Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 17.pdf/50

 THE STATE AND THE STREET RAILWAY nent domain, for certain limited purposes the approval of the railroad commissioners was made a condition precedent to the ex ercise of the power. The provision in the street railway act of 1898, for a protest by abutters against a street railway location, was construed by the railroad commissioners to authorize them to refuse their approval of the loca tion only when an equally available loca tion might be secured, and not when their refusal to approve might practically compel the abandonment of an entire proposed rail way, to which the objectionable location was indispensable. This narrow construc tion caused much dissatisfaction, but its effect was not long felt, for in 1902 the legis lature extended to the whole state, after fifteen years' experience of its operation and effect in Boston, the provision that no lo cation, and no extension or alteration of a location, granted by a board of aldermen or selectmen should be valid until the Board of Railroad Commissioners certified that it was consistent with the public interests. This statute finally rounded out the state's policy relative to street railway locations, and where fifteen years before a board of aldermen or selectmen could grant a loca tion, extend it, alter it, or absolutely revoke it, in its own discretion, its action has now, in each of these respects, been rendered only initial or preliminary to that of the State Board of Railroad Commissioners, and possesses validity only as the State Board shall certify its approval. In passing upon a particular location the railroad commis sioners consider not only the general ques tion of the necessity for the proposed street railway, but also whether the conditions and restrictions imposed by the local board are consistent with the general laws of the Commonwealth and with the interests of the whole public. The various changes, however, have not affected the legal situation of street railway companies. The legal security of their lo cations in the streets is no greater than be

39

fore. Practically, no doubt, their owners feel more confident of securing just treat ment from the action of one conservative and permanent board, than could be hoped for from many different and unrelated local boards, possessing no necessary familiarity with general transportation problems, and usually selected only for their fitness to deal with administrative questions of purely local interest. There is still to be considered the develop ment by which the control over the opera tion of street railways has been placed in the hands of State officials. The legisla ture, in 1891, gave to the railroad commis sioners alone the power to order additional accommodations for the travelling public. In 1895 they were given exclusive jurisdiction of the subjects of providing street cars with suitable fenders, and of the method of suitably heating the cars during the winter months. By subsequent statutes the duty of the board to regularly inspect the rail roads of the Commonwealth and their method of operation, was extended to in clude street railways; companies were re quired to equip their cars with such brakes and emergency tools as the board might order; and a prohibition was placed upon opening any street railway for public use until the commissioners should certify that all laws relative to its construction had been complied with, and that it appeared to be in a safe condition for operation. In 1903 the former permissive authority of boards of aldermen and selectmen to regu late the speed of cars and the mode of use of the tracks of street railway companies was made mandatory, and the law was further amended so that all such regula:ions of the local officers were subject to railroad commissioners The treatment of the question of fares is a subject by itself, but its importance, and oward exclusive state control, will excuse a brief reference to it. The. legislature
 * he approval, revision or alteration of the
 * he fact that it illustrates the same tendency