NEWS AND NOTES 



TO PROTECT LONG ISLAND 



Bringing a Railroad to Obey the Fire Law of 

 New York 



Some of the public-spirited residents on 

 Long Island, New York, have for two or 

 three years been endeavoring to secure th<r 

 Island against the forest fires that so seri- 

 ously menace all wooded property. Long Is- 

 land is peculiarly liable to visitation by fire 

 because it is traversed by three lines of rail- 

 way, in its fifteen miles of width, one through 

 the middle of the Island, one on the north 

 and one on the south shore, while its width 

 is swept by strong sea breezes from both 

 the north and the south. As a result of the 

 efforts of a number of residents, the leader 

 of whom is Charles M." Higgins of Brook- 

 lyn, who has a summer residence at Smith- 

 town, two suits against the Long Island Rail- 

 road Company, have been fought and won. 

 The story is told in a pamphlet report by 

 Mr. Higgins to his neighbors and fellow 

 land-owners. 



The first case was brought by the Forest, 

 Fish and Game Commission of New York, 

 in response to a petition signed by sixty land- 

 owners of Smithtown and the adjacent coun- 

 try, among them being Judge (now Mayor) 

 Gaynor and former Forest Commissioner 

 Edward Thompson. In his report Mr. Hig- 

 gins says : 



As the result of our petition to the Forest, 

 Fish and Game Commission of the State, 

 as you are aware, one suit was brought by 

 the State of New York in July, 1907, for 

 over $100,000 in penalties incurred by the 

 railroad company for its flagrant failure for 

 many years past to observe the forest laws 

 of the State for the prevention of fires 

 through forest lands along its right of way. 



Another suit had been previously brought 

 by myself personally for damages suffered 

 by a destructive fire caused by the railroad 

 company in my woodlands on April 19, 1906, 

 when over thirty acres of forest were de- 

 troyed. * * * 



One of the most important points in the 

 forest laws of the State on which suit was 

 brought was the clause requiring railroads to 

 cut and remove at least twice a year all grass, 

 brush or other inflammable material along 

 its right of way through forest lands or lands 

 subject to fire from any cause a law which 

 we all know has been utterly disregarded for 

 years by the railroad company. The answer 

 of the railroad company to this suit was a 

 demurrer, denying that the Forest Com- 

 mission had any jurisdiction in this county, 

 and that the law applied only to State reser- 



vations or public forests or parks, and in 

 no sense to private woodlands. This ques- 

 tion was carried through every court by ap- 

 peal up to the Court of Appeals, and in each 

 court this law was sustained and the rail- 

 road company defeated, it being now the 

 fixed law of this State, as defined by the 

 Court of Appeals, that all railroad compan- 

 ies must clear their right of way at least 

 twice a year of all grass, brush or combus- 

 tible material along forest lands or lands 

 subject to fire, whether these lands are pub- 

 lic or private, under a penalty of $100 a day 

 for its neglect to do so. The law being now 

 settled by our highest State court, this suit 

 by the Forest Commission will now be tried 

 on the facts and merits at the next session 

 of our Suffolk County Court for the collec- 

 tion of said penalties. 



In addition to this decision of the higher 

 courts enforcing this specific forest law, the 

 lower courts, in my own personal suit, have 

 decided in two decisions, first by Judge 

 Crane and then by Judge Jaycox, that the rail- 

 road company is bound by common law, even 

 without specific statute law, to keep its right of 

 way properly cleared of all combustible mat- 

 ter and where it fails to do this, and a fire 

 results therefrom and passes to adjacent 

 land, the railroad company is guilty of neg- 

 ligence and liable for damages, and my per- 

 sonal suit was won mainly on that point, 

 which is a new and most valuable legal point 

 now settled against the railroad companies, 

 both as statutory and common law in this 

 State. 



Mr. Higgins then proceeds to point out 

 the substantial gain which the decisions in 

 these cases represent, and that whereas hith- 

 erto prosecution has been too expensive a 

 luxury for the individual landholder to in- 

 dulge in, because of the difficulty of making 

 a case, now "legal conditions are quite radi- 

 cally changed all along the line to the ad- 

 vantage of the public by the victories won 

 in these two suits, and also by the new laws 

 passed by the last Legislature, which now 

 promise to make it more expensive for the 

 railroads to neglect proper precautions and 

 defy public right and safety than to keep 

 their engines and right of way in such con- 

 dition as \\ill prevent bad forest iiivs in the 

 future." 



In the suit of the Forest Commission 

 against the railroad a verdict for $:i',500 

 was given to the State against the LOU- Is 

 land Railroad Company. A motion made by 

 the railroad to set aside this verdict, on 

 technical points, had not been decided \\lu-n 

 this article was written, but it was expected 



749 



