Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1890-05-10
NO WAR OF PIGMIES.
Giant Corporations Lock Horns Over
aQuestion of Rights.
RAPID GROWTH OF TIE EAST END
Shown in an Interesting Paper Filed in
the Traction Suits.
IMPORTANT MATTERS In THE COURTS

Judge White yesterday heard the argu
ments in the case of the Pittsburg Traction
Company, the Ellsworth Street Passenge
Railway Company, Central Transit Com
pany and the Lsrimer Street Railway Com
pany against the Duquesne Traction Com
pany to restrain the latter from laying it
railway on certain streets.
The case opened by City Attorney More
land reading on behalf of the city thu
reasons that operated on Councils in grant
ing the privileges that have been given tt
the Duquesne Traction Company. Charlie!
Mckee, Esq, followed by reading an aft
davit made by c. L. Magee, President o.
the Duquesne Traction Company. Tnt
paper reviewed the growth of Pittsburg in
industry and population. 1t stated that the
records of the Building Inspector show the
estimated cost of buildings erected as fol.
lows:
| In 1856 4O2 buildings were erected, cost SS72.
49S; in 1885, 444 buildings cost S941.617; in 1887
800 buildings cost S. 414 59S; IN 1883, 920 build
ings cost ST. 921 475; in 1885, LIS buildings. cost
| s.. 2.673, 1884,
The City Assessors Office shows that in 1888
the taxable value of property was SS3,0l2 sos,
and in 1889, s49. 9.972,OS4
INCREASE OF BUSINESS.
AS to the business done by the Pittsburg and
Citizens Traction Companies, Mr.. Magee con-
tinued that in 1856 the railway on Fifth avenue
carried 1890, 4E passengers. and in 1889 over
5000. 900 passengers. Its earnings in 1885 were
about $500 per day, and recently it was as high
as 81, 400 day. The Citizens road in 1886 car
ried s. 400 S72 passengers, and in 1882 over 5000,
000 passengers. Its earnings In 1885 were about
500 day. and it now runs as high as $1,000
day.
and property in the East End was entirely due
to the rapid transit street railways, and the IA
cilities furnished by the two cable roads are
now inadequate to accommodate the wants OF
the travelling public. Especially is this true of
the Pittsburg Traction Company. The object
of the construction of the Duquesne Traction
Company was to meet the present and prospec-
tive wants of the people, and it will cover %
miles of railway, while the other two cable lines
nave but seven miles within the same territori-
al limits.
Mr.. Magee added that he believed the object
OF the suit to be to secure monopoly to the
P1ttsburg Traction Company of the travel TO
the East End.
Following the reading of the paper, George
Shfras, Jr.. opened the case for the Pittsburg
Traction Company. He said that they have
rights given them by the Legislature, which
they had not forfeited nor given to the defend
ants These rights were charters to use certain
streets in Pittsburg for street railway purposes.
The defendants now propose to occupy these
streets. thing expressly forbidden by law.
The defendants. he said, must show a legis-
lative grant or charter. and a proper and legal
consent of the city Councils. These PROPOSE
tions, he contended, the defendants had not
met.
TERMS THEM TRESPASSERS.
He said he listened with pleasure to Mr..
Magee's labored apology, in his affidavit for
taking from them rights and valuable fran
chises, individual property by act of Assembly,
and more, claiming certain grants by Councils
to his company, which the plaintiffs have been
unable to get. He contended that the defend
ants were trespassers, and should be enjoined
from such interference.
d. 7. Watson, Esq, came next arguing il
favor of the Duquesne Traction Company. He
said the plaintiffs must show property right
that is liable to irreparable injury to entitle
them to hearing in a court of equity. If the
plaintiffs cannot now get the consent of CITY
Councils to lay its tracks upon these streets
the asfsHaasss AFs Res asiHg fhsm ARy IHjasy
whom they get tho consent and go on with tho
building of their road; As to the Central
to the old company by the city authorities can
not now be urged as being given to this new
company, with its enlarged powers. The city
has refused to sanction this right and they can
not lay rail or move stone till this right has
been given. The Central Transit Company
had such right under the act of 1879, but
never under the act of 1883. which gave it in
creased powers.
The complainants, Mr.. Watson said, claim |
that the city must pass general ordinance by |
which all railway companies may have the |
right to lay tracks on any streets. Under the |
ninth section, article 2. of the Constitution no
street railway can enter on streets without the |
consent of the city authorities. The COM |
plainants have no such AUTHORITY The six
teenth section of the street act of 1889 says no
street, etc., shall be occupied in any manner |
without the consent of Councils, expressed by /
general ordinance. This is Unconstitutional, |
m ypif io1a -
he Constitution,
AS TO DISCRIMINATION.
On the subject of unjust discrimination Mr..
" Watson remarked that the Pittsburg Traction
company never had an ordinance from the city
# Pittsburg. and did the city discriminate
gainst them7
Mr.. John g. Johnston of PHILADELPHIA closed |
he object of the defendants was not to give
he city rapid transit, but, to steal certain
treets He argued that the law requires
,eneral ordinance to determine if a certain
treet shall be occupied by a street railway |
With the requisite safeguards and regulations.
The City Councils are not to determine who
hall occupy the streets. The franchise of the
corporation to occupy the sweets must come
rom the State. If the officials at Harrisburg
Icted properly in granting the second
ranch1se in these cases. 1t meant that 20
upy the same streets, and they come
o City Councils, and bid and barter for the right |
o enter the streets. BE maintained that the |
powers come from the Common
wealth itself, and when a corporation has been |
hartered it alone has the power to construct a
abroad over the street in question and the |
'ower of the municipality is only to say if such |
treets shall or shall not be occupied, The |
that a franchise is worthless until
he corporation gets the consent of Councils is
orrect, but that doesn't say that the plaintiffs
ave not the rights given them by their fran
hise.
AS HE SEES IT.
1t Is, said Mr.. Johnston, a case of CORPORA
ions abrogating to themselves the right to in
erfere with the rights and franchises of in
ividuals and other corporations. 1t is an in
aston of franchise to put a railway on a
treet for which another company has fran
hise, and because the consent of Councils has
OF been obtained by the one does not make it |
he less invasion; and because tracks have |
OF been put down for ten years does not alter
no case. A franchise is not hop, skip and |
imp atfalr-now you see it and the next |
loment you don't see it. Its rights are per-
etual, and a moments cessation would be as |
atal as the cessation of the beating of his
cart to a man.
Mr. Johnston concluded his argument with |
he claim that prior charter gave first claim |
possession of a street. Notwithstanding that |
lie officials at Harrisburg saw ft to grant a |
barter to a second company.
Judge White took the papers and reserved
is decision.
UENT pICuT pArH nm rurrF