The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1886-10-25
STREET-CAR LAWS.
Passengers Cannot Be Compelled to Peform
the Duties of Conductors for the Company.

"What we want to know" said passenger on
the Massachusetts avenue line of street-cars, sis
just what the street-car company under its
charter can compel US to do. When that mat
ter is settled can all act together, and great
number Of us are talking it over. It is the sub
ject of discussion on every crowded car that
goes up or down the line, and we are trying to
dete rhine whether we are compelled to put our
fares in the box and act as conductor to collect
other persons fares and place them in the box
There is divided opinion among US. Some say
they will only be satisfied when conductors are
put on, others that more cars will answer the
purpose, that they don't mind collecting fares If
they did not make themselves obnoxious ever
when endeavoring to be most polite and accom-
modating by walking over the corn-rows as they
pass up the fares"
The reporter looked up the charter ordinance
of the company. He finds that it does not, as
many people suppose, provide that the company
shall place conductors upon their lines. The
charter originally granted, Jan. 18, 1864, as
amended in 1876, provides that Conductors and
drivers shall use due care and diligence to pre-
vent injury to persons, and that all proper care
Shall be used by conductors aud drivers" to
prevent injury to teams; that conductors and
drivers" shall not allow ladies or children to en-.
ter or leave the cars while in motion.
The following clause of the ordinance needs 70
be noted with special reference to the parenthe-
Sis Conductors Tor drivers where there are no
conductors on the cars shall announce
to passengers the names of Streets" When
this parenthesis was pointed out to well-known
lawyer he at once said that he had no doubt
whatever, that the parenthesis did not exist at
all in the charter as originally drawn but was
an Interpolation by a subsidized clerk. It is
little singular that the company should have
been suffered to 60 on year after year, violating
various provisions of the ordinance, without be-
ing at some time called up in the City Court,
when the charter bears the following penalty:
"Any person violating any provision of this or
dinance shall be fined in any sum not exceeding
$50"
The following is an important feature of this
ordinance, now twenty-five years old: "Sec.
IT, II at the expiration of ten years after the
passage of this ordinance or any period Of time
thereafter, said company shall not have laid ten
miles of track, or more, of uniform gauge
and composed of the most approved rail, and
shall not have furnished the same with the nee
essary cars OF the best style and sufficient oper
alive force, and shall not have continued to
maintain the same in operation, according to the
intent OF this ordinance, then the Common
Council may at discretion, order lust and fair
appraisement and purchase the same, and
pay said company the amount of said appraised
value therefor; or transfer the same to any per-
son or corporation that will pay the amount of
said appraised value to the said company"
City Attorney W. L. Taylor, being asked to
give an opinion on the conductor question, said:
From the language of the ordinance all the way
through, and especially from that of Section II,
it is my opinion that the intention of the City
Council when this charter was granted was to
require conductors upon all lines of said road,
and but for that parenthetic expression to which
my attention has been called before this-that
is or drivers where there are no conductors upon
the car'-there could be no other conclusion.
am clearly of the opinion that where there is a
great amount Of travel, as on the Massachusetts,
and College-avenue lines the charter provision
in Section IL is not complied with by the COM
pany because It does not furnish a sufficient op-
erative force'D