The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1893-05-17
ATTACK ON THE FRANCHISE
City Company Denies The Legality Of
the Transfer from ths Old Company.
Company from Occupying the Streets
Of the City COmpany'S Route

morning filed suit against the Citizens
Street-railway Company ard the Citizens
Street. railroad Company for an injunction
and to quiet title. 1t is sought by this suit
to settle beyond all dispute the rights of
the companies to occupancy of the route
known as the north-and-south route.
The'cemplaint commences with the usual
allegations of incorporation OF both the
plaintiff and defendant com paDIes and sets
up the passage of the original street Car
ordinance IN 1864 and the construction Of
the Citizens Street-railway Company in
pursuance thereof. and continues to say
that the company did not lay down or
operate q line over the routes herein
after mentioned and described in the ordi-
nance of the date. May 3. 1898. The COM
plant then alleges the organization of the
Citizens Street-raiIrosd Company In April.
1883, and thereafter. to-wit. on the Gath
day of April, 1888. the old Citizens CON-
pany meaning the Citizens Street-rall-
way Company assumed to sell and the
new Citizens company meaning the Citi-
zeps' Street-railroad Company assumed to
buy all the property OF every description
belonging TO the old Citizens company,
which the old Citizens company assumed
10 convey to the new Citizens company by
deed of grant and assignment TO the new
Citizen g. company, including the right or
franchise to operate l!s cars In che
streets of the city for the uneXplrod Dor
fion of it's said term or license. That the
old com papy was impotent TO grant, sell or
assign it's said franchise. for that there was.
has been and Is now no law or statute IN
rbe tateofIndian enabling. authorizing or
empowering a street railway company to
sell. assign or transfer Its franchise to any.
OTIS: Tor was there. has been or 10 there any
law IN the State of Indiana authorizing she
said new Citizens company to purchase.
AXE, acquire, hold or use q franchise as
sumed TO be taken as q grantee or assignee
from any other inc Dr. porated street railway
COMPANY. Nor has there been At any time
n etatuJe or law in the state OF Indiana au-
tborizing OF permitting the city of Indian
apolis Ia municipal corporation organized
under the general laws OF the State for the
incorporation OF oities) TO approve. ratify
or confirm the pretended assignments OF
said franchise by said old company TO the
said new company"
General ordinance No. 60. of 1883. provld.
Ing for the use of electric power, Is then set
out III tull. and followed by ale cations
that. at the time OF the passage OF the orig
inal ordinance, in 1864. the city had u pop
ulation of only 1000; but that at the time
OF the passage of the new city charter. in
1897, 1t hat grown TO a city OF 5000 in
habitants. with an area of twenty-five
square miles. and having within it's cor
porate limits streets aggregating three
hundred miles. and at this time the most
of the lines operated by the new company
were operated with animal power. The com.
plant then alleges that, immediately after
the passage of the new charter. the new
company began TO agitate the question OF q
now franchise. and the officers of the COM
pany approached the proper city authOri-
ties. and indicated and decinred that they
desired TO acquire q new franchise. and de-
sired 20 propose terms, and asked the city
authorities 10 make an offer of sale of such
franchise. The complaint then goes on to
recite the various steps taken by
Council until the granting of the
franchise 20 the City com pany and the rat
hceEon by the Council of the contract en-
tered into with IL by the Board OF Public
Works. by the terms OF which contract the
City company Is required to have q given
route, known as the nOrth-8Dd-sout route,
in operation within q specified period OF
time. and by virtue OF which contract the
City company claims the right TO occupy
the streets named In that ronte: it alleges
that neither of the CItlzens' companies
ever laid any route to the city limits north
from Washington street, rs provided tor IN
the n-orth-snd-sonth route granted the City
company, nor had IL occupled any portion
| of the south end of that Route except the
four squares on South Pennsy ivanla street.
between Washington and South streets,
which was abandoned long ago.
fFhe ordinance prohibiting the cutting
into permanently improved streets without
the consent of the Board OF Public Works
Is then SGT out IN full. Then follows a re-
cital OF she entry upon the north-and south
route 10y the Citizens company IN the night
time. while the grant of the route TO the
Clty company Was pending in rhe Council.
and allegations that the acts OF the Citi-
zsns' company In this respect were not bona
tide ana IN good faith. and that 1t Is not
entitled To keep or have possession of the
route OF any part of IL. but Is bound to
yield Its wrongful ana unlawful possession
10 the City company, and remove It's rails,
Ohstructions, materials and the like from
the n~orth-and-south route. TO the end { hat
the City Company may build and operate
| the said lana. Then follows a recital OF the
building by the Citizens COMPANY of short.
-IsconneCtAd stretches OF track upon
various portions of the n~orth-snd-south
route and other streets. which IL was
thought the CITY company would BE- au-
thOrIzed Co occupy.
The notice of the City company TO the
Citizens company to vacate the nOrth-and-
south route Is then produced IN copy. The
Citizens com pany. il Is alleged. paid no at
tention TO this notice, and the City was
compelled TO bring suit against II 10 Ell
JOIN It from proceeding with the work. but
no attention was paid 10 the suit. 1t Is
then charged that the defendant. I'm
furtherance of it's policy TO harm and in
jure the plaintiff. gives out and publishes
that 10 has the sole night to the line and
the City has no interest, right or title in OF
10 such line" The City company claims
the sole right 70 occupancy Is vested IN
them. but the Citizens company will re-.
pei by force and arms any attempt by it 10
lay its tracks along the route. and in pur-
suance of its policy the Citiz.n's
company" il is alleged, "hss entered
upon other streets and street
crossings where no tracks are or have been
laid. and have LAID therein segregated
portions of track" as examples of which
the following sfreets are named: New
Jersey. Maryland. Union. Bellsfontaiu1
Delaware. New York and Alabama streeta
The taking possession of those streets. is IL
charged. IL for dishonest purposes. and the