Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1892-12-16
THE LIE WAS PASSED.
Dr.. Clifford and Solicitor Elphin-
stone in a War of Words.
CHARGES AND COUNTER CHARGES.
A fession Of Allegheny Select Council De.
voted 10 the Fight.
THE WORK OF A SIMPLE RESOLUTION

Last nights meeting of Allegheny Select
Council was the liveliest in the history Of
that organization. The meeting gave itself
up entirely to controversy between DR..
Clifford, the member from the Sixth ward,
and George Elphinstone, the City Solici-
tor Every member of the Council was in
his seat, and the extraordinary perform
ance of the session was witnessed by
crowded lobby. In the controversy be-
tween the two gentlemen the lie was
passed, and at times during the discussion
isticuff was imminent.
Tho trouble grew ont of the resolution
compromising the city's claims against the
Pleasant Valley and Federal Street Rail-
way Company and the Pittsburg, Manches-
ter and Allegheny Railway Company. This
matter has been before the Auditing
Committee, the Finance Committee
and Councils for year. The
City Solicitor has written numerous
opinions on it and several sub-committees
have investigated it. Finally the sub
Finance Committee prepared report in
favor of compromise, and at the last meet
ing this report was ordered printed and
sent to all Councilmen, which was done.
The Pleasant Valley compromise was S14,-
500 and the Manchester S6,S66 S5, in full
of all claims to July /, 1892.
Clifford Opposed the Compromise.
DR.. Clifford vigorously opposed the COM
promise. He read carefully prepared ar
gument against the resolution, in which he
claimed that the compromise would prac-
tically rob the city of over 100000 He
charged that City Solicitor Elphinstone had
not rendered fair or legal opinion on the
question at issue, and he insinuated that the
City Solicitor was owned by the street car
companies.
Arthur Kennedy had been called to the
chair while DR.. Gilliford was reading his
paper, at the conclusion of which Mr..
Elphinstone was called in, and IN a rather
pointed way defended himself against all
the charges made. In his argument DR..
Gilliford said:
protest against the adoption of these
resolutions of compromise with the street
car companies The loss to the city is too
| great. cit is not as the committee reports O
compromise bv the Pleasant Valley of s9s,-
| S74 so for $l4, 500 and on the part OF the Man
! chester Company of $l5,643 20 for $6.S6s SS.
D; 1t is %eompr0mise on the part Gt. Of tn the
| 325 "a by the payment of $l4 500 and on the
| part OF the Manchester Company of n debt
| of Sl6l,053 70 by the payment of So. 1853 50.
The committee have not taken into &C.
count the claim of the city of $40 900 against
| the Manchester Company, and S45:0O0 against
| the Pleasant Valley road on account OF the
| tax on stock dividends. Yet, this COM
promise would bar the City Of Allegheny
| IRON any action for this claim. These two
companies have in their capital stock about
$3,70O,000, which is represented entirely by
tile value of street rights which have been
presented to them by the city, and they
refuse to pay the city even the small
dividend tax, when stock representing the
value of these street rights is issued as
dividend to the stockholders.
The Value of the Franchise.
If this new issue of stock did not repre-
sent something of value which had accrued
as profit to these companies by securing
valuable franchises from the city, then the
companies have violated the provisions of
| the constitution of the State and have for
| feited their charters by issuing it. Only self
| interest, in my judgment, can lead anyone
| st1tution and laws differently. Outside OF
| the claim for stock dividend tax, the other
| taxes assessed against these companies
| and unpaid is $53,278 81, and the
| dividends is s2S9 27S 81, and yet it is pro-
! posed to compromise ior the paltry sum of
$23, ,265 SO. Il sum very paltry and insignif-
franchise granted by the city. Either the
city should test the case i'll court
| or receive about seven or eight
| times as much in compromise. The
| question of the rights of the city in such
| cases should he raised and settled for the
| present and Iuture by the Court. Such de-
| cision would be worth more than any possi-
BILE cost that might accrue and besides it
| would vindicate Councils of subserviency if
| not veniality in dealing with the street car
| companies.
The amounts admitted by the Manchester
| Company through all of their officials as
! correct, and the payment of which was not
| disputed, amount up to July, 1872, to Sll,-
4SS SO, vet this resolution would compromise
| at st, S6S So The dividend tax reported by
| tho auditors December %, 1891, on stock
representing surplus ca rnings divided as
stock prior to the lease to the traction
as correct by officials of the company,
and it was stated by the officials of
the company that they would pay it. The
amount of $lG00 car tax on Union line and
ST. 600 car tax of Northside line and 81. 900 for
street cleaning was admitted to be correct
and payment not disputed. Since then to
July ], 1892, there has accrued on the Union
line not less than $500 and Northside line
$500 and street cleaning tax $500 and a car tax
on the T., A. & NJ. of S2,OS0.
Dissecting the Proposed Compromise.
This SII, ,46S SO does not include any part of
the car tax of So. 5S4 SO, which was reported
buy Auditors report of December %, 1891 and
which the Manchester Company disputed,
nor any part of the claim of $4,000 dividend
tax on issue OF stock through the Traction.
The $ll, ass SO less the proportion that has
ccrueu from the same sources from July l,
1891, to July !. 1892, represented what the
Manchester company admitted and was
willing to pay in January, 1892. Truly, til
street car companies have kind, If not disin-
terested, friends in Allegheny Councils. The
charge that the auditors had charged
double car tax on the Park Passenger
and Peoples Passenger lines is not correct.
These two companies operate under two
distinct ordinances, but only one company,
the Park Passenger, was charged with car
tax as the report will show. 1t Is also
| charged that the Perry street and Troy Hill
company were charged street cleaning
tax and had been only in operation
| one month. 1t may be true that
| their cars had only been running
| one month prior to July of that year, but
| how long had the street been occupied by
| their tracks, and besides the ordinance re-
| ouires the report to be made under oath the
| first day of July OF each year, and makes no
| allowance for past years. 1t comes with
| bad grace for rich corporation to
| claim that they are entitled to greater con-
| sideration and leniency than poor express
driver or carter, who is required an
nually to take out vehicle license during
the month of May and in default thereof
have an officer arrest and drag him before
q magistrate and compel him to pay fine
in addition to his regular license fee, even
though he had owned his horse and wagon
but one day before the time required for
him to report and pay his license. The law
should apply to the rich corporation the
same as the Door individual.
Delaying the Sub Committees Report.
The report of this subcommittee, with the
opinions of the City Solicitor. and these
resolutions were ordered printed and sent
| to the members of Councils one month ago,
vet it was only received by the Councilmen