Arizona weekly journal-miner., 1902-05-21
MR. MURPHY FILES OBJECTIONS.
He States Wherein He Considers the Recent Street Railroad
 Franchise Is Defective.

A communication dated May Il
 has been handed to this office by E
 NJ. Murphy for publication. Tn
 Journal Miner recently stated that i
 was willing to publish specific objec l tions to the street railroad franchise i submitted to it. Of the five page of type written matter contained in this communication over One-half i: of an interrogatory nature asking fol the opinion of the Journal Miner on ten different points, with direct question to the Journal Miner in form as follows: Do you, or do you not think, etc"
 The Journal Miner is not aware of it's being on the wiIneas stand to be subjected to a cross s-examinatiOn by MT. Murphy Of any one else, hence declines to take up the space which these interrogatories would occupy, but ifMr. Murphy will put those inter rogatories into a statement of his views on the subject the Journal Miner will cheerfully accord him the courtesy of publishing them and will also present its ows views on them. The commu nication, aside from these interrogatories, are as follows:
 Under the existing franchise, if two or three miles of track are con structed. covering manyof the princi- pal streets mentioned, and for any reason it should be thought advisable by the Street Railway company, from lack of business or otherwise, to abandon any portion of the system, it could be done, leaving the thor oughfare in anything but a satisfac- tory condition. An abandoned street railway is about as unsightly relic as can be imagined and calculated to depreciate the value of every bit of property on the street. Should the railway company abandon any part of its track, or fail to operate, the city council should at least have the right to compel them to take up the track, remove the poles and put the streets and walks in order. The franchise should also in that event, in my judgment, be forfeited; other wise, after bonds are sold and money realized, large part of the interest of the promoter passes to the bond holder, who as rule, has no particu- lar interest in the city, other than at taches to his bond investment, and unless the bondholder is to suffer in some way for neglect, he is likely to be unappreeiative of the city's inter ests. Particularly is this true if the interest on the bonds which he holds is promptly paid, a condition not un- likely to exist, even though half of the company's tracks were permitted to go into decay.
 Holders of bonds are apt to be scattered throughout the country, and very decided lack of concert of action possible, calculated to be more or less destructive to healthy and satisfactory management.
 While the franchise granted to my self and others in 1892 (at a time when conditions were very diff9rent), furnished decidedly more protection than the franchise recently granted to Mir. Wright, and did not contain as many rights and privileges to grantees as does the Wright franchise "a mistake might have been made in granting that franchise. Prescott has grown a great deal since 1892, the streets have been graded and the successful future of the place would seem to be assured, and any such franchise as was granted to myself and others in 1892 should not be granted today, much less the fran chise which has been given to Mir. Wright.
 should be pleased to have the views of the Journal-Miner on the above. To hide behind insipuations to the effect that my objection to the franchise as worded, is based upon other than a desire to protect the in terests of Prescott, would hardly seem a dignified or reasonable posi- tion for any one to take.
 Please understand that am not in the market for a city railway fran chise: that l do not hesitate to say that, in my judgment, the interests Of the city will be as full y considered in the hands of Nlr. Wright as they would in the hands of any individual citizen of Prescott, and personally 1 am decidedly in favor of his having franchise, if a franchise is to be granted. Respectfully,
 F. NJ. Murphy"
 Owing to the lateness of the hour at which the above was handed in for publication, and the limited facilities for composition, it is impossible to re- ply to it in detail in this issue. We will say, however, that in reply to Mir. Murphy's former communication, or rather, in expressing its views as requested by him, the Journal-Aliner said nothing that could be construed as ''insinuations to the effect that Mir. Murphy's objection to the franchise as worled, is based upon other than a desire to protect the interests of Prescott" Hence his reference about hiding behind such, being neither digniGed or reasonable" seems to be not in the line of either truth or argu- ment. The Journal Miner is willing to submit to the people of prescott as to whether its reply to Mir. Murphy's article was digniied or reasonable and as to whether it contained any insinuation of any kind. On the con trary it was plain and straightforward and contained no impugning of his motives whatever, direct or covert. In the above reference Mir. Murphy must have gotten some street gossip on the subject mixed up with the Journal Miners article, and we submit that it is neither "digniied or reasonable" to misrepresent an opponent, or to put a construction upon his words which is not justified, in public discussion,as has certainly been done in this case.