The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1893-04-18
DISCUSSING THE FRANCHISE.
Another Public Meeting Favors Municipal
Ownership of the Plant.

The mass meeting held last night in the
Criminal Court room. under the auspices
of the Central Labor Union. failed OF Its
purpose, and was not in any sense repre-
sentative of that body. There were, by
actual count, seventy-six persons present,
and of these not more than O dozen were
from the Central Labor Union. The meet.
ing was called TO order by ID. +. Kennedy,
who presided aud briefly stated the object
of the gathering to be the consideration of
resolutions drafted by q committee of the
Central Labor Union and adopted by that
body. The resolutions favored q reduction
In fares to eight tickets for rs cents and a
2le-cents fare for school children between
the ages Of six and fourteen years, the
maintenance OF the present transfer sys-
TEN and its enlargement, and opposed the
granting of q franchise for q longer period
than twenty years.
The franchise question was discussed in
all it's phases. but before the discussion had
progressed very far it became evident that
the meeting had been captured by the same
crowd that held forth in the room Friday
night, and whose only thought was to agi-
tate municipal ownership, sidetracking for
their cherished idea all other considera-
tions. Professor Vincent read from the
same table of figures which he had pro-
duced at the meeting Friday night, and
argued for CITY ownership exclusively. EX-
Representative Deery was called upon to
speak. and did so briefly, saying that he
was opposed to the granting of any fran
chise for a period of thirty years.
Councilman White came In late from the
Council meeting and was called upon to
express his views. He said that the pro-
posed franchise was in some respects q
model document, while In others he
thought it had not followed the line of
needed reforms. He was unsltersbly op-
posed to the thirty-years grant, because of
the probable advancement to be made In
that length of time, and did not believe 1t
right to saddle q franchise upon the people
for so long a period. He was opposed TO
munic pal ownership, because he thought
1t would open the door TO widespread cor
ruption and fraud. For the same reason
clause. He said that this would. in his
OPINION. lead to dishonesty and mis-
representations on she part of
tho company's officials. if not
others. He took occasion 10
explain his views on the street-paving
clause. saying that he had been misQuoted
on that point. He did not favor the street
paving CLAUSE. not because he thought it
was en- unjust burden upon the company,
but that il was unfair TO the people and
would be more advantageous to nave the
money hat would be thus required of them
90 into a sinking fund for the purchase of
the plant. On this phase of the question he
favored city ownership. but not operation
by the city, preferrIng the lease system at
o rental of a certain sum per mile.
At the conclusion of the discussion Prof.
Vincent offered a su Institute for the resolu-
tions proposed by the Central Labor Union.
which was adopted. The resolution was as
follows:
Resolved, That we demand the Board of Pub
lie Works 10 withdraw the franchise and proceed
at once TO take steps looking To the requirement
OF the street car property by purchase.