The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1896-04-07

The company further claimed that con-
tract existed between the city and the
company, and that il they were TO DC
asked t. give system OF free transfers
they must be compensated therefor. ~
was urged by the committee, Win per
sistence, that that system OF transfer
tickets would not be satisfactory TO me
City Council or TO the people OF the city
OF Providence, and that a system tna'
did not provide for functional transfer,
and which did provide Tor IN.
erection OF building on Marker
would not be recommended by tho COM
mittee. The chairman then submitted
proposition to the railroad company az
follows. although this proposition was
not the proposition Of the committee,
and the committee afterward declined
TO present IL as its offer 10 the railroad
company, viz:
After the payment of the operating ex'
penses OF the road, TO pay the interest OF
the bonds OF the road, to wit on ss,00o,
600 bonds at per cent, give the city Tree
functional transfer tickets without the
transfer station on the bridge, deduct
per cent. dividend on the so,OOO,OOO oi
stock, divide the profits with the city ana
allow the present reiations in reference 70
highways, removing snow and the pay
ment of the 3 per cent. special tax, 10 re-
main as at present. The company en-
phatically refused to accept that PROPOSE
tion for and on behalf OF the United Irac-
tion Company, but did say that they Were
willing to consider Ii as applied to the
Union Railroad Company.
At the final meeting. held April a, the
company insisted again that this transfer
station must be regarded as an indisrcn-
bic part OF their system OF transfer tick
cts, and the committee declined emphati-
cally to further consider II. The commit
tee, through its chairman, notified the
Union Railroad Company's representa-
tives tnat for functional system OF trans
fer tickets without the transfer station
the committee was willing To consider a
proposition to indemnify the company
therefor. That proposition was rejected
by the Union Railroad Company.
THE POINT OF DISSENT.
To sum up, after thhe various meetings
and conferences, and an interchange oi
thought ana a consideration of the various
plans proposed by the committee, the
Union Railroad Company and others IN
terested, the Union Railroad Company
and the committee failed completely TO
come to any agreement. The majority oil
the committee are Of the opinion that the
Legislature has the power TO amend the
charter of the Union Railroad Company
so as TO comyel the Union Railroad Com
transfer tickets. On that proposition the
undersigned respectfully wishes to enter
his dissent and submit the following brief
upon tnat questions;
Chairman Vests Brief.
1t Is claimed under an act Of the Gen.
eral Assembly entitled, San act concern
ing the Union Railroad Company pass
ed May 8, 1892, and under an act entitled
"An act requiring the Providence Cable
Tramway Company and the Union Rail-
road Company to make additional pay
ments for the use of certain streets in the
city of Providence, and in addition to and
in amendment of San act concerning the
Union Railroad Company, passed at the
January session, A. ID. 1892" which was
passed May %, 1898, that contract was
made between the State and said corpora
tions between said corporations and the
city of Providence, and between The
Union Railroad Company and the holders
of the bonds authorized to be issued by
said Union Railroad Company under
said first mentioned act, and that said
contracts are protected by the constitution
of the United States.
1t is settled by the highest uthority
that the Legislature of State, in the alb.
sence OF constitutional restrictions, has
the power to grant franchises, which
when accepted by the grantees become
contracts within the protection of the
Constitution of the United Staes.
Morawetz, sec. 1861.
Dartmouth College VS.. Woodward,
Wheat. 518.
There Is no constitutional restriction
In Rhode Island. tThe term 'con.
tract Is used in the Constitution in iti
broadest sense. 1t applies to all contrac-
tual obligations, whether they be called
contracts in technical phraseoiogy or
not
Morawetz, sec. 1049.
The State has the power to grant fran
chises and also exclusive franchises, and
when accepted by corporation they are
irrevocable contracts.
Thompson, sec. 5393. The Bingham
ton Bridge, 3, Wall, 81, 7S, 50, New
Orleans Gas Company vs. Louisiana Light
Company. 115, u. $ $50.
This was case where a gas company
Incorporated in 1885 with the exclusive
privilege OF making and selling gas in
New Orleans and vicinity up to April 1,
1875, and another gas company was in
corporated In 1870; with the same ex-
elusive right for 30 years from April J.,
1875. in 1875 the two corporations were
consolidated. The Constitution OF
Louisiana of 1879 provided that the mon
opoly features In the charter of any
corporation existing excepting railroa d
1t was argued In the case that the sup.
plying of a city with Illuminating gas
was business OF a public character which
had relation to the public comfort, and
In some sense to the public health ana
public safety, and was an exercise OF the
police power and that IT was not within
the power of one Legislature to restrict
the powers of a subsequent Legislature in
respect to those subjects.
I: The Supreme Court of the United
States, however, held that the exclusive
franchise was protected by the Constitu-
tion of the United States, and another
corporation was enjoined from manufact-
uring and selling gas in New Orleans.
Under the authority OF this case, how
ever, 1t would be competent to require a
street railway company u attach tenders
to their cars for the public safety.
New Orleans Water Works Company VS..
Rivers, 115. ". 5. GA.
The New Orleans Water Works Com
pany was granted the exclusive privilege
Tor 80 years, from 1877, OF supplying the
city of New Orleans with water from
the Mississippi or any other stream or
river by mains or conduits, for which
,~,rn1so x,ae ont hnrt1 ad 20 Ia ,,t,ao a.,