The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1899-02-28

company to pave the streets between the
Ialls and tracks and a limited space on the
outsl9e. Such q requirement would be an un-
just discrimination against a great majority
OF our citizens. There is no longer any
reason Tor requiring the company TO do this
paving. Ihfs was a proper and just require
ment so long as animal power was used,
put with electric power the paVeTnents are
IN no wise impaired or worn by the company
ana 10 require 1t to do the paving IS to re-
qulre Of il the collection Of a tax. in the
way OF excessive fares from it's patrons who
i've upon streets upon which there are no
INES OF cars to aid in paying for the pave
ment in front of the property of others who
are favored with a, car line. The company
should repair whatever damage it may do,
put beyond this whatever may be eXacted
from 1t for the privileges granted should
be used for the benefit of all the people and
nor for the benefit Of those living on car
lines. There is another provision of the law
which should be amended. 1t is the clause
which gives TO the new company, upon the
expiration Of it's license from the city, in
case 1t is unable to obtain another contract,
the right to tear up and remove its tracks.
Such a power is only aluable to the COM
pany as a club to be held over the people
to extort a new license. 3
Another serious objection to the pending
Dill is that under its provisions the munich
PAL authorities have the power to at any
time extend the term Of the grant. The
measure should be so amended that the city
authorities, within a reasonable time before
the expiration Of the contract, should be
compelled to offer the privilege Of a sue
ceeding term of years, TO the lowest and
best responsible bidder, and to accept such
bid and enter into a contract with the COM
pany making the same"
Mr.. Bynum was loudly applauded from
the center, where the opponents of the COM
pany seemed to be strongest. He, like
others, was interrupted toward the close
of his remarks with cries of Time, time,
Go on, go m" and he was permitted to
proceed. AT no time was the gag rule
applied.
JUDGE HOWE'S STAND.
D.. w. Howe, formerly on the Superior
Court bench, took the opposite view to those
of the committee of fifty who were heard.
Some of his remarks were received with
great applause, particularly when he dis
cussed the length of franchise that should
be given, in which illusions were made to
the Parry Manufacturing Company and the
Indiana Bicycle Company, and, again, when
he declared that he did not want a Scent
fare if some conductor or motorman was
TO have his wages reduced in order to make
the cheap ride possible. In the course OF
his remarks he said:
I'VE cannot act intelligently in this mat
ter without a full understanding OF the e&-
sting situation, and We cannot understands
the existing situation unless we know some
thing about the past litigation ana leglsla-
ton upon the subject. l wish first to call
your attention to the past litigation, 1t has
been going on in one form or other Tor
years. Vast multitudes of lawyers awe
been employed, and, presumably, they nave
got good, fat fees, but if any substantial
gain has resulted to the city from it all 1t Is
not visible to the naked eye. one SUIT m
volved the contention of the city and the
City Street-railroad Company that the char
ter of the old company expired in 1894. Ihat
suit went to the Supreme Court of the
United States, which decided in favor of
the old company and held that it's franchise
did not expire before Jan. 18, 1901. That
suit also involved the question OF the claim
of the old company to a perpetual franchise.
Judge Woods decided one way ana Judge
Baker another way, and the Supreme Court
Of the United States decided nothing at all,
so that that question is still as unsettled as
1t ever was. Another suit was brought IN
the Federal Court here to test the constltu-
t|ionality of the 3-cent-fare law, and Judge
Showalter held it to be unconstitutional.
Another suit, involving the same question,
went to the Supreme Court of Indiana,
which. held the law to be constitutional:
Indianapolis, the fact, the cold legal fact, is
that the decision of Judge. Showalter over
rides the Supreme Court of Indiana on this
question. Another suit-the Hamilton coun-
ty suit-involved the question of the valid
ity Of the franchise of the City Company.
That went to the Supreme Court, and three
of the judges decided in favor of the City
Company and two of the judges dissented.
The three judges went out OF office and
three new judges came in, and almost the
first thing the new court did was to set
aside the opinion of the old court and grant
a rehearing. All lawyers understand that
this is a pretty strong indication that the
next decision will reverse the last. An
other important thing to be borne in mind
in connection will the past litigation IS that
standing amounting to $4,OO0,OO, and that
none of the holders of these bonds were
made parties 70 either the suit decided by
the Supreme Court of the United States or
the Hamilton county suit, so that they are
in no wise concluded by anything that has
been decided in these suits. SO you will see
that nothing of practical advantage to the
city has been gained so far by four or five
years of vexatiOus and expensive litigation,
and all the 6iCn1Tln OnQGtl0nG still remain
ing are as far from final settlement as ever.
LEGISLATION ON SUBJECT.
81 next call your attention to the legisla-
ton upon the subject. A 3-cent-fare law
was passed in 1897. The constitutionaltty of
that law and Judge Showalter's decision
upon it I have already referred to. An
other law was passed in 1897, known as the
New bill, with the Hogate amendments.
Some of the difficult problems in the pres
ent controversy are not provided for at all
in the New bill. One is the claim of the old
company to the franchise granted it by the
Board of County Commissioners over high
ways not then in the city, and by the towns
of IrVington, West Indianapolis, North In
dianapolis, B~rightwood and H~aughville,
none of which were then included in the
city. These are all essential to a general
city street-railway system, but every lawyer
guished or transferred under the New bill
nor in any other way than by contract with
the old company. =
Now, let us suppose that nothing is done
now. No Legislature will be in session
again until 1901. The charter of the old
company we will assume to nave expired
on Jan. Is, 1901. 1t will take some time to
make an appraisement. The new company
may decline to take the property at the APP
praisement. Then we will be without any
company having a legal right to use the
streets, and all will be chaos. No one
knows what the next Legislature may do,
if it is in session at that time; what kind
of legislation we may nave, or if we will
have any. No one can predict the conse-
quenees of such a contingency. y " +
The bill now pending, as l have said, is
a bill to unite the hands Of the city and en-
able 1t to settle all these controversies and
to settle them without waiting until 1901,
when they may be still more difficult Of set
Element by reason of new complications not
foreseen now. 1t carefully guards the in
terests of the citizens and so limits the
Council that it cannot, even If so disposed,
sell out to the company. Under its pro-
visions twenty-five fares must be sold for
not over $1-six for not over % cents, and
a single fare for not over 5 cents-but the
city is at liberty TO contract for lower fares
if it can get them. 1t also compelS the City
Council to insert in any contract made a
provision requiring the company to pave the
space between the tracks and eighteen
pair. 1t also provides that at the eXpira-
ton of the franchise the city may buy the
plant and own it.
THE OBJECTIONS REVIEWED.
The chief objections to the bill, as l I'M
derstand them, are:
"First-That it allows the Council to grant
a thirty-four years franchise. when 1t is
claimed that ii ought to he prohibited from
ppnnftnn a fparahfgn nxnaaIfnm frvant.y