The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1897-11-14
CITY COMPANY'S CLAIM
1T FILES AN ANSWER TO THE CITY'S
AMENDED COMPLAINT.
Will Resist Intent of the New Law,
and Asks Court to Declare
Its Charter Good.

An answer to the amendatory and sup
Elemental complaint of the city in the
street-railway litigation in Hamilton couny
was filed by the City Railway Company
yesterday. The answer was filed by At
torney Russell G. King, for Addison C. Har-
ris, attorney of the City Railway Company.
In the amendatory complaint the city al
leges that the company asserts some rights
to the city streets after 1901, when the
charter Of the Citizens Street-railroad
Company expires, and the court is asked
to enjoin either company from asserting any
rights to use and occupy the streets of In
dianapolis after 1901.
The answer filed by the City Railway
Company is quite lengthy document. In
the first few pages the history of street
railways in Indianapolis is recited, includ-
ing the grant of franchise to the Citizens
Street-railway Company. The history of all
Council transactions with that company fol-
lows, copies of the various ordinances that
were passed with reference to it being en-
bodied in the answer including the applica-
ton of that company for a fifteen years
extension of it's franchise after the issue of
$4,000 of bonds. Instead, it is recited, the
Council extended the franchise seven years,
few months past the time when the issue
of bonds would expire. Then it set out the
fact that the Board of Public Works of
the city of Indianapolis, after the adoption
of the city charter, announced that bids
would be received for franchise for oper-
ating street cars in Indianapolis 1t is al
legged that the City Company was then
organized and submitted a proposition,
which was accepted by the Board of Pub
lie Works. A copy Of the contract, en-
tered into between the company and the
city is then set out, including the ordinance
of the Council ratifying the contract made
by the board.
A general denial to the allegations Of the
city that all franchises expire in 1901 is
set up and the company stands on its
rights under the contract made by the city
with it. The answer covers the north and
south line, the line in North Delaware
street, which it was to construct under the
contract with the city, and goes on to show
how the Citizens Street-railroad Company,
assignee OF the Citizens Street-railway
Company, proposed to stop it from laying
tracks on the north-and-south line, by
force of arms and force if necessary, and
speaks of the suit that was brought by the
city to Gust the Citizens Company from
the streets. The City Company alleges that
1t has at all times been ready and is now
ready to carry out the contract it made
with the city and lays the whole blame for
its not doing on the failure of the city
to protect it from the Citizens Street-rail-
road Company.
The City Company asserts that its fran
chse. granted by due process of law by
the city, in April 1898, is still in force and
effect and alleges that it has been at all
times and is now ready. willing and anxious
to carry out the provisions of that fran
chise The company prays the court to
hold that it's franchise is to be in force and
effect after 1901.
Ferd Winter. one of the attorneys of the
Citizens Street-railroad Company, was sur
prised when he was informed that the City
Company had filed an answer to the city S
compliant He said that it had not yet
been determined whether the Citizens Com
pany would answer the amended complaint
or demur thereto. He referred to the fact
answer to the original complaint.