Wichita eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1886-1890, 1889-09-06
DID THE COUNCIL. RELEASE THE STREET
CAR COMPANY FROM PAVING?

DID THE COUNCIL RELEASE The STREET
CAR COMPANY FROM PAVING?
To the Editor Of the Eagle.
We do not offer this communication to
commend those counciimen who voted fer
the street car ordinance, nor to condemn
those who voted against it, but we wish to
present the reasons for ard against the
ordinance which the members of the coun-
Gil gave in their discussion of the ques-
tions at the afternoon session, held just
preceding the official meeting IN the even
ing.
If the EAGLE reporter had caught on to
the gist of the debate and had given it to
the public, this letter would have been I'M
necessary.
1t IS proper first to state that an ordi-
nance was passed nearly two years ago to
enable the old City Railway company to
consolidate its several lines under one line
and management. Among other provis-
ions it was ordered in said ordinance in
section that said street railway should
pave, gravel or macadamize, etc"
Mr. Coffin. in his opposition; to the bill
in Monday nights council, SAID that the
Railway company sought 10 evade the OBJ
legation thus imposed upon 1t: Ii the COM
pany has not been understood IN this mat
ter it is not their fault nor that of the
English language, for they have said in SO
many words, over and over again, that
they sought to evade nothing.
When the old ordinance was passed the
council, like the present one. knew how to
run street railway, as the following will
show: Section l reads: Said electric motor
to be some successful method other than
overhead wire" Now, if asking the
council to strike out the last four words,
'other than overhead wire, Is trying to
evade the burden of paving. then we tried
to evade the burden of paving, Tor this IS
just what we asked and all we asked. L
am satisfied this statement will be reve-
latiOn to the taxpayer
VIII the taxpayer and voter read
this over again and remember
we have as many witnesses
as there are members OF the council plus
the mayor and city attorney to the state
ment that we asked, and insisted that the
council should give us the privilege of
equipping our line with the only practical
bic system, that of overhead wire, and we
asked for nothing more, and we denied
their right to impose any conditions or
burdens for the privilege thus asked. We
had asked and urged this in, when our or
dinance was passed in 1887, but the coun-
Gil knew all about electricity and knew the
storage was what we needed, and Wichita
would have nothing less unless 1t was the
cable system. 1t YVES in vain that we
told them that cable road
would cost 100000 per mile
or four million for our whole system. 1t
must be that or storage battery. Well
we accepted the ordinance, and in six
months this same council had granted a
franchise with the privilege of the over
head wire to a road in which the general
public of Wichita had no interest, for 1t
belonged to the country and tserved but
few
We had dragged our cars through the
mud and dust with our little mules Civ
ing the public the best service we could,
giving transfers to all parts of the city for
four cents, while the bob-tall companies
who were aggresSOrs upon rights already
granted to us, were enjoying the privilege
of electricity by overhead wires.
With this condition of things we go to
the council and ask the privilege to expend
SIZE, 600 to equip our road with electricity,
to change our mule road to that OF q first
class rapid transit road, which would, at
low estimate, add 81 600, 900 to the value of
the real estate of Wichita. We asked this
privilege without even thinking OF the
question of paving. 1t would not have
been unreasonable on our part to have
asked for some equivalent for the benefit
we were bringing to Wichita.
We might with great consistency have
said our present ordinance requires us to
pave, and in consideration of the large
amount of money we are going to expend
to improve this property the city should
relieve us from such a burden. But we
did not think of such a thing; in fact. as l
have said, the matter OF paving was no
part of the difficulty before us. What we
wanted to know first was whether
the owners of property on
Douglas avenue and Main street
cared enough for rapid transit to consent
to have poles used on these streets To
determine this we employed man to
canvass every property owner on these two
streets and without argument or undue
influence ask the question in business
way, Do you care enough to have rapid
transit on the streets to endure the nui-
sance of more poles? The answer in all
cases but one was yes. To the further
question, Would you prefer iron poles
in the middle OF the street where
the railroad company has double track
or wooden poles on both sides of the
streets? to which small majority an
swered. put the poles in the middle OF the
streets. We wanted this information for
the guidance of the common council, who
are supposed to be the servants of the
people II the people had said, we prefer
TO continue with the mule road we should
have accepted the verdict In good faith
and this would have been the end of
it. AS it was we understood
the common council was ordered as
agents OF the people TO grant the privilege
we asked. We went to the council and
the moment we explained to them what
we wanted we We're told they would draw
an ordinance. We answered, we do not
want any ordinance we went the old
ordinance amended by striking out the
four words prohibiting our company from
using the overhead wires. But we must
have an ordinance, a wordy ordinance,
long ordinance, with many sections, We
soon learned that amongst many require
ments, some of which were utterly i'm
practicable aud others could not he under
stood, we were required to pave the streets.
We answered. we viii not accept such an
ordinance Whatever burdens the old
ordinance imposes we will cheerfully bear.
We do not ask to be relieved from any and
we will not consent to add any. But this
did not suffice. Over and over 1t
was urged that we We're rlch corpora
ton, great monopoly. In the face
Of repeated invitations to examine our
books to verify our statement that we had
only an empty purse we were called rich
IN the face of the fact that the council had
urged upon Hartzell q franchise giving
him the exclusive use OF the streets tor
wenty-one years and then lad stulllfied
Itself by giving the same exclusive use OF
she same streets to every cornfield ad
lition owner, then ! say IN the face of
.hese facts and after having compelled
Hartzellis successors to carry a passenger
DIV transfer for five cents nearly across the
county they talk 10 us about being great
monopoly. 1t sounds more like special
Plea of a county pettifogger IN a
ustice's court than like the sober
sense OF men competent 10
,uild up city. Another argument q /
,ftea used in these socalled discussions
VA this. You own this street Car PROPERTY