The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1899-03-01
HAIRSPLITTING.

Some alleged legal right has been dis
closing to the News that great danger turks
in some of the provisions OF the street.
railway bill regarding the perpetual charter
which a new company will derive from the
Citizens Company. The News expresses the
opinion that the provisions of the law should
be more specific. How the surrender of the
Citizens claim to a perpetual franchise can
be made more explicit than it is without
naming that company, the critics do not at
tempt to set forth. The law must be gen.
eral SO as TO apply to all cities of 1000
population, and being thus general, a par
ticular company in Indianapolis cannot be
named. 1t is claimed that the provision re-
ferring to the purchase and surrender of
all existing franchises before a new COM
pany can be given a franchise is as explicit
as it can be made under the Constitution.
1t is declared that the franchises of all COM
panies now or hereafter organized shall be
purchased and surrendered to the city prior
to the granting of a new franchise. The
Citizens Company is now organized, and
consequently comes into the list of compa-
MES specified in the clause. The claim that
1890 N@N 1CoA III NlS VI
chasing and surrendering to the city the
Citizens present franchise. with its claim of
perpetual rights, can claim the perpetual
charter 1t has surrendered TO the city is too
absurd to be noticed. Having surrendered
that charter to the city as a condition of OBJ
tanning another, how can the company max
ing such surrender claim it as its own?
Much has been said about the act of 1897
known as the New bill. 1t is claimed now
by those who oppose the present legislation
that it is a piece of perfection and gives all
the authority that is needed for the basis OF
a new franchise. Those who will read that
law carefully will discover that it positively
requires that the franchise TO be dis
posed OF in 1901 to the best bidder should
be a thirty years franchise. In what respect
Is a law requiring the granting of a thirty
years franchise TO be preferred to the bill
which declares that the City Council shall
not grant a franchise for more than thirty
four years? Under that provision the City
Council may limit the franchise to ten or
fifteen years. Under the act of 1897 prac-
tically no bond was required of bidders for
a new franchise in 1901. A bond is spoken
of, but it is not payable TO any party. In
the pending bill it is distinctly provided that
any company bidding for the franchise shall
give the city a sufficient bond to carry out
its contract with the city, payable to the
city, and also that bids may be rejected.
Those who oppose the bill ignore the fact
that the claim of the Citizens Company to
a perpetual charter has not been tested in
the United States Supreme Court. Judge
Woods says the Citizens charter is per-
petual and Judge Baker says it is not. In
1901 the Citizens Company, if it is not got
rid of. will SO into the courts TO establish
its claim to d perpetual charter. Five or
six years may be spent in getting a de-
cision. If it shall be against the company
the people will be forced to accept a poor
service and pay u scent fare from four to
eight years longer. If the decision should
be IN favor OF a perpetual charter the peo-
pie VIII be largely at the mercy of the COM
pany. If the pending bill becomes a law
the Citizens Company, with all its claims
Of a perpetual charter, will be SURRENDERED
to the city before a new franchise will be
granted.