The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1897-01-26

the bill for several reasons. In part he
said: II do not think the rest of the State
should be dragged into a controversy De
tween the city of indianapolis and the Citi-
zens' Street-raiIway Company. If the
claims of the advocates of the bill are right
and the relief asked for Is proper ana
should be granted. il can easily be done
without affecting the rest of the State"
This could be done, he said, by making an
act supplementary and in no way amenda-
tory TO the act of 1851, limiting its appilca-
ton to cities of 100. 600 inhabitants. This
would not amend Section II or the original
act, but would change the law generally Tor
all cities over 10000. in no way aI1ecting
the granting of franchises by smaller cities
and towns or by county commissioners. His
only personal objection was 10 the PROVISION
that no contracts for the use or streets ana
alleys shall hereafter be made for a longer
period than thirty years. Mr.. Henry re-
garded II as perfectly evident that such a
OF street-ralways in smaller towns OF the
State, as such investments would not De
made remunerative. longtime franchises
he regarded as almost Indispensable for In
terurban roads, as they nave TO compete
with steam roads having perpetual IRAN
chises. In his part of the State, he SAID,
there is a growing demand for interurDan
roads. The short time limit. he thought.
would prevent their development and snouId
not be adopted. The communication closed
with the hope you will amend the bill
either by making il entirely supplemental
to the present law and limiting 1T to cities
ana towns OF over IvVVo innaDroanS; VI ~
Sll 1hlllS Oul III I'LL "a
Mr.. Van Osdol expressed a desire to pre-.
sent further facts for the consideration of
the committee if another hearing. were TO
be had. He was informed he would be notl-
fed of any further hearings.
At the concluding session of the commit
tee, held last night. the first talk was made
by a. j. Turner, of Philadelphia, a director
of the Citizens Street-railroad Company.
He objected 10 the bill seriously, because II
gave to the mayor power 10 Tx the ap-
praiSement of the cOmpanyS property. lie
said the bill was without a parallel In the
State. Mr.. Turner asserted the mayor
would bear him out in the assertion that
since his connection of a few months Win
the company it had been in an attitude or
willingness TO do anything reasonable tnat
the city might ask. After reviewing all the
things the company had done for the city,
transforming its system from boo-tall mule
cars to an electric system. he suggested
that If the committee wanted TO be honest
the way to treat Senate bill No. 81 was TO
burn it, as it is not fair. If there was a
feeling on the part of the that
the company had been making too much
money, he asked why 1T would not DE the
proper thing for a commission TO be APP
pointed to examine the books OF the COM
pany, discover just what 1T is doing ana
what its profits are and then report PACK.
recommending such Legislation as might
seem warranted.
I'VE object. and always will object said
he, Ito having our property taken away as
if we were highway robbers.
He declared that the company is Wiling
and has always been willing to pave De-
tween it's tracks. MIR. Turner ended his re-
marks by again urging the appointment of
a commission TO discover the facts. lie de-
clared the object was too serious a matter
and involved too large interests to be set
tied at two meetings of the committee.