Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1890-05-20
POWER OF THE CITY,
And lis Rights in Relation 10
Granting Traction Franchises.
JUDGE WHITES OPINION RENDERED
And the Big Suit VIII be Taken at Once
10 the Supreme Court,
cOULsON PLEADS GUILTY OF MURDER

Judge white, yestesday, handed down aI
opinion refusing the injunction asked for IL
the case Of the Pitisburg Traction Company
and others against the Duquesne Traction
Company. In il he stated that when he had
concluded 10 refuse the injunction he so in
formed counsel, and suggested that II they
wished they could have a renrgument before
the whole bench. The plaintiffs counsel
replied that as the cases would 20 TO the
Supreme Court anyhow, that would only
delay a fnal hearing. and they wished the
motion disposed OF at once. Continuing, he
states that the arguments were confined to
questions Of law arising from the face Of the
charters. the acts Of Assembly and tho ordi-
naBcps of tho city. Further he said!
.rho plaintiffs have the older charters. They
appealed to tho city for ITS consent 10 their on
tefing aud constructing their rallwRyE. but
were refused. Tho defendant companies,
against their protest. obtained cousrnt 10y
special ordinance. Although the plaintiff com
phnigu Cnunut cutter tho city without its CON
sent, aud that consent has becu refused, yet !
thlnk they have, hy virtue of their prior iran.
Chine. o. standing in court 90 contest any Illegal
nrtH Of the city OF other companies which
Mgnld utterly destroy thrit franchise rights,
TuE QuTsrioN STATED.
"The question. thrn ] think IL thisi Has tho
city been guilty Of illegal acts, IN refusing com
hunt to tho plaintiffs aud granting it 90 defend
ants7 Ia other words, has the city no diHete'
tioh Ia the natter Must II admit The hfst
chartered company or refuse all
"fhese companies derive ni their powers
from the State iiut under the Constitution
and the arts of Assembly creating them, they
cannot enter the city 0r move h step inside tile
city inuits, Ia the rKeT6ise of their franchise
Tghtt without the consent ni the local nutholi-
ties, that n, The city Councils, Tho right to
consent ~ refuse iR given tn the city hy the
Constitution, IL il hn absolute, unlimited, un-
qualified right, which mhy be exercised aTbi-
iiarily, with or without reason, nnd which the
legislature cannot take away, and no court has
puNef tu ooefuO. We cannot therefore con-
pei the city either directly ~ indirectly, tU give
consent 30 the plalntif companies, and without
thht consent they cannot las n Tail in the uity
The question then is narrowed down to this
Are plaintiffs entitled ~ Injunction 30 restrain
the defendants ifuin proceeding to lay tlieif
tracks with tho consent and under The pIdls
nance 81 the titS7 10 this u might hp sum
pieht ~ reply that, ~ thp defendants have 10
lawful authority ~ lay thsit tracks, they will
acquire Thereby ~ legal right fpf thrif rpniihz
uahee, and u hereafter the plaintiffs got tho
GUYS consent they rAH require tho removal Of
HE unlawful structure
There are 40 allegations Ia the bills that the
consent OF tie CITY was allowed 10y mistake,
fraud % corruption, tiut The right Of ths city
70 giFe onHseHt TO tha defendant companies is
denied, Rhd the mode Of giving IT, by special
ordinance, u declared Illegal
rLAihTifFs' PROPOSITION,
"The pr0postoni on which the plaintiffs rely
may be- thus stated That tha consent of the
city can only be given by general ordinance,
and then the company having the prior charter
has the prior right
1T Is strongly urged that 10 give the city a
choice between two companies Is a dangerous
power, which may lead 10 favoritism aud cor.
ruption. True, u may, but IL is not to be pre-
hunod, There may be great evils from
denying this choice, il the company that gets
the hrst charter Tor n short street can prevent
any other company from getting the city's con
sent u may stop through or competing line Of
more rapid transit aud far more advantageous
10 the public or may demand an eXorbitant
price for its charter.
There might be q dozen such companies
each pre-empting n certain street, important
links IN long through route, and each would
have It's price 20 get out of the way. is the city
and the public pOwerless in such case2 When
two or more companies desire 10 occupy GER
tain streets, but differing in route termlni, mo-
tive power, etc, the city ought 10 have a dis
erection 10 accept the one which would be of
the greatest public advantage.
THE injunction is refused"
The attorney for the plaintiffs at once took
an appeal TO the supreme Court, and the record
Tor that purpose was made out yesterday after
noon.