The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1901-09-28
THREE. Gent FARE CASE
CONSIDERABLE INTEREST FELT IN
FORTHCOMING DECISION.
The Supreme Judges Have Used So
Much Time I'm consideration that
n Surprise Is Awaited.

As the time for the Supreme Court to
convene after its summer adjournment
draws near interest in the long-pending
Scent street-car-fare case is being revived
on account of the general belief that this
will be among the first cases the court
will decide next week.
The 3-cent-fare case. as it is popularity
known. is entered on the docket of the
Supreme Court of Indiana as Charles Fin
ley Smith against the Citizens Street-raiI-
road Company. II will readily be recalled
that Mr.. Smith instituted the suit a short
time after being elected from a local street
car because he refused TO pay more than
, cents for his fare. He relied on the act
OF the Indiana Legislature of 1897, which
I'm effect changed street-car fares i'm In
dianapolis from 5 to } cents per passenger.
The legislature of 1899. however. enacted
a new ssreet-railroad statute which sought
10 repeal the 3-cen.-fare law and under
which the present street-railway company
incorporated. buying out the Citizens
Street-raiIroad Company.
The Smith suit attacks the act of 1899 on
two rounds: First. that * violates the
constitutional prohibition against forming
corporations by special act, and second.
because 1t violates the constitutional prohi-
Ditioh against granting special privileges.
FIRST CONSIDERED A JOKE.
For a long time after Mr.. Smith brought
his suit. even after the case reached the
Supreme Court on appeal filed by Mr..
Smith. it was looked upon as a huge joke.
Last June. however, the Supreme Court
took a step in the case which caused those
who had laughed to pause and wonder
whether il were. after all. such a laughing
matter The nn,.rf grr11.-Ix- - -
order OF its own motion directing that the
case be orally argued. From time i'm
memorial the custom in regard TO oral
arguments in the higher courts has been
for one party or the other in a case to
request the court TO grant such argument.
The Instances in which the court has of it's
own volition demanded that a case be
orally argued are very rare.
The case was argued five or six weeks
before the summer adjournment OF the
higher courts. and. relying upon established
precedent. the attorneys on both sides of
the case expected it To be decided within a
short time after the oral argument. But
the Judges went away from the city to
spend their three months vacation with
out giving any hint of their intention TO de-
eide the now interesting case.
At intervals all through the summer
months rumors have been heard in local
legal circles that the judges OF the Indiana
supreme Court were having a hard time
10 agree on what their decision i'm the 3-cent
fare case should be. Clerk Robert a Brown
was asked yesterday If he thought there
was anything i'm such a report. .'WeI II
certainly looks like the judges were having
a time To unravel a knot in that case, as
well as some others L might name" he said.
MIGHT CAUSE A STIR.
Mr.. Brown also made the significant re-
mark that the court might decide the
Smith case in such a way as TO cause a
mighty big stir i'm street-railroad circles in
In1funanaIfG ~
FASTENED to add. Il do not pretend to saw
what the court will do. That would be
rash presumption on my part. But from
long contact with the court and from my
observation OF the habits of the Judges in
deciding cases. l may be permitted TO think
that something is giving them great trouble
a prominent State official who has kept
an eye on the Scent fare case. said ves-
terday that he would not be greatly sur
priSed n the decision would be a startling
one. There Is a gas case in Illinois. ne
said. that Is closely similar To the smith
case In our Supreme Court. and the deci-
sions OF the Illinois courts nave thus far
been against the special statute under
which the gas company is operating
"Of course, can only venture a surmise
In the matter" remarked a ~well-known at
torney, but / would not be surprised IL
the Supreme Court is seriously consider
ing the question whether the Scent fare
law II not unconstitutional, as we'll as the
act OF 1888. under which the present street
car company Is operating. IL seems to
me that a law hxing a certain fare for
one city is special legislation lust as much
as "A law that provides for the incorpora-
ton OF "A certain street-railroad company.
a. the act OF 1893 in effect does. II both
statutes were knocked out. the INDIANAPOLIS
Street-raiiway Company would find itself
In much the same position as that occu-
pied by the interurbans that are runninc
into the city-it would be operating with
out a franchise. and would have 10 hustle
around and get one"