The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1896-09-12


signed II was the last one of the fifteen
allowed him to approve or veto meas
ure. The Aitken people not having
shown the required evidence of good
faith. there was no call for his vetoing
the ordinance.
The ordinance had no sooner become
operative than the franchise it contain
ed was in the hands of the Peoples
Street Railway company.
The two years time granted the COM
pany to take advantage OF the privi-
leges of the franchise was drawing to
an end and no move had been made to
lay any tracks. Some thought that the
company would let the franchise go by
default. having killed off the opposition
by buying up their rights. But this
conjecture was anything but close
one. On January l6 1895, the franchise
would become null and void. for the
reason noted above. On December 49,,
1894, an ordinance was introduced ask
ing for few additional streets and con-
tanning Il clause of which the following
is a copy:
Section 6. Whenever said Valley Passen-
pleted the construction Of the lines men-
toned above, or the lines mentioned in
the ordinance. approved the 18th of jan
uary 1893 to which this Is a supplement,
within two years from the approval of this
ordinance. the franchises granted on the
portions of any streets, where such tracks
have not been completed, shall be for
foited to the city.
r,ba ,louca 'sof tho lipac r,apt Toned In
the ordinace approved the 18th day of
January, 1885, to which this is a sup
plement," is what the fight between
the Traction company and the new
Citizens Street Railway company will
come to blows over. The Traction peo-
pie claim that this clause reviewed
the original Valley Passenger ordin-
ance and gave it two years addi-
tional lease Of life. The Citizens COM
pany say that it did nothing of the
kind and that at all events it is illegal
to revive an ordinance with a supple
mentary ordinance.
SOME QUICK WORK.
As an evidence of the Importance
the Traction company attached to the
supplementary ordinance and as an
indication of the exceptional ability of
it's lobbyists it might be noticed that
the revivinC ordinance was introduced
in common council December 13, 1894;
passed frs: and second readings jan
uary >. 1895; passed third reading jan
uary .: went over to select council on
the same night and was referred to COM
mittee: passed first and second readings
in select council. January s. passed
third reading in select council Jaunary
Is and was approved by Mayor Con-
nell, the next day. January l6. 1895, just
two years to the date from the time
when the franchise commenced to run.
Another days delay and they would
have been null and void.
In this revived ordinance, the life of
which depends on the debatable clause,
has continued the franchise for
Washington avenue. ''Thence on Ash
street to Washington avenue. thence
on Washington avenue to Cherry
street" is the way the line reads. There
was hot fight at the time against in
Guiding Washington avenue in the
grant. but like all the rest of the Op-
position it was duly overcome. The
injunction proceedings were brought by
c. ID. Jones.
! In his affidavit and bill of equity Mr..
Jones sets forth that he is the owner of
property abutting on Washington ave-
nue., between Spruce and Linden
streets. said lot being 40 feet front and
extending back to an alley running be-
tween Washington and Wyoming ave-
nues: that Washington avenue has
been paved with sheet asphalt at the
expense of the property owners.
ACQUIRED NO RIGHT.
That the Valley Passenger Railway
company by its articles of incorpora-
tiOn land charter acquired no right to
build or operate q street railway on
Washington avenue between Spruce
street and Linden. That by ordinance
of the city of Scranton duly approved
on January l6. 1893. the Valley Pas
senger company was authorized To
build a street railway over certain
streets, which included Washington
avenue from Ash street to Cherry
street, and includes the block between
Spruce and Linden. but that said per-
mission was invalid in that at the time
of passing said ordinance the Valley
Passenger company had not franchise
to build or construct the same if such
was given by the ordinance without the
franchise. has been wholly lost by rea-
son of the nonbuilding of the same
! within two years of the date of the
passage of said ordinance. The time
| for building the said street railway on
said street. has never been extended
by the city.
Mr.. Jones AYERS further that the Val
| ley Passenger company never obtained
consent to build the line of railway in
! their articles Of association and have
never built Il continuous line of rail
way. but have built only disjoined and
disconnected parts thereof. impossible
To be operated under their charters.
That the Scranton Traction company.
the other defendant. is a corporation
| incorporated on October 90, 1892. for the
| purpose of the construction and opera
| ton of motors and cables and other
machinery for supplying motive power
| for passenger railways and the neces-
| sary apparatus for supplying the same:
| and that on May 4. 1898, the Valley
Passenger company leased all its rail-
/ ways to the Scranton Traction COM
| pany for the term and period of 9e
| years: the said lessor agreeing with
/ the lessee to construct thirteen and
| one-half miles of its railway at once
| and remaining portion when the les.
see should request. the thirteen and
one-half miles of railway to be immed.
lately constructed including that por-
ton on Washington avenue from Lack.
awanna avenue TO Ash street, and in.
cluding the block on Washington ave.
nue. between Spruce and Linden.
That the defendants are now engaged
~ TS1 ~