The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1895-02-03


Mr.. Mckee that money could be secured at
all for the corporation. The city is vigor-
ously prosecuting a suit TO GUST the com,
on the corporation that It would
secure money with which to pave the
streets, unless ii was given a guarantee on
M s II could secure further ered,a. re n :
federal court decision. the future of the
company rested with the Legislature: The
posed carrying the light into the Legisla-
ture, insisting that the battle should be
carried on IN the courts to a termination
The Citizens company was not seeking re-
lief from the Legislature; it merely sought
to prevent the imposition of unpearable
burdens while this litigation was in prog
ress. The paving proposition meant more
than a. million dollars additional expense.
Mr.. Adams, of the committee, asked Mr.
Mason IL street paving was involved in the
recent federal court suit, and when In
formed that 1T was not, stated that this
street-paving question should not be con-
fused with the litigation. The legislator
continued further. explaining that the Cen
to interfere in any manner with the rights
which the courts were ultimately to deter
mine. Mr.. Adams asked Mr.. Mason II 1t
was not unfair TO compel the pennsylvania
street residents to furnish a concrete
foundation and pave for the Citizens com
pany. Mr.. Mason said he thought the COM
pany should pay for the paving between its
tracks.
Then went on Mr.. Adams. why did
not the company offer to pave between the
tracks before the validity OF It's charter
was questioned@'
up and reminded Mr.. Mason that this very
matter had been discussed at the first meet
ing of the directors of the new company
and that the owners expressed themselves
in favor of doing this paving. In answer
to the claim that the company would have
to expend over a million dollars if the
paving Dill became a law. MI. Adams Sug-
gested that nearly all the streets over
p Mnlea me MIR. ommpany re maI hh that are nrope rpw
owners on miles of streets that are now
unpaved and which are occupied by street
car tracks, would clamOr for extensive i'm
Col. Eli Lilly was the last speaker. He
gave a history OF the famous trip 70
ness men procured a numbered concessions
from the owners of the street car system.
concessions the company would have done
a great deal of paving. Col. Lilly was OPP
p to pav se c WhiIe this tn ifti ss a ei Is e on. Ths
on the affairs of the city of
indianapolis will hold another meeting
Tuesday night and consider the Street-car
and other. bills of particular interest to
Indianapolis.
Before Senate Committee Also.
Many prominent citizens were present last
night at the hearing that the Senate COM
mittee on the affairs of the city of Indian
apolis gave to the officials of the Citi-
zens Street-railroad Company. Among those
who were interested listeners, or who took
part in the discussion were Colonel Eli Lilly,
Hon. Albert G.. Porter, W. P. F'ishback,
Louis H. Gibson, w. H. Hobbs, Judge Clay
pool, George w. Sloan, w. H. H. Miller,
Ferd Winter, Judge Ayres, d. p. Erwin, w.
H. English, Councilman Allen, w. G. Coop
er, e. b. M~artindale, George G. Tanner, A.
c. Harris, Justus c. Adams, and J. E. Scott.
H. Sellers Mckee, principal owner of the
street-car lines was also there, being proba-
bly, the most interested spectator in attend
ance.
Augustus L. Mason was the first speaker
before the committee, and his argument
was in line with the address that he had
made before the House committee on the
affairs of the city of Indianapolis at its
meeting yesterday. afternoon, principal stress
being laid on the bad financial condition of
the street-railroad company, and the likeli-
hood that it would at an early date be
ousted from the use of the streets.
Colonel Lilly. who was the next speaker,
much at the hands of the company, con-
sidering the uncertain tenure of their fran
chise. Guarantee the company the right to
was opposed to it. Colonel Lilly expressed
the opinion thai the City company was a
Capt. s. NJ. Shepherd favored the bill.
and observed that when the city wanted his
street improved it was improved, and he
paid the expense or lost his property. II.
r.. Allen, formerly a part owner Of the
street-car plant, gave it as his opinion that
the company. considering the expense in
CURED, was not making any money. E. b.
Martindale said that if the opinion of Judge
Woods, that the charter of the company
was perpetual, was upheld by the United
States Supreme Court, the bill should be
passed and passed at once. He was in IA
vor of such a proviso as would compel the
successor of the company to shoulder the
burden of street improvement if the COM
pany was compelled to vacaJe.
w. p. Fishback said that in selling the
City company a franchise it had sold it a
lawsuit, and nothing else. 1t had sold some
thing it did not possess, and was therefore
no better than a thief. The debate was
closed by Ferd Winter, who argued that
the bill would be unconstitutional, for the
reason that it proposed to impair a con-
tract. If the bill was passed he said it
would be the first time that an Indiana
legislature had enacted a measure that
prejudiced the rights of parties litigant.
Whatever law was enacted it should protect
l~itigants who had acquired rights under ex-
icfinn I we