The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1899-02-16

which had acquired such extensive rights
without being organized" should be made
by the people. He said the people did not
care who, they paid their street car fares
to, provided the fares were satisfactory.
The people. he said, were in favor of Sem
ator Hugg's bill and 3-cent fares, but that
they We're willing to keep on paying scent
fares and carrying on the litigation TO the
end, in order that the highest court of the
land might pronounce on the right of the
people 70 some time enjoy the privileges OF
scent fares. He urged that if IL was the
purpose to make the contract for scent
fare, the law should limit the life of the
franchise to q reasonable term Of years as
IS done with telephone companies, in order
that the people might reap the benefit of
cheapened cost Of operation.
Attorney Chambers observed. as Mr..
iS1rke sat down, that his remarks deserved
some reply, and his first observation would
be TO inquire whose interests he was caring
FOR he said that his clients were men of
nigh standing IN the community, and when
they not only stated their purposes explicit
~, but backed them up with offers to bond
themselves to do as they agreed it placed
them above the criticism of such men as
Mr. Burke.
STOCK HELD LOCALLY.
Judge Gavin inquired as to how much Of
the stock of the company the local directors
would hold. III. p. WATSON replied by say
ing that before any lasting agreement had
been made with the local directors it was
agreed that a majority of the stock would
be placed in the hands Of the local men to
vote, as long as the franchise lasted, so
that local control Of the company would
c. F. Smith advanced the opinfon that
were the companys proposition submitted
10 the people, not 10 per cent of them would
agree to IT. d. NJ Parry advocated letting
the present laws alone for two years, as it
would be, unsafe to embrace the COM
panyS proposition hastily.
In replying to the charge that the Citi-
zens Railroad Company had passed into
MI Dol
Company, S. O. Pickens, representing both
companies said that the latter road owned
nothing in the Citizens Street-railrOad
Company, but that President Thomson and
several other officers of the Pennsylvania
railroad owned $4,000 worth of the bonds
OF the company, instead of controlling
share.
THE BROAD RIPPLE INTEREST.
Judge L. C. Walker, for the Broad Ripple
road, presented a proposition to allow the
company to use the tracks of the new COM
pany OH the payment of stipulated amount
without being compelled to charge an extra
fare to Broad Ripple, the amount to be
fixed by the two parties and in event that
they failed to come to an agreement, the
amount would be fixed by the Circuit Court.
On it's being explained that bill was be-
fore both branches of the Assembly, en-
bracing all the points asked for, Judge
Walker withdrew his suggestion.
The other matter considered by the COM
mittees was the new bill, explained at
length in another column, providing for a
reorganization of the School Board of this
city. 1t was explained in the beginning of
the hearing that the bill had been drawn up
with the approval of committees from three
representative institutions of the city.
After Judge Gavin had explained the pro-
visions of the bill the committee. on the
suggestion of Senator Hawkins, decided to
report the bill favorably, in order to save
time, and have it printed so that all the
members Of the General Assembly might
read it at leisure. 1t is the purpose of the
committee to eventually have the bill passed
under suspension of the rules.