The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1883-03-27

trench upon previous grants etc. Clearly we
have received negative answer to all cues
lions, except No. 5, the subject of T rails and
tram rails. The rail is not the most approved
rail as provided in their charter, and hence
removal under the existing grant. mas
much the old company declines to
grant any of the reasonable requests of our citi-
zens, as shown by the above answers, we 90 not
think any moral obligation longer rests on the
Council TO give said company the notice and
option claimed under the fifteenth section Of this
ordinance. Your committee have carefully e&-
ahmed the Metropolitan coinpany's ordinance
and believe that with few amend
ask, and that the same should pass" In
addition the statement was made that 'slnce
the foregoing report was agreed on, the president
OF the Cltizeus company has presentednew an
swers 10 the questions by your committees. In
inc OPINION OF your committees, these answers
came too late, and besides, we feel certain from
oral statements made by the management OF
the company that determined fight would he
made by the officers of the company against the
passage OF an ordinance embodyng the mat
tiers set forth in the questions propounded."
THE MINORITY REPORT.
The minority report was signed by Messrs
Yoke and Fultz, and, after stating til at the
Citizens Street Railway Company had signified
their willingness to- comply with the requests
made in the questions submitted to them,
commended 'That the city attorney be directed
to prepare an ordinance embracing said matter
for the consideration OF this body, and we
commend the pOStpOnement OF the ordinance
granting certain rights and privileges to the
Metropolitan Street Railway Company until the
notice required by section 10 of the charter of
the Citizens' Street Railway Company be given
to said company"
The following, from the president of the Clti-
zens' 5treet-raiiway Company, given at the
afternoon meeting OF the committees, was sub
United with The minority report:
Gentlemen of the Judiciary and Railroad Commit
tees and the City Attorney
"We would beg leave TO substitute the follow
questions:
1--WE will accept each and all the requirements
embraced In those questions, if required of us
by the passage of ordinance to that effect In
whatever period of time you may think just and
reasonable Very respectfully ny ,o
president Citizehs Street-railway Company"
A motion TO adopt the minority report
followed by long discussion. Mr. Bowling was
the first TO speak, and III the course of his
marks, which were anything but argumentative,
he said that the opinion seemed to be prevalent
that the vote OF The members favoring the old
company had been influenced by money. Mr.,
Prltchard objected TO the allusion. upon
the point OF order that the question
any member had sold out, but it was upon
the adoption of the minority report Mr.. DOw-
ling, however, continued to allude to the sub
ject, and when again called to order, Mr. Weaver
who was occupying the chair, suggested that his
remarks would more properly come before an
investigating committee than legislative body,
considering measure which should be dis
cussed In another light.
WHAT THE CoUNCILMEN THOUGHT.
In urging the adoption of the minority report,
Mr.. Yoke said that if the Citizens Streetrailway
Company fail to comply with the requirements
of an ordinance embracing the improvements
asked in The questions which had been submit
ted to them, an easy way out of the trouble
would then be to pass the Metropolitan Street.
railway ordinance, which, he intimated, was the
idea in view in recommending the post
pOnement of action upon the matter. He favored
adhering to the action of the Council at its last
meeting until the old company had demonstrate
ed bad falthi and for the purpose of putting
them TO test he urged the adoption of his
port
Mr.. Fultz said that in the committee meeting
during the afternoon Mr.. johnson stated
the Questions submitted to ""'G linn were re
mot strong enough to be satisfactory,
he would be willing to sign any answers which
the committee would write. Mr.. Fultz thought
that the JOhnsons had not been treated by the
committees with the respect which they de-
served, and he believed that the city should as
rehgiously observe the provisions of the charter
granted to the old company as 1t would any
contract. He claimed that one of
the minority report was to require
the old company to at once begin work in making
the improvements demanded, ana thereby give
employment to the many IDLE laborers in the
city, which, ne Thought, would not be Insured by
admitting u competing line.
Mr.. Pritehard spoke at some length, arguing
that che charter Of 1864 had been violated by
the Citizens company, and that these no
longer any moral or legal obligation on the
part OF the CRY to protect them from
competition. The company had disregarded
requests for improvements, and in their answers
to the questions which had peen propounded to
them they had manifested disposition to evade.
The answers, to say the least, had been unsatis-
factory, and he thought it was the demand of
the people that the new company should be
granted the privileges asked
Mr.. Morrison, in speech of some length,
favored giving the Citizens company an Oppor-
cnmnlE 6amand1 for
improvements after the passage of an ordinance
embracing all that had been asked. Then If
they failed, he would favor the passage of the
Metropolitan sIreet-rallway ordinance.
LEyEL-HEADED MEMBERS.
Mr.. Thalman thought that such talk was for
eien to the subject, and was no argument. The
city is under moral obligation to the Old COM
pany. The question was upon the admission Of
the company to equal rights with the old,
regardless of what the latter might do in the
future. The question is one between the city
OF Indianapolis her interests, and private cor
poratons. If the question was a moral one, he
said the sooner morality is gotten out of the
Council the better 1t would be for the city.
Mr.. Dean said that he would think of voting
against permitting a new rolling mill 20 locate in
the city, because an established one objected.
Just about as soon as he would of drawing the line
of competition between street railways. Cleve-
land had accepted indianapolis capital and there
was no reason why Indianapolis should not ac-
cept Cleveland capital.
After motion upon the previous question
prevailing, the vote upon the minority report
was taken, and resulted in its adoption by IL to
10, as follows: Yeas-DIessrs. Bedford, Brln-
dage, Bryce, Dowliug, Fultz, Harold, Hart
mann, Roller, Mauer, Morrison, Ward ana Yoke
-l2. Nays-Messrs. CaylOr, Cole, Dean, Knodel,
Pearson, Pritchard, ReichweIn, Stout, 1halman
and Weaver-1O.
Banner Presentation.