The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1901-01-14
TO CONTINUE
The TRANSFERS
MANAGER SILLIMAN ISSUES
ANOTHER ORDER.
Until Further Notice the Scranton
Railway Company Will Continue
the Use of the Transfer as Here
tofore--Joint Resolution of Coun-
ellis Was Served Upon the Com
pany on Saturday, and Yesterday
the Order Which Caused the
Trouble Was Rescinded.

Until further notice the transfer
system will be continued in use as
heretofore" is the language of cn Or
der issued last evening by General
Manager Frank Silliman. of the Scran-
ton Railway company.
When asked to define what until
further notice" meant. Mr.. Silliman
said the order he had Issued contained
all the information necessary for the
public. and he declined TO discuss the
matter further.
The Joint resolution OF councils, de-
claring the franchises of the Scranton
Railway company forfeited If the COM
pany refused to continue the issue of
transfers, was served upon Mr.. Sllli-
man Saturday. Yesterday the obnox-
ious order was revoked.
The resembling of the order, for n
time at least, abollshing the transfer
is taken as an evidence that the COM
pany has awakened to the fact that it
made most impolitic move when it
issued the now famous order of Janu-
airy :.
1t will take years to remove the evil
effects 1t has left in the minds Vt the
public and the company will suffer in
a hundred different ways. In the
courts 1t is likely to fare badly at the
hands OF Jurors. and whatever the
company gets from councils in the fu-
ture will be carefully examined by the
public. They will insist that their in
| terests be properly safesuarded.
''From this time forward, the Scran-
| ton Railway company will have TO do
business with the city on u strictly
business basis" was the way one
councilman expressed it last night
| There will be no more donations OF
valuable rights to that concern. II
will give value for everything 1t re-
| ceiyes.'
SOLICITOR VOsBuRG'S OPINION.
| When interviewed by q Tribune re.
porter Saturday, City Solicitor A. A
Vosburg stated that he did not care
to discuss the wisdom or lack of wis.
dom on the part of the Scranton Rail
way company in declaring their in
tention not TO issue transfer tickets
but that, as law officer Of the city, o
course he would have to sustain th'
provisions of the several ordinances
requiring transfers to be issued, to tn,
best of his ability.
"In view Of the misunderstanding
said he. with respect to the latte
clause of the resolution which / pre-
pared for Select Councilman Vaughan
think it only right to explain tha
as / view the law. affirmative actor
should be taken by municipality de
claring revocation or forfeiture @
permission previously given for IN
occupation of city streets, as PR
liminary matter, before the institu
ton of legal proceedings to have I
forfeiture declared by the courts. Gu
own court held, in the case of Arch
bald borough against the Street Eail
way company, that in the absence q
such affirmative action, the burgess
and street commissioner Of that Dor
ough had no right to prevent the lay
ing of tracks by the company upo
the streets, even though the compan
had not complied with the provision
of the ordinance giving It the right I
do so.
"In other words, until the permis
sion to 80 occupy streets is revoked
1t stands: and this Is the first pre-
liminary step looking 10 the legi
declaration by the courts, of the fol-
|, feiture of the franchise. If the con
pany continues to issue transfers, the
that will be the end of the matter,
i, far as a forfeiture or revocation
permission IA declared upon th'
ground"