The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1893-06-21
STREET CAR LITIGATION
Citizens Company Files q Cross Com.
plant to the City's Injunction Bill.
Cites Its Rights Under Old Ordinances to the
Streets-The Shaffer- Mason Dispute
Gets Into the Courts.

treet-railroad Company yesterday in the
United States Court TO the complaint made
by the city In it's petition for an injunction
against the Citizens company to prevent
it from building lines on streets allotted to
the new City company. A cross complaint
was also filed and the two documents are
almost duplicates The papers were
brought to tho United States Court clerks
attorney for the company. In the GROSS
complaint IL was admitted that since the
ordinance of 1889. the permit of the
Council has not been obtained by
the company to lay tracks on
Delaware street, the street In question;
but 1T insists that suoh permission was
granted to the company at period long
prior to the ordinance of 1889. The cross
complaint does not admit that the city had
the right to pass the ordinance referred TO.
but the company insists that 10 informed
the city clerk OF its intention TO lay tracks
on Delaware street. This notice the city
clerk refused to ncoept.
The complaint tn at the Citizens company
has committed unlawful or wrongful acts
is strenuously denied. IL is charged In the
cross complaint that tho city has violated
it's contract with the Citizens company in
attempting to prevent the Citizens' COM
street, and In attempting to enforce the or.
dinance of 1889.
The cross complaint then goes back to
the ordinance of 1884 and the second ordi-
nance of 1865. averring that both ordi.
nsuoes were duly accepted by the Citizens
Street-feilrosd Company. A contract was
entered into under these ordinances here
by the Citizens company was entitled to
operate o system of street-railway lines on
all streets then laid out, or others TO be
afterwards laid out. On April T. 1880. an
other ordinance was adopted by the Coun-
Gil, and this one, the com pany AYERS, IL also
accepted. The cross bill then shows that
in April. 1883. the Citizens Street-raiiroad
Company bought all the property of the
Citizens Street-railwsy Company, and that
the Council ratified this transfer. The or
dinance of December. 1885, W az also accept
ed by the company, the CROSS bill sets ont,
pany began TO convert several of Its lines
into electric lines at great expense. Ii Is
further recited that the company now has
force of one hundred men at work con-
verting other lines into electric lines at an
expense of 81, O00, 600: that for this purpose
it has purchased enough rails. wire and
other equipments to constructs forty miles
of line; that it has made arrangements to
build o six thousand-h horse power house in
order TO provide for the convenience OF tn g
further that the Board of Public
Works. the Common Council and other OFF,
ciais of the city deny she validity of the
contract with the company and arc at.
tempting to take away from the company
the rights il has to lay tracks Oh the streets
of the city; that the right belonging TO the
Citizens company has been granted TO the
City company.
Thu cross-complaint then says:
That to further consummate the design on
the part OF the city OF annulling the contract OF
this company. and OF transferring its rights TO
the said City Railway Company, the Council, on
the - day OF May, 1898, passed and enacted
certain other ordinance, granting to said City
Railway Company pretended right to lay
tracks on certain streets named. The
company further avers that by means Of Ordi
nances the said city has, far in its power
annulled its contract with this company; that
most of the streets whose use for streetrailway
purposes Is so attempted to be to said City
Railway Company are already occupied on and
along the only parts thereof available for that
purpose by tracks. mostly double, of this com
pany, upon which its cars are constantly run
ming. That by reason OF the premises
this company is deprived OF the right to earn a
revenue on the said line delaware streetl and Is
unable to accommodate the travelling public
This company charges that the city OF Indian
apOlis Is not only denying the right OF this com
pany TO enter upon streets and cut pavements
but Is threatening that II this company shall dc
So that Ii will the arrest Of its officers and
agents and cause the same to be prosecuted and
fined.
The cross complaint further charges thai
the city. by ordinances and by it's action In
receive the application of the company fol
permit to construct it's line of street rail.
way on Delaware street. and the other
streets named therein. 1.-THE city clerk then
and there acting as the agent of the Coun.
oil and the Board of Public Works,) did
not act in good faith with the view simply
to protection of said streets. but solely fol
the view of accomplishing its purpose 70
Dust this company from the occupation OF
any of the streets of the city which was de.
sired by the CITY authorities should be oc.
cupied by the City Railway Company. &c
which last-named company the permit has
been given to build it's line of street rail
way along Delaware street
The cross complaint then prays the
court to grant temporary injunction
against the city of Indianapolis. restrain
ing and forbidding il from obstructing oil
in any way interfering with the cross com
plainant in the proper, orderly and peacea.
BILE construction of it's line of street rail
way. including the cutting of the perma-
nenJly improved streets, In so far as ia
necessary, upon condition that the com.
psny will promptly restore the streets to
as good condition as before the cutting
and that on the final hearing the injunctlo
be made perpetual