The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1892-03-08
THE CITY,s POSITION.
It Could Have Applied for Receiver
Further Statement by judge TAYLOR.

Tt Could Have Applied for n Receiver
Further Statement by Judge Taylor.
Judge Taylors statement on Friday last
concerning the reasons which influenced
him in appointing a receiver has been pre-
pared at length in typewriter. and con-
tains the following. not before published.
This part of the statement is of much in
terest, because it treats of the opportunity
the company had for restraining order.
and the prerogative that, in the Judges
opinion. lay within the power of the city
authorities to apply for q receiver. The
Judge said:
We're the people OF the city 20 60 without
stTeetcar service because or the inability fail
ure of the company to make terms with its en-
destruction OF property and the other terrible
resutants at such q contest AS was likely TO fol-
man and woman. answers Itself No! Not un,
less the majesty OF the law had lost its cOmpell-
ing and protecting power For this country is
not only based upon freedom, but upon law
which IL "A necessity 10 freedOm and law ia con-
templated To give and restore order; at least be-
fore n resort TO or calling in the aid of physical
force. The pOlicemans mace and revolver. and
the rifle anu bayOnet OF the military are only 10
be used "a last resort. when the peacabIe en-
gtnery OF the law has failed
The street-railroad company could have ap-
Piled to the court for order To restrain its
piOyes or any others from interfering with its
property and the running OF its ears. The city
OF indianapolis might have instituted judicial
proceedings by which receiver would have
been appointed and the streetrailway lines
operated until the difficulty between the COM
pany and its employees was settled and the COM
pany in n situation 10 fulfill its contract
The city OF Indianapolis had no power to settle
controversies between the company and its EN-
plOyes; and she was under no legal obligation to
let hercitiZens suffer for streetcar service until
such settlement was made when IL SO
heightened out and no prospect OF a speedy ter
minatiOn.
But neither the company nor the city attempt
ed an appeal 10 tine courts. 30 far a. intent can
be deduced from actions. it seemed that both
were waiting until the dispute had reached that
point which would afford an excuse for a display
or the methods or the despotsms OF the old
world
Each citizen OF the city OF indianapolis has an
the contract she has with the streetrailroad
company, and the right 10 have IL performed.
Each and every one OF her citizens may he con-
sidered as stockholders in that street-car
venture; and upon the failure and helpless
ness OF the company. as In this instance. and che
failure or the municipal authority To take legal
action, 4 entertained doubt hut that IL was the
right OF any citizen 10 step in ana his own be-
half and the behalf OF other or his fellow citizens
ask the interposltlon or the court, To get the
benefit or that contract; and II the result reached
further and prevented or ended the existing
strike and the apprehended troubles. much
the better. And concluded that il was Just such
a case or condition or affairs II anV there ever
was or could be. that authorized and justified
the court To interfere and take control in the in
terest OF the public, as we'll as that Of the de-
fsultng company.
did not consider that the prime object OF the
action could he said 20 be To stop the strike nor
90 settle the dispute between the company and
it, employees, bot To restore the car service for
the benefit of the citizens OF indianapolis and
those generally requiring II, and that II. Is al