The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1893-04-27
Clause in the Old Contract Expressly Binding
the City Not to Make Any Grants That
Would Impair Its Rights.
Mcdonald and His Associates Acquire
Controlling Interest.
Holt Made q Director-Building the Broad
Ripple Line-New Company Has
Formulated No Plans.
WAS THE NEW FRANCHISE LEGAL

Clause In the Citizens Charter Upon Which
1t Bases It's Confidence.
The following clause in Section Is OF
the ordinance granting the right to the
Citizens Street-railway Company to OPP
erate its cars in the city Is one which will
doubtless soon come very prominently be-
fore the city and before the public:
The right to operate said railway shall extend
to the full time OF thirty years from the passage
thereof. and the said city OF Indianapolis shall
hereby Granted TO said company shall extend
grant To or confer upon any corporation or per-
son any privileges which will impair or destroy
the rights and privileges herein granted to the
said company.
The words. ito the full time of thirty
years." may safely be construed to read for
thirty-seven in view of the amendment of
1850. The section Is modified by a prOyisO
that the city may grant u franchise upon
any street wherever the Citizens company
declines, at the request of the city, to put
In a line. The city has made no snch re-
quest before granting The recent fran
cnlse.
The foregoing clause is doubtless the
rock upon which the Citizens company
rests and the warranty for the gong ahead
with the work it is now doing. The aues-
ton has been referred TO several attorneys.
and they are of a unanimous opinion. One
of them said: There is little question in
my mind but what this clause will settle
the whole matter. Under it's provisions !
do not see what right the city has to let q
contract of q franchise to any com
no matter how favorable it may be, There
Is no question in my mind but whst the pro-
gs of the last few weeks IN the Board
of Public Works, the Mayor and the Council
are ILLEGAL. and that q court would declare
the contract granted TO the new City Rail-
way Con pany an invalid one. If il Is
valid. then SO are the ones given 80 the old
Dudley company and the old O'Nei. COM
pany. L do not see why they are not as
much in force now as is the one granted to
course. matters of law. but ] believe that
the position which / have stated would be
sustained by q court" The Dudley CON-
pany came to the city a few years ago. at
the time when tn pid transit was first talked
OF, and asked the privilege TO put in u
cable road. A grant was given 1t by the
city, and it got so far as TO lay tracks on
one or two streets. Ii was then enjoined by
the courts from further work, and the
city was compelled to turn In n
assist the Citizens company in ousting the
newcomers. The Dudley company is still
In existence. 1t has for il president Upton
j. Hammond. and the most of its stock Is
known to be owned by Tom L. johnson.
Of Cleveland. Ii has never voluntarily
given up any OF It's possessions in the CITY.
Its tracks were taken up by the order of
the Board of Public Works end at it's ex-
pense. and the company was prevented
from carrying IoI"afu It's plans Oy the
city. 1t has been suggested l8t there was
q possibility that this company might turn
mp again. when it got wind of the turn of
affairs that the situation has taken. and
demand that if this new company was
given the right to lay and maintain tracks
lt would insist hat it should be considered
by right of priority.
Some attorneys are of the opinion that
the only way in which the city has q right to
grant a franchise is to wait until the expir-
alton Of the present grant. and should such
be the case the privileges held by the City
Railway Con pany are not worth the paper
on which they are written.