The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1893-10-24
ITS STATE CHARTER
Where the Citizens Go. Bases Its
Claim to Perpetual Rights.
Amended Complaint Filed in the Federal
COurt-Criminal Sentences
Court Briefs.

AS predicted by the Journal shortly after
the granting of the City railway charter
the Citizens Street-railroad company has
come into court claiming a perpetual fran
chise. This claim is made in an amended
complaint to the injunctive proceedings
filed in the United States court some time
ago. The company bases its claim to a per-
petuaI right of way to the streets of Indf-
annapolis upon it's charter granted by the
State of Indiana. The company is, how
ever. not operated under a special State
charter, but is simply organized under the
State laws governing street railways. The
State In issuing a charter to the Citizens
railway placed no limitation upon the
right to exist and on this ground it is
averred the charter is perpetual.
Yesterday the Citizens Street railway
through Attorney w. II. H. Miller, filed
an amended complaint in the suit pending
against the City Railway company. The
amended complaint sets out in full the
various street car ordinances since the
city charter was received by the company.
In compliance with the electric ordinance
made in 1889. the complaint cites the fact
that the company has converted a major
portion Of its property into modern and i'm
proved electric lines. purchasing for the
purpose much material in the way of steel
rails. copper wire, etc., and it now claims
that in order to operate these new lines an
additional power house of sixty-thousand
morse power is about to be constructed.
Further IL is averred by the company
that not only has it a right to the streets
or the city-a privilege subject only to al
teration or repeal by the Legislature-but
there exists a valid contract between this
city and the company as to the matters COW
cred by the ordinances cited. Continuing,
the complaint says:
But, notwithstanding the premises the
city by ordinances enacted by it's Common
council and by its Board of Aldermen in
the pretended exercise of it's legislative
power, is now denying the right of your
or tor TO maintain or operate or extend it's
IL s within said city, and is asserting its
ris IT. power and authority at will to stop
this complainant from making said inn
provements and extensions, or even to
maintain or operate the said roads That
In pursuance OF said policy OF denying the
validity OF said contract, said city is now
claiming and asserting that this complaint
is forbidden by certain ordinances, by said
city duly adopted to enter upon any street
not already occupied by tracks in said city
for the purpose of constructing or extend
ing its street-railway lines. to cut or dig
In any street, alley or sidewalk of said
city that has been permanently improved
with asphalt, vulcanite, brick, granite
wooden block or other pavement, for any
purpose whatever, except as said COM
pIainant OBTAINS the consent of said city
authorities to do so; and is claiming and
asserting the right to refuse such permis-
sion or consent at will"
In relation to the contract entered into
by the Council and the corporation known
as the "City Railway Company" the de-
PENDANT In this suit, the complaint further
says, after citing the above-named contract:
And your orator AYERS that said ordi-
nances, and especi lily those granting rights
to the City Rally ny Company, operate, so
far as said city aid it's Council have power
to do to repeal and annul the ordinances
being wholly inconsistent Herewith; and also
to deny and destroy the charter rights of
state; that most of the streets whose use
Tor street-railroad purposes is so attempted
are pe sn5d f Ana og any
parts of said streets available for said
purpose by the tracks, and mostly double.
of this complainant, upon which the cars
are constantly running, many of them
electric cars operated by the trolley system;
and it is impossible that other electric cars
can be operated on said streets, either with
safety to the public or the property of said
companies, without the practical destruc-
ton OF said street as thoroughfares for
travel; that the attempt to operate two
electric lines on the same street would be
so dangerous that people would not travel
on either, and thereby the franchise OF this
company as to that street and line would
be destroyed. And even If two railways
could be operated on the same street the
operation of another line on any street
, where this company is operating one of it's
lines would be greatly to the injury of your
orators franchise and q violation of it's
rights. That said defendant claims that the
complainant has no right to construct,
operate or maintain a street-car system in
the city of Indianapolis. And the COM
plainant AYERS that as matter of fact 1t
was and is the purpose of said ordinances
and of said city enacting, and said de-
PENDANT in accepting the same, that the
tracks of the latter company shall occupy
the very parts of said streets now occupied
by the tracks of this complainant and to
exclude this company altogether therefrom."
The amended complaint charges that by
reason of the city's delay in granting the
Citizens company the right TO cut streets,
etc, Ii has been put to needless expense
and inconvenience from the fact that, in
stead of saving labor and time by laying
a continuous line it has been compelled to
construct the work by squares and short
sections. 1t is stated that before it began
occupying new streets or tearing up pave
ments for construction the company served
notice OF it's intention on the city Further.
and the City Railway Company have by
acts set about TO annul and set aside
contract duly entered into and between the
State and Citizens company under its char
ter and between the city and the Citizens
company; by this attempt 1t is asserted
that the city or indianapolis is seeking TO
destroy the contract in violation of Section
TO- Article V, of the Constitution of the
United states, ana also In Vlolatlon OF Sec
ton 1 of the fourteenth amendment.
In the concluding paragraphs the bill
complains that the City railways actions
are unlawful and void OF equity, and that
by it's action it has done the Citizens COM
pany great injury by creating a prejudice
that will tend TO depreciate its commercial
standing, delay its work and otherwise in
jure its service to the public; further, that
the denial of the City company in COM
bination with the city of Indianapolis, of
the perpetual right of the Citizens COM
pany TO operate it's lines in this city sub
feet to the amending power of the segis-
Iature and to such lawful regulations as
the city may make is hurtful and injuri-
Gus to the complainant In the financial
world. Therefore, the amended complaint
prays that the defendant be required under
oath to specially make answer why the re-
lief PRAYED for should not be granted; and,
further that the defendant be enjoined
from interference with the company or its
agents in the lawful use of the streets.
FINALLY. the amended complaint asks that
| he, do aar.rnat al