The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1897-02-12
ATTACKING THE BILL
STREET-RAILROAD COMPANY GETS
ANOTHER LEGAL OPINIOr.
General Harrison, as Counsel for TN q
Company, Argues Against the
New Measure.


zens' Street-railroad Company, has had
printed another opinion by General Harri-
son on the street car BILL 1t will be dis
tributed in both branches of the Legislature
this morning. General Harrison's letter is
in answer to a request from Mr. Mason for
an opinion on the substitute for Senator
News original bill. Mr.. Mason received a
reply yesterday, and at once sent it TO the
printers. General Harrison writes:
MY Dear Sir-Your letter of Feb. : was
received Friday evening. and devoted Sat
urday to careful consideration of the
substitute Senate bill, No. 81. You say that
IL Is stated that the substitute bill was in
tended to avoid the objections which 1
pointed out TO the original bill. If there
Is disposition TO consider, In calm ju-
diciai way, the meaning and operation of
this bill, as your statement would seem to
imply, am quite willing in that spirit to
discuss 1t. / think every disnterested per-
son will agree:
"First-That when 2 street railway sys-
tenn is constructed in a city, under a linli-
tatlon of time, honesty-just common hon
esty-and the public interests as well, re-
qulre that If the license TO use the streets
Is not to be renewed to that company, some
fair method of appraising the value of the
tracks and the plant of the company should
De provided, and that the successor COM
pany should be required to take the prop
erty and pay this appraised value. Would
any one build street railway system under
one loan money opIthf bond of such "a COM
pany, If, at the end OF thirty years the
tracks were to be torn up, the rails sold
as scrap. and the machinery and cars ped
died out? Is it 10 the public interest that
such companies should levy such exactions
as will repay the entire cost of the plant
with interest every thirty years?
'Second-That. if as the time limit APP
proaches the city proposes to sell fran
chise for another like period, the old COM
pany should not be barred from q fair
equal IN
should not anticipate the expiration of the
time limit OF the occupying company by
eight years. 1t has been said that the Citi-
zens Street-railroad Company had a fair
opportunity, in 1893. when the City Council
advertised for bids for the street railway
franchise. 10 compete with the City Com
pany. That. submit, is not true. The city
was undertaking to let a franchise date
from May l, 1883, to use the streets upon
which the Citizens Company had its
tied under the existing ordinance until 1901.
This now undisputed right of eight years
occupancy (nearly one-fourth of the whole
time limit and use of the tracks under the
old ordinance, must have been surrendered
il the Citizens Company became a bidder.
THE statement that the franchise offered
in 1893, and taken by the City Company.
chiSe OF your company in 1901, Is an utter
mistake. If ii were true Ii would condemn
the whole proceeding, for the letting of a
franchise eight years before it could take
effect could have or serve no good purpose.
There was then no provision of law for as
pertaining by appraisenent the value OF the
plant of the Citizens Company. The pro-
posal and attempt of the city was to drive
the Citizns Street-rauroad Company from
the streets then, and TO force 1t either to
tear up it's tracks or to sell them. with the
cars and power houses, to the only person
in the world who was in position TO use
them, namely. the City Company at such
a price as that company might o1er. mat
situation absolutely gave TO the city Com
pany the power to fix its own price upon
the property of the Citizens Company, and
to bid for a franchise upon the hypothesis
that it would acquire plant at a small
fraction of its actual cost L do not see,
i'm view of these indisDutable facts, now
any honest-minded, unprecedented man can
affirm that you had an equal chance, or any
fair chance, then TO compete Tor new
franchise or license The question that pre-
sents itself now is. Shall there be leSlslaton
that confirms the transaction of 1899? Both
these bills have that practical erect ana
seem to have been framed TO that end. If
the effect of this bill We're TO conhrm tne
time limit of your company, and at its
expiration to clean on the STATE, 10 peSln
anew. and to offer an equal ana open COM
petition for r. new franchise to everybody.
and 10 secure TO your company the fair
value of your plant if another company got
the franchise, there could nave peen no ar
gument made against II. but notll.S
seems TO be acceptable that does not con-
firm this unfair and premature contract
with the City Company.
"Third-That any course OF prpceeuing
that provides for. or authorizes, the tear
ing up of all the street-rallway tracks IN
the city. and the necessary interruption
for a time of all stroet-raliway tranlc' Is
absolutely inadmissible.
Il proceed now to uake some comments
on the bill Itself. il consists OF a single
section, in the forir OF an amendment 10
Section u of the general law LOT the IN
corporation of street railways. approved
June A. 1861. The first paragraph or the
amendment IS general IN its nat ;tie anu IN tbe
lates TO and effects all the cities III the
State of Indiana. The amendment consists
in recurring the consent of the City Coun-
ell TO the operation as well as 10 th9 10
cation survey and construction, OF street
railway, before the constructor : begun
II does not confer upon the cities generally
the newer to fix a time limit for the opera
ton OF street railways. unless that power IL
TO be inferred from the use OF the word
operation and the SUBSEQUENT Speeinc
apolis seems TO Justify the implication that
other cities shall not have TINS power. III
the insertion of the word operation con-
fers power to limit the period or opera
ton the power is conferred without lirni-
tation: that Is. a city council might unuer
it. grant a franchise 10 Il street-rallway
company for one hundred years. ouch
would evidently be the effect of a provi-
sion comforting upon city councils the gen.
eral power 10 fix time limit, without any
restriction in the law as TO the maximum
of our large cities desire 10 confer so large
n power upon their city councils.
1.-THE paragraph of the bill am discuss
ing however, says that the consent OF the
civ TO the location. construction and op-
Grafton of a road shall be obtained before
the construction is begun 1t is probable
that this would limit the paragraph 10 new
street-railway organizations. or to the &C.
cupation OF new streets; anc that to
those already existing In the cities or the
State. other than indianapolis, they would
a5 sasrs decide ths under the
as IL WAS. the cities had no power to fix a