so near together as Burnham, Riverside, and Bank street crossings would be, and that Riverside street might be given up entirely, but the city opposed any assessment for carrying Bank street under the railroad, and the matter is still pending.

TAKING ADDITIONAL LAND FOR RAILROADS.

Two applications have been made for our approval of the taking of additional land by existing railroad companies, for the purpose of enlarging their depot grounds and for side tracks and turnouts: one by the New York & New England Railroad Company, to enlarge its accommodations at Waterbury, and our approval was given last month. The other was by the New Haven & Derby Railroad Company, for extensive additions to its depot grounds in New Haven. This petition is to be heard on the 18th of this month.

SIDE TRACKS AT TERRYVILLE.

One petition has been made to us for an order in regard to the laying of railroad tracks for sidings or for switching purposes upon or across highways, under the provisions of the law of 1884. This was by the selectmen of Plymouth, in regard to a side track of the New York & New England road at Terryville, and an order was passed in accordance with an agreement between the selectmen and the company.

LOCOMOTIVE WHISTLING.

One application only for an order to prohibit the use of the locomotive whistle has been made during the year. This was by the selectmen of Hartford, under date of October 22d, which was heard on the 15th of November, and the order

made.

One reason why no more complaint on this subject has been made of late undoubtedly is the fact that the whistles on the various roads have been toned down so as to be much less objectionable.

STEEL RAILS.

In looking over the returns of the companies it will be noticed that somewhat heavier rails are now being laid where the traffic is also heavy. The heaviest, however, reported by our companies is seventy-six pounds on the New York & New England. The subject of the most desirable weight for steel rails was discussed at the last annual meeting of the Roadmasters' Association, and a majority of the speakers seemed to favor a rail of seventy-five pounds to the yard for roads with a heavy traffic; but in the resolution adopted, they declared nothing less than a sixty-pound rail as sufficient for such roads, if well ballasted and tied, with an increase of fifteen per cent. in weight for unballasted roads. In Europe a very much heavier rail is coming into use; rails weighing 105 pounds to the yard are being laid on the Belgian State Railroad, and also in France. Such rails are enormously heavy and troublesome to handle; they are rolled thirty-two feet eight inches long, and therefore weigh about 1,150 pounds each.

SUNDAY RAILROAD TRAFFIC.

The efforts of the friends of Sunday rest and quiet to secure legislative action to restrain work on railroads on that day, resulted in the passage of an act last year which, if not satisfactory, was accepted both by them and by the representatives of the railroads. It prohibited the handling of freight between sunrise and sunset, or the running of any train except from necessity or mercy, and with the further exception that before 10.30 A. M. and after 3 P. M., trains carrying the United States mail might be run, and such other trains as might be authorized by us on application made on the ground that they were required by the public necessity or for preservation of freight.

Some misapprehension was created in the public mind at first, because of the difference between the Commissioners and railroad companies as to their respective duties under the law, the companies claiming that they were only required to name such trains as they desired to run, and that the Commissioners must both decide as to the public necessity and look up the evidence on which to base their decisions. We declined to permit ourselves to be placed in any such position, and refused to allow any trains, except temporarily, till it should be shown to us that they were required by the public necessity. Some difference of opinion also existed in the board as to the latitude of judgment to be exercised in determining the question of the public necessity, but entire unanimity prevailed as to the desire so to discharge our duties as to carry out the true intent and meaning of the law and secure the advantages for which it was designed, and at the same time not invite antagonism to it by unreasonably rigid construction. We have received assurances, both from the advocates of the law and from railroad men, that in this we have been reasonably successful. One of the best-informed friends of the movement has summed up "the immediate effects of the law," as follows: "The cessation of unnecessary labor at the leading freight stations; no trains running, and therefore quiet along the railroads during the morning and afternoon hours commonly devoted to public. worship; no excursion trains and none asked for; no freight trains from sunrise to sunset, except the very few needed for perishable freight, and these in the morning and evening hours; one through passenger train, besides those carrying the mail. The milk trains continue to run, generally in the early morning."

CAR HEATING AND LIGHTING.

As the result of the consideration by the last General Assembly of the question of heating and lighting passenger cars, an act was passed requiring the companies to report to us in their annual returns for the year ending September 30, 1887,