Arizona republican., 1900-12-29
This Time the Other Party is
 the City of Phoenix
A Dispute Regarding the Proper Place to Grow Trolley Poles - For cible Interference. and and an In junction.

threatening. The actual conflict oc-
 cured in the matter of the erection of
 a sO-called single pole system on First i street between Pierce and Washing 1 ton. The city authorities learned on | Thursday afternoon that the company
 had begun the erection of its poles l along side the track and Marshal
 Hooker was instructed to prevent a 1 continuation of the work. He served
 notice on the company late in the after
 noon. but the notification was disre- garded. That night more poles wefe
 put up by the light of the growing moon.
 Early yesterday morning Officer Jos
 eph Bush, who has charge of the ] streets, was ordered to remove the poles. With the aid of a large force
 of men he carried out his instructions. | While he was undoing the work of the
 street car company the company kept on doing more of it, but as fast as the
 new poles were put up, they were torn 1 down. At length Officer Bush closed | the struggle by arresting employees of | the company engaged in putting Up
 more poles, and threatening to arrest
 any man found digging in the street | without permission from the proper au-
 thorities.
 Soon after noon representatives of l the company, through it's attorney,
 General Ainsworlh, procured a tenn
 porary order from Judge Street re- straining the city from interference with the operations of the company l until a determination of the matter at issue could be had. In the application for the order the exciting events of the l C
 cation claimed that it was acting. with
 in the terms Of it's franchise and made
 that part of the franchise relating to l the location of poles, part of the pe- tition. Beside the restraining order,
 the company asked for judgment for 1 1000 for damages already inflicted by | the city.
 Service was promptly had upon the ! defendant and within half an hour the
 company had recommended the cree
 ton of it's one-poie system. The com | pany is operating the northern addi- 1 ton railway under what is known as | the J. O. Dunbar franchise. granted in | 1S93 The franchise is sufficiently defi- ntte upon most points The minimum 1 quality of service and the maximum | fare are fixed. The condition in which
 the company must leave the street be | tween the rails, the approaches there 1 to at crossings, are all definitely de- l scribad, but there is absolutely no
 word regarding the location of poles, | except that they may be erected upon
 or through" the streets.
 l City councilmen and officials who were interviewed yesterday afternoon were not quite sure of the city's posi- ton in this conflict. They admitted i that the franchise offers little hope of relief, but they are inclined to rely up-
 on ordinance 22O, passed in 1896, giving | to the council control over electric ! light, telephone and trolley poles erect ed within the city limits.
 It is contended on the part of the | street railway company that no Ordi- | nance could be passed by the city cur | tailing any rights conferred by the | franchise. Manager B. N. Pratt of the company said last night, that he regretted that such a dispute had arisen, for it would naturally be suspected that the com pany was trying to over-reach. He in sisted that it was acting strictly with in the rights of the franchise and with out detriment to the public conven- fence He said that in most cities the tl O+IGS VII lCS cilOli5 StIHGlS IlOI ClON4Cb by traffic are suspended from poles placed alongside the tracks and that l such poles have been found less incon- venient than a row of poles along each l side of the street connected by a cross l wire. from which the trolley wire is suspended. The liability of the cross | wire to break. MT. Pratt said, was al~ ways a menace, which would be re- | duced, if not wholly removed by the | single pole system.
 The proposed location of the new poles," Mr. Pratt continued, could in convenience no one. They were to be located immediately alongside the tracks where no one ought to ride or drive, anyhow. on account of the danger of being struck by passing cars"
 Another reason, he said, why the single pole system was being put in was because of the desire of the com- pany to complete the extension of the line to the Indian school within the contract time. This could not be done if the company were required to put in the old system. MT. Pratt also called attention to the circumstance that the single pole has been used on Pierce street ever since the construction of the line; that no complaint has ever been heard from a resident of that street and that the city has never, until now, questioned the right of the company to put and keep it there until now.
 The city authorities contend aside from any ordinance giving them power to control the location of the trolley poles, that the proposed location by the company is contrary to public policy, that the poles in the middle of the street would be dangerous, inconven- tent and unsightly. They say further that they suspect that their erection on First street is only the beginning of an invasion of WashingtoR
 City Attorney Bullard is pS
 answeZ petition
 Ill1 lIii y