The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1899-03-15
Mr.. SMITHS INJUNCTION
HE TACKLES THE sTREET-CAR SID
UATION IN A NEW WAY.
City Temporarily Barred from Grant
ing iranchise-A Hearing Next
Saturday.

As a result Of the petition filed in the Su-
perior Court yesterday morning negotia-
lions between the city and the Indianapolis
Street-railway Company are temporarily
held up" AT o'clock in the afternoon
Judge Leathers, of Room ?, granted tenn
porary restraining order which will prevent
official action on the part of the city looking
to the granting of a street-railroad fran
chise. The court made the order on the ap
plication of Charles F. Smith and John F.
White, who seek to prevent the disposal of
a franchise to the new street-car company
on the terms proposed. The petition was
prepared and brought before the court by
Attorneys Frank B. Burke, Henry Warrum
and Albert Schoonover. The mayor. the
Board of Public Works and the members of
the City Council are made defendants. The
case will come UP for argument on Satur-
day morning, and the temporary restraining
order will be in effect until then.
In the petition the plaintiffs discuss the
history of the street-railway franchises in
Indianapolis and they set out in detail the
different forms of litigation that have &C.
cupied the attention of the city government
since 1893. The petition, at considerable
length, goes into the legislative act of 1897
act providing that at the expiration of all
franchises in 1901 a new one should be
awarded on competition. The petitioners
aver that both of these acts are still in eff
feet, although the act of 1899 attempts to re-
peal them. 1t is the contention of the pc
titioners that this act is invalid and uncon-
stitutional because lit attempts 10 limit the
city TO contract with street-railway cor2-
vii franchise
right of occupance of the streets" 1t is
averred that the act of 1899 "contemplates
and provides for the city of Indianapolis
contracting with and disposing of its street
railway franchise TO the Citizens Street
railroad Company or its assigns, and pro-
vides that no other street-railway company
may contract with the city upon equal
terms or upon terms more advantageous
than those offered by the Citizens Street
railroad Company or its assigns
In urging the Importance of a temporary
restraining order the attorneys pointed out
to the court the fact that the Indianapolis
Street-railway Company has contracted TO
purchase the franchises and property of the
Citizens Street-railroad Company and
whatever rights the City Railway Company
has or claims to have in the streets OF In
dlanapolfS. 1t was asserted that the In
dianapolis Street-railway Company, holding
the rights and claims, real and pretended,
pany, has made proposal to the city for
franchise, which the defendants were about
to grant. The terms of the proposed fran
chise was pointed out-a right of way for
thirty-fOur years and fares as follows:
Straight fare. cents; six tickets for % cents
and twenty-five tickets for 81. 1t was as
serted that unless enjoined the city officials
fvould grant the franchise upon substan-
TALLY the terms proposed by the street-rail-
way company.
The petitioners declare that such grant,
under the provisions of an invalid act. and
in the manner intended by the defendants,
would result in an irreparable loss and in
jury to the citizens and taxpayers. Their
contention is that If franchise be granted
permitting the exaction of more than 3
cents fare, the efforts on the part of the
residents of the city to require compliance
with the 3-cent-fare law will result in
multiplicity of suits which decree in this
action may we'll prevent. The petitioners
take the ground that the granting of fran
chise under the terms of what they insist is
an invalid act will involve the city in ex
pensive and vexatious litigation. They seek
to have the defendants forever. enjoined
from granting a franchise to any street
railway except upon competition as pro-
vided by law for a term not TO exceed thirty
years and for fares not 10 exceed cents
for each passage.
The petitioners gave a cost bond signed
by Charles +. Smith, John +. White, d. Nj.
Parry, Arthur A. Mckain, Thomas G. Day,
John II. Holiday, o. s. Runnels, A. A.
Barnes. j. *. Lilly and Newton Claypool