Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 4.djvu/270

254 access to the land along which they pass, and that the land-owner whose land was taken acquired more of the benefits of a public highway to his land from the use of land for such a railroad, but that in the case of street railroads it was different. In general, he said:—

And it was held that the State, or those to whom it has delegated the authority, has the right to set apart a certain portion of the street for a street railroad, if that road is to accommodate the public travel for which the street was designed.

It is worthy of note that before it was learned by experience that the use of the steam railroad in the streets was in fact exclusive, and was not consistent with the ordinary uses of a street, it was held in New Jersey that even this was only a new mode of travel to which the streets might be devoted. Chancellor Williamson, in his remarkable judgment in Morris & Essex R.R. Co. v. Newark, in 1855, said:—

It was only when it was found that the steam railroad running through a town was not a mode of using the streets for travel within the city, that the courts held that it was not a use for which the streets had been dedicated, and that although the right to use