Wichita eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1886-1890, 1889-11-22
STREET RAILWAY INJUNCTION.
Argued Before Judge Reed-The Case win
be Rested With the Court Today.

The Wichita Street railway Injunction
was still in hearing before Judge Reed
yesterday. The balance of the evidence
was all introduced shortly after the case
was opened up in the afternoon. Mr.. YER
million opened the argument for the plain
tiffs and was followed by Judge Sluss,
consuming the entire afternoon. The case
was continued until today, when Mr. Har-
ris will close the argument for the plain
tiffs. Mr.. Fitch was on the witness stand
and testified that the Riverside line very
much desired to get down Market street,
as it would take it by the postoffice, Craw-
ford's opera house. the Carey hotel and
the new Union depot. He also said all these
objects could be accomplished by crossing
Douglas at Water under the old franchise,
but not SO satisfactorily. He thought
Market street essential to the company's
plans. AS soon as the evidence was all in
the argument was at once taken up; both
attorneys made long and exhaustive
speeches, and it is impossible to do justice
to either without giving the speeches in
full, which is impracticable. The question
of the rights in law and equity of either
company was only discussed, inasmuch as
it had some bearing on the block in ques-
ton, being from Douglas to William on
Market street. Considering that two OF
the leading attorneys in the city consumed
an entire afternoon to hurriedly present
one phase of the street railway business in
its present complications, it is evident the
public had no very accurate idea of the
merits OF the case.
Judge Sluss presented his case plausibly
giving the facts good coloring. contend
ing that in the very nature of things the
city council could legislate in such a way
as to prevent any serious conflict between
the two roads running over the same
ground. In support Of this idea he quoted
authorities and decisions to show that
cities had regulated such matters when a
conflict did actually exist between two
companies having equal rights.
Mr.. Vermilion seemed to think city
might be called upon to legislate in the
cases cited by the defense, but failed to
find any precedent for city creating
conflict and legislating afterwards. Mr..
Fermilion's first proposition was that an
exclusive privilege had been granted to
his clients. The word exclusive occurs in
the original franchise and has been legally
Although city Of the first class may not
legally grant an exclusive franchise, and
the same is laid down in the statutes, a
city of the second class may enter into
such a contract and there is moth
ing in the statutes to prevent it.
As matter of fact the plaintiffs claim
that the franchise was granted while
Wichita was a city of the second class and
that the city received the consideration de-
manded viz; street railway, and further
more would not have received such con-
sideration in the absence of the exclusive
privilege. They further claim that the
change of city from second to a first
class city could not in any way invalidate
their contract. From the consideration of
this subject Mr.. Vermilion passed on to
his second proposition, which was that the
Wichita Street railway had the exclusive
right to the use of the center of Market
street by reason of a franchise granting
them the center Internationally, which
franchise they had availed themselves of
and already occupied the center of the
street. He cited cases where a second
built, presuming both compan-
les TO have equal rights, and were forced
10 take one side or the other of the center
track already in use.