Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1884-10-12
sTREEr RAILWAYS.
Something Of the Question Now Inter-
esfing the People.

1
once more reyives this vexed question
and arouses public interest in the mat
ter. The arrests were made In the
name and by the authority of the city
Of Fort Worth ostensibly. The
charge was for obstructing the public
streets, contrary to the city ordinances
In such cases made and provided. Up
on this charge the workmen were
arrested and the work OF construction
stopped but upon trial the recorder
very properly decided that the action
OF the accused lacked the least element
OF crlminality; that the company had
the right, guaranteed II by ordinance.
10 build upon Twelfth street, and that
IL was only pursuing legal course In
attempting TO build upon this
street. The question naturally
\ arises then, why Is II that
legitimate enterprises can be hampered
and law-Rbiding citizens can be ar
rested and dragged before courts oflaw
on fictitious charges? To answer this
II will be necessary Oreview the street
railroad construction in this city from
its incipiency 10 the present time:
| In the year 1874, when Fort Worth
was small aud young and when small
! hopes OF reward Were offered 10 those
who invested In her enterprises, "a num-
/ Der OF gentlemen, having faith In the
ultimate prosperity of the place and the
ability to look beyond the present,
entered into an agreement TO build a
street car line, and for this purpose ap.
piled for and had a charter granted
them. IL was regarded at the time 10y
most people, who take superficial OBJ
servRtions, as piece Of folly, supefin-
duced by local PRIDE for which they
would have to pay dearly. The magi-
cal growth of the city soon put an end
TO these speculations, property en-
HANGED in value, buildings sprang up,
and In a short time city was reared
along the line OF road, and 1t proved
almost from the first paying invest
ment.
The citizens took kindly TO the new
enterprise and gave IL their support;
the city, by ordinance, granted IL per-
mission to build on certain streets,
| Houston, Main, Rusk and BelSnap
among them, and so eager was 1t TO
secure street railroads that legislation
was hurried aud ordinances less spe-
cific than is compatible with prudence
were passed. The Fort Worth COM
paDy were granted permission To
build upon the streets enumerated
with certain conditions. One of these
conditions was that a line should
be built on one OF the
three streets within twelve
months after the date of the ordinance.
Another was that the company were
bound to build and equip additional
street railroads at any time that the
city council should deem 1t necessary
aud should give notice to that effect
twelve months next before the extern
sions or additions were needed. These
conditions have been complied with
in 30 far as the company is concerned.
The Main street line was Immediately
built and later line ON Belknap
street. In 1882 when the
city had assumed considerable
proportions another street rail.
road company was formed, and upon
application TO the city council certain
franchises were granted. There Is con
siderable difference of opinion as the
validity Of these ordinances. The rec.
ords show that the ordinance under
Which the kosedale road Is built was
passed on May S, 1884, without laying
/ over until the next meeting of the
council rs required by the rules gov
erning that body and that 1t was an
ordinance amending an ordinance in
troduced some time previous, which had
been vetoed and never recOnsidered,
and was consequently a dead letter
The Rosedale company claim that they
have equal rights upon any and all
streets In the city, which Is conceded.
The franchises of the Fort Worth
Street Railway company grant that
company no exclusive rights what
ever. The Rosedale claims that It's
rights are superior In that, first The
/ building by the Fort Worth company
on Main street exhausted its rights on
the other parallel streets. Secondly,
that II the Fort Worth company ever
had "A right on the parallel streets
II had lapsed by their failure TO build.
The first position of the Rosedale COM
, pany would seem untenable by glance
at the ordinance itself 1t is quite ex.
; pllcit and plainly says that the Fort
: Worth company may build ON any OF
all of the streets named, and further,
: that II must build, II the city council
|. 20 desires and gives II the proper mo-
) tiee. The second position, that the
law OF non-user comes In Is not likely
TO hold. Before non-useT can be plead
ed, II must I've shown that the delin
= quency was Of such nature "a TO show
/ an intention to abandon the right
as where 1t amounts to an acquies
. ence In an unlawful interruption
y This is not borne out by the records
3 The Fort Worth company did moi
= abandon its right. II had never beer
ordered or requested TO build on Hous
d ton street ard as soon as an ATTEMPT
Il was made 70 interrupt its right on thi,
> street, q very decided resistance wa,
: offered. This resistance Is thu
Z cause of the suit now pending.
! Returning TO the trouble over the
attempt OF the Fort Worth company
? TO build on Twelfth street, IL Is shown
9 that this company had the right Il
build Its line thereon granted by
ordinance No. 2G2 and in pursuance o
: said right attempted to build their ToaC
/ and did build until the workmen wer,
e arrested by authority OF the city. The
, charge, as before stated, was that ths
: Fort Worth company was obstrucling
Z the public streets. This. of course