The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1897-02-16

Il l.
Senator Hubbe.l opposed the amendment.
| de said that on hearing IL read II sounded
fair enough. but when sounded ii struck
| argument for il on the basis OF the con-
tention that IL would create competition.
| The bill itself. he said. provided for this
! without sfy amendments. II provided that
! at the expiration Of tie contract the Coun-
| Gil she uld make new contract with amy
| company that submitted a favorable, Irols-
| OsitIon. What is there TO prevent anv
company which may so desire TO go into
! competition under the law as IL Is to-day?''
| he asked. He said that there was not a
| word in the bill to prevent them from CO.
ing into "A fair and open competition. An
eloquent plea for three-cent fares had been
made. he said. He asked what there was
IN the bill TO prevent the Board OF Public
works from making a contract limiting the
fare 10 cents.
What is there In Bill 81 that will prevent
| the city from demanding concessions-pav-
ing between tracks, cheap fares and othe-
IKE benefits? The claim is made that the
amendment will give the city broader
rights. / want TO know If Senate Bill 81 or
Ihe law as II now is prevents the cry from
hxing conditions on which its franchises
VIII be given. / do not believe that the
country is full Of scoundrels. We have no
right TO believe that the Board OF Public
Works Will fail to perform it's duties
Senator Hogate denied that IL would oe
possible for the Citizens Street railroad
| company TO ccme and bid under the exist
ing conditions, but he said that the bill
absolutely prohibits IL from so doing. lie
regarded the amendment as being in the
spirit OF fair dealing. Ii would not be in
the spirit of fairness to ostracise corpora
lion He said that the press told the Son
ate mat III anybody voted against the bill
ne would have To explain his vote. We
are told that no outside senator has any
right TO NEEDLE I'm this question. Why,
tnen, rot get out and let the Marion county
senator's pass ito He took ZIP the argu-
ments or the attorneys OF the Citizens
| pave between the tracks asserting that il
mad lived up to its contract
senator Hogate exhibited considerable
familiarity with the City Company's con-
tract referring 10 the fact that IL did not
provide for Scent fares. but fixed the low
est price at six for quarter. lie also re-
| ferred 20 the fact that S000.000 would be
| earned IN thirty years by the company. He
| thought that the poor men ought 10 reap
| the benefit Of any concessions that might
| be made in consideration of a franchise
| the city treasury.
Are you talking about the amendment
| or the bill?" asked Senator Hubbell.
Senator Hogate closed his remarks with
of the bill. which he doubted. because il
| violated the provision i'm the Constitution
| which prevented the Legislature from
granting special rights TO one citizen not
| given TO another. The street-rairoad COM
pany was an artificial person.
SENATOR HUGG'S ARGUMENT.
Senator Hugg said that he hoped the Sem
ate would forgive any earnestness that
| might be exhibited from the senator's from
| Marion county. "All we ask is that you
help the city of Indianapolis get its rights,
help us free the city from the company
that has held il by the throat for fifteen
years. When we have to deal with a COM
pany that only lives up to the provisions
of the contract favorable to it. we GER
tainly have a right TO be i'm earnest The
company came into this city and 10y Jug
! glery with the Council has escaped from
| paving the streets. Go right down here on
| Washington street and wherever its right
| OF way has been paved the State of In
diana mas had the price 10 pay. Give US
| this extension and we will pave they said.
| L have the original afdavits made by the
men who were in the Council at that time
| in which IL is shown that such allegations
! were made i'm the effort to get the extern
sion" He said that the city senators had
seen the actions of this company in season
ana out ana were In position TO better
understand the case than those from out
side. The bill, he declared. did not search or
| simply placed the right to give a franchise
| in the hands of city that best knows it's
own needs; He said that the question had
| the Citizens and City companies He VEN
| tured the assertion that if il were put 10
vote " per cent of the people of the city
would favor the latter. The senators from
Marion We're simply asking relief from the
corporation that was defying the people,
and he referred TO the efforts of the COM
pany two years ago. when a strong lobby
was IN the Legislature lighting the bill TO
compel it TO pave between its tracks.
| Shiveiy's criticisms. stating that no refiec-
ton was meant by what he had said. lie
| declared for the city of indianapolis and
the people of Indianapolis that the amend
| ment ought not TO pass. He reviewed the
circumstances under which the contract
furnished a bond of slco0e0 TO carry out its
| provisions. The proposed amendment would
make the carrying out OF that contract inn
possible, for it required new letting of
| the contract. He predicted that this would
make way for the two companies TO get
IN @heArC hat gf Ia
| The city would become the tool OF the two
| other I'm possession of the streets
Senator Gostlin asked why n third or
| fourth company might not be formed.
Senator Hawkins said that there was
nothlng TO prevent another company from
coming in, but he said with decpsarnest-
ness; you know that no other company
AS TO competition he said that the fact
| that the city had made a contract with
the City Company would not preclude il
| from making another, as the rule that no
city had right to grant an exclusive
franchise WIS Well recognized. The very
purpose OF the bin was TO place the COM
pany In a position compelling II 10 come
to the city with proposition. There was
| nothing in the question Of constitutionality
| OF the bill, there was nothing In the
| Constitution 10 prevent this sort OF iegisla-
ton. IF this amendment is adopted" he
said. you might as well strike out the
Senator Wood closed the argument of the
morning, urging the adoption OF the
! amendment ne purpose or Sle measure
was 10 Kill the present corporation and sec
ond. to give life 20 a new one. Tie City
/ Company, he said. did not belong to the
city, but TO body of men that would he
/ as .'bloodless. soulless and mercenary'' as
| the present corporation. He renewed his
plea for 3-cent fares.
Senator Drummond inquired II the city
1 could not, under the present law fix the
| fares 2t 3 cents Not in a contract al
ready entered into" said Senator Wood
! He argued that, the City COmpany's
! contract had been limited 20 a maximum OF
! cents. the contract could not be changed
| Cannot the 'bloodless corporation make
! a new agreement and agree 10 lower fares
! instead of paying 1919 per cent. OF its earn
! ings into the city treasury
| Il will say TO the senator from Vigo that
| they can. but"
lis it not a fact" said Senator Newly
coming TO his rescue. that a reduction OF
| fares TO cents would amount to 30 per
| cent. OF the earnings and that the COM
pany would not trade in order 10 save l2lz
! per cent. ?"
| 1T is said Senator Wood.
| After some further argument there were
calls for the question. and the vote was
! taken as recorded above.
DIFFERENT IN AFTERNOON.
| In the afternoon Senator Wood offered
another amendment embracing the main
features Of that quoted above in addition
TO which there were provisions tackled on
| that when any new contract was about 10
| be let by the city IL should embrace a pro-
vision for three-cent fares The amend
ment also provided that any new company