The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1897-06-12
This Means that the Charter of the
Citizens Company Expires
i'm January, 1901.
A WIDE-SWEEPING DECISION
NO CHANGE IN FHE RATE OF FARES
TO BE MADE AT PRESENT.
1t Remains at Five Cents Until the
ShOwaIter Injunction Is Dis
solved or Modified.

The Supreme Court of the State handed
down decision yesterday sustaining the
law enacted last winter limiting street-car
fares in this city to cents. The deeision
is the unanimous opinion of the court,
and written by Judge Monks.
Three-cent fares were the rule for several
days while the application for an injunc-
tion was pending before the United States
Circuit Court. The injunction was granted
and the company resumed the collection OF
scent fares without further resistance by
the people. The decision of the Federal
Court turned upon a provision of the State
Constitution and the attorney general MAIN
tanned that the State Supreme Court was
the proper tribunal to interpret the Con-
stitution of the State.
Accordingly John M. Navin a druggist,
was arrested upon an old city ordinance
imposing a fine for refusal to pay cents
and the case was taken UP, the pleadings
bringing the validity of the new law square
ly in issue. The street-railroad company
declined to participate in the case, though
invited to manage the prosecution Of Navin,
his defense being undertaken by the attor-
ney general. 1t did, however, furnish indi-
vi11al members of the court with copies of
the papers and opinion in the Federal Court
case and an anonymous brief.
In view of the decision yesterday the
counsel for the city will apply to Judge
Showalter, of the Federal Court, for dis
solution of the injunction granted by him,
and whether he does or not, the case will
go to the Supreme Court of the United
States.
In the meantime it is not likely that there
will be any repetition Of the lively scenes
in April caused by the refusal Of the COM
pany to obey the law.
The status Of the 3-centvfare case in the
Federal Court is this: The court has
granted a temporary injunction of a very
sweeping character enjoining the city, the
company and the prosecutor from enforc-
ing the 3-cent-fare act The case has not
yet been set for hearing upon the question
of granting permanent Injunction. Though
the defendants the city, the company and
the prosecutor were ruled to answer on
the first Monday in June, none have an
swered except the prosecutor in whose be-
half the attorney general has filed de-
murrer to the bill of the Central Trust
Company. denying the jurisdiction of the
court over the official actions of an officer
of the State.
It is not an unusual practice for the
courts in a case of this sort to take judicial
notice of the decision of another court and
of its own motion dissolve or modify the
injunction. Should Judge Showater who
granted the temporary restraining order,
not do this 1t is likely that the city VIII,
within the next two or three days, apply
to him for dissolution Of the Injunction.
This would be q much quicker method than
waiting for a final hearing upon the in1unc-'
tion question, which might not come for
several months Should Judge Showalter de-
cline to modify or dissolve the injunction,
the city will appeal to the United States
Supreme Court, and should the injunction
be dissolved the street-railroad company
will doubtless appeal.
In the meantime the city, the company
and the prosecutor are under injunction
from the Federal Court not to enforce the
s-cent-fare law and there is not likely to
be any clash of authority. The company
will continue to collect cents until Judge
Showalter acts, and If his action is In its
favor it will do so until the Supreme Court
of the United States acts. If Judge Showal-
ter modihes or dissoves his order the fare
will be 3 cents during the pendency or the
case in the Federal Supreme Court
PERPETUITY QUESTION SETTLED.
One of the ablest lawyers in the city, who
has followed the street-railroad litigation
closely, talked interestingly of the decision
last evening. '"The decision written by
Judge Monks" said he, 'is not only very
clear and clean bit of legal doctrine, but 1t
covers the street-car case pretty thorough
Iy You will note the declaration that 'ap-
pellant had the power to prescribe the
terms upon which and the time for which a
street-rairoad company organized under
said act of 1861 should occupy the streets
of said CITY but such contract when made
was subject 10 the right of the Legislature
to amend or repeal SAID act At It's dlseretion.
and no contract made by the city with
stree t-railroad company could prevent the
exercise Of such power by the Legislature.
1t is clear, therefore. that said act of 1897
does not impair the obligation OF any valid
contract of either the State or appellant
That means that the city had the right TO
prescribe the time that the company to
which ii granted a contract should occupy
the streets; il means that the right or the
Citizens Company TO the streets expires al
the expiration of the franchise in 1901. When
the case of the City Company was tried in
the Federal Court Judge Baker held that
the right of the company TO the streets ex-
pired In 1901 but Judge Woods decided that
ii was perpetual, subject 10 the will OF the
legislature and as he was the ranking
Judge his decision took precedence. When
the matter was argued In the United states
Supreme Court Mr. Harris urged the Baker
doctrine and General Harrison for the
other side. split He declared that either
the company was there Tor the stated Pc
clined TO take up the perpetuity contention,
and had the word forever stricken out of
the restraining order granted by Judge
Woods This decision to-day declares fatty
that the city had the right TO contract for a
limited period. and, very likely, settles the
question of perpetuity"
Suppose that Judge Showalter should
give fn TO the State court on the question
OF Interpreting the State Constitution, but
still hold the Injunction TO what ground
would IL probably be shifted2'
ITO the questbon OF conllscation of prop
erty Both the federal and State Constitu-
tion provide that a mans property shall not
be taken from him without due process OF
law. The property OF such corporation
consists largely Of its earning capacity, and