The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1899-03-02
THE IMPORTANT POINTS IN THE
CONTROVERSY.

There are two or three very important
features in the street-railway situation
which those who oppose the present bill
seem 10 ignore as If they had no existence
whatever, among which are the following:
F1rst-The New bill, which became a law
March ). 1897, by the approval of the Gov
ernOr, declares that at or before the ex-
piration of the contract period of the occu-
plying company. such city, through its
Board of Public Works, snail open TO free
competition the further occupancy. for a
period of thirty years, of the streets of such
city for the purpose Of operating an electric
street railway" The language is shall open
for a period of thirty years ANY such
contract shall be for a specified term, not
exceeding thirty-four years from the taking
effect Of the contract IS the language Of
the bill which the Legislature has passed.
1t secm5 absurd to ask which is the better.
a positive thirty years franchise or the pro-
vision which gives the City Council power
10 agree upon any period less than thirty
four years.
Second-The question of a perpetual fran
chise is an important factor because the
Citizens Company now holds such grants
from the councils of West Indianapolis,
Haughvllle and B~rightwoOd, which are with
out limitation. and all the franchises in the
city north of Sixteenth street, given by the
County Commissioners and held by the Citi-
zens' Company are either for ninety-nine
chises were issued before these outlying
portions of the present city of indianapolis
were annexed. If the so-called New law
should be held TO be valid within the limits
of the city at the time the original franchise
was granted. and II should terminate in 1901,
the Citizens Company would be In a posi-
ton to give a new company and the city
much embarrassment if its franchises are
not disposed by prior purchase or surren-
der. At best, the holding Of perpetual or
ninety-nine-year leases for the use CT the
streets in n large part of the territory now
embraced in the city will afford the basis of
a long and expensive litigation. 1t seems
that this is a too important factor I'm the sit
uation to be ignored by those who are claim
ing that a company can be organized to take
the place of the Citizens Company in 1901
with a 3-Cent fare.
~Third-There is nothing in the bill just
passed TO prevent the City Council from re-
curing a lower fare than is mentioned in
the measure. which practically is a i-cent
fare for those who use the cars most. The
bill says that the fares shall not be more
than the amount stated, which gives the
City Council the power TO establish a Scent
fare after a given date or when it shall APP
pear to representatives of the city, upon an
examination Of its books, that such a fare
is sufficient 20 pay running expenses and
interest on bonded obligations.
There are other reasons why the present
bill should become law and why the street.
railway controversy. which is now no nearer
settlement than it was two years ago, should
not be allowed TO continue. So long as the
controversy continues the people will pay a
5-cent fare and the service will not be inn
proved. The first thing to do is to get rid of
the Citizens Company. If its claims are not
disposed of it can keep the matter in law for
years.