The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1900-11-01
INTERURBAN CONTRACTS
REPRESENTATIVES, OF COMPANIES
AND COUNCIL COMMITTEE.
Points About Proposed Franchise OBJ
JcctionabIe IN the Companies
Municipal Affairs.

The committee on contracts and fran
chises of the City Council is now wrest-
ling with the ordinance to ratify the
tracts and franchises made by the Board
of Public Works with the Indianapolis x
Greenfield. and the Indianapolis, Green
wood & Franklin rapid transit companies.
A meeting was held yesterday afternoon
in the detectives department in the po-
lice station. Those present, in addition
TO the committee, were Attorney Winter.
representing the Indianapolis Street-rail-
way Company. Hugh MCGOWAN. president
OF the local company. Charles l.. Henry.
OF Anderson. representing the Union Trac-
ton Company. Attorney Harding. Mr.. Nc
Donald. Mr. kirkpatrick and Dir. Binford,
representing the Greenfield company.
Mr.. Henry was one OF the principal
speakers. and he is DESTROYS OF having
the franchise amended before IL Is finally
ratified by the Council While the other
two companies have accepted the franchise
as prepared by the Board of Works. the
contract 10 be ratified by the Council will
affect all OF the interurban companies now
entering the city and those proposing 10
run into Indianapolis.
The principal contention argued yester-
Gay afternoon was the clause compelling
the interurban companies to sell Indian
apolis Street-raflway Company tickets,
and also the clause that after five years
they must issue transfers from one line
10 another. Mr.. MCGOWAN. president OF
The Indianapolis Company, said his COM
pany did not favor the interurban COM
panies acting as agents for the Indianap-
oils Company 10 sell tickets and the repre-
sentatives OF the interurban roads present
said their companies would lose money IN
being compelled 20 sell and accent IN
cianapolis tickets. The interurban COM
kanics have a contract with the Indian
apolis Company 10 pay three-ffths of each
fare collected In the city TO the Indian
apolis Street-railway Company. 1t was
Argued that by being compelled TO issue
transfers the interurban companies would
lose money. For instance the Greenfield
Company would have 10 accept a ticket
for fare. pay three-ifths OF the fare TO
the Indianapolis Company. then issue a
transfer 10 another tnterurban line and il
would be compelled 70 pay three-fifths OF
fare on the transfer, thus being at a
dead loss.
President MCGOWAN said he would not
accept the contract IL now reads In
regard to the interurban companies SELL
ing tickets OF the indianapolis Street-rail-
way Company. Attorney Winter claimed
that under the contract of the Indianap-
oils Street-ratlway Company IL had the
exclusive use OF the street-car business in
Indisnap polls and had the right TO haul
the indianapolis traffic. He was OF opinion
that the interurban companies should be
allowed 10 charge cents for Indianapolis
passengers and not be compelled to sell
or accept indianapolis Street-railway Com
pany tickets.
Mr.. Henry also objected 10 the license
placed on the cars. lie said under the
contract the Anderson Company would be
compelled 10 pay i've times as much as the
Greenfield line, while cars would not enter
The city any 6ffener than on the other
trterurban lines. This is due to the fact