The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1896-01-12
TACOMA RAILROAD FRANCHISE.
Proposed Forfeiture Discussed and
keierred to oonlmIttee.

Tacoma Jan. 1t-Speci8l-The most i'm
portant matter discussed by the city coun-
eli today was the resolution introduced last
Saturday by Councilman j. w. kleeb. III
recting Mayor orr and the board Of public
works to remove the tracks OF the Tacoma
Railway q Motor Company from South
Twenty-fifth street. The resolution was
referred 10 the council In committee OF the
whole FOR action az o'clock today. The
contention of the council Is that the motor
company, having chosen. in ISIS, TO opcr-
ate its lines on South Twenty street,
has no right 20 Twenty-hfth street. In the
original franchise the company was given
the choice OF these two streets. In 1890 the
track was torn up and Laid on Twenty-fifth
street AZ the request OF the majority 81 the
residents in the new addition trayersed by
the lines,
A great deal more t8an tho right OF the
company 20 operate its lines on Twenty
NTH street is involved IN the controversy
however. The council has recently re-
peaied the franchise OF the company over
several important streets. including Divis-
ion avenue. South Seventh. Ninth Nine
teenth. Twenty sixth. from the Puyaluu
reservation TO East + street, North G.. u.
L. NJ and O streets. The company made &
strong effort TO effect settlement with the
council before the repeal ordinances came
llp for final passage. but 10 10 await Ee-
ceiver Mitchell. OF the company; Attorney
.rs, and Attorney James II. Ashton. rep
reseuting the stockholders. have appeared
before the council committees * various
times during the past few NsckS ard have
exhausted all available means toward bring
ing about IA compromise The repeal ordl-
uunccs were all fathered by Councilman
I<leeb OF the Sixth ward. who has persist
entity opposed tho company I'm all mattcrs
relating 10 lis franchise. The franchises
ranlcd were repealed because no tracks h8d
been buHt On the streets named. although
~ the present time there Is no demand for
them a6i Hines built On them could only
be operated al q loss
Councilman klec4fs resolution directing
The arbitrary removal Il the companv's
tracks frem Twcnty~ufth street came up
f'r action today aud caused 81 prolonged
debate. ii wa evident the council was 3i-
Nl3cd uH tho question so3uc members char
nctcr.sluE the measure ~ an cxtrrrnc eu+
Receiver Mitchell was present art. being
asked % state tae company position. said.
4 am thoroughly satisfied some pacific
settlement of thls matter OBJ A}Sluess pr;n-
Ciples can Zee Utdo wh.rh VIII caviste the
the necessity fnr the passage on tns rss1-
luton. \ avn simply an sfHcvr of fac court
as 0uv OF tht receivers ~ tne grspaTtv ant
certainly On uoJ desire 20 tresTs~s au the
cltN's property. lr It shall hc determined
that We haNr Uo lawful r-Eht % operate our
nnes on TWeotv-tffh street we shall ar
once move FheU. HaI HHtli thI- question l~
settled I 90 NOT thluk sine council should
arbitrarily -snward 1913 ta va,ltr W so
not ask uor1 laan Wlst We are Tvehuftliy
entitled 20 8af tf 70 81 shown Ffs company
has m claim q tnt TWtrtv-Ufth street
franchise thsn the track shalt rv Erta.a
an Twsufy-sfNth street. Eerar "rr fse as
sertion taat c1r fvsu-a.~sa ortstrt 4u,
other l0r~ trcm h.7s tutt into taa e.tN
from the uat<. I VII eRv tsst Wc ar.af.
fearttie Hti -utne q new h-r 1rs0l ttsr It..