The Democratic press. [volume] (Ravenna, O. [Ohio]) 1868-1901, 1894-12-12

The County Commissioners, Prosecuting
Attorney, and three of the Councilmen of
Kent-Dr. w. l. Caris, T. G. Parsons and
Theodore Campbell-held a joint, unofficia
conference in the rooms of the former in
the Court House, yesterday forenoon, to
talk over the various phases and relations to
the public'of the three street railways that
are knocking for admission at the Portage
portals. The law seems to require that be-
fore any such Company shall have the right
to construct its lines through municipality
1t must first obtain consent of the Council,
which in turn must have previously adver-
tised for bids for the right of way. OF course
the consent of the owners of the majority of
the foot frontage must also be obtained. 1t
seems to be plain that the municipal author
tiles have exclusive control of such matters
within their respective corporate limits, and
the Commissioners have exclusive jurisdc-
ton over the balance of the County domain.
1t follows that a town franchise would be
worthless for the purposes of the several
Companies, without one from the County
officials at the same time, and vice versa.
Thus far only one Company, the A. B. c..
Road, or Sieberling people, have asked the
Council of Kent for franchise, and that
body does not propose to toke action in the
matter until all three Companies-the Sic
berling, Babcock-W Walsh, and Ravenna Street
Railroad and Power COmpany-have fled
their applications and had hearing.
The Rayenna Company has received its
property owners for the right of way, and
when the proper time comes, will make ap-
plication to the County Commissioners and
to the Village Councils of Kent and Raven
ma for a franchise.
The Prosecutor thought good way was
for the Village Councils to advertise for bids,
making all their specifications, and then de-
eide what Company they will grant the fran
chise to. This met the views of Commission
er Hubbard and his colleagues, who thought
it would enable them to act harmoniously
with the village, and avoid possible compli-
cations that might otherwise arise by separ-
ate action without reference one to the other.
And right here it may be stated that the
Commissioners are favorable to the project
of street cars for Portage County, but will of
tive to so important a franchise, by what
seems them to them to be for the public
good. AS we understand it, there can be no
appeal from their decision by any Company
refused franchise.
DR.. Carts said, among other things, that
the Council of Kent will require a good
financial standing and ability on the part of
any Company before franchise will be grant
ed it. He said furthermore, that Kent had
no room for two lines of track on her streets.
1t is not at all likely, either, that either the
Council of Ravenna OF the Commissioners
will grant franchises to more than one Com
pany.
The Prosecutor called attention to the ap-
plication of the Sieberling Company to the
Kent Council, in which it was recited that
the Corporation already had the right of way
through the town, exclusive of municipal
highways, and asked for the privilege of ex-
tending its line from the west to the eas
corporate limits of the town, along and across
such highways. The Company, it seems,
had obtained private right of way, but the
Prosecutor is of opinion that even then, no
actual right of way through any portion of
the town, public or private, exists without
the previous consent of Council, and further
more, that the road must actually be con-
structed to the corporation line before Coun-
Gil can grant any extension " franchise.
1t seems very probable that the meeting
will result at least in the Commissioners and
Councils acting together in the matter, thus
expediting affairs and avoiding possible
complications between them.