The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1902-08-10
Report of Committee.

The report OF the committee on the SUBJ
ject follows:
The undersigned, your committee. ap-
pointed 10 examine the proposed franchise
OF the Indianapolis Traction and Terminal
company, ana those OF the several inter-
urban railway companies entering the city.
with view OF determining whether the ex-
listing rights OF the city and its citizens
under the indianapolis street-railway fran
chise were fully protected. or whether any
of the substantial benefits insured TO tho
public by that contract WEI in any wise
endangered by these new franchise con-
tracts, begs leave to submit the following
report:
I'VE had no little difhculty in agreeing
as TO the scope Of our duties. IL was the
unanimous opinion Of the committee that N
was not within its province TO review dis
cuss, criticise or commend these franchises
In so far as questions of administrative
policy were concerned. We were OF the
opinion that the question OF rates the
amount OF the car tax. the limitations upon
freight charges, the lines of proposed
routes, the location of terminal stations
and matters OF like character, which after
two years of discussion. had been finally
agreed upon by all parties directly inter-
concerned, finally settled, and that IL was
no part Of our duty 10 review this part OF
the work. which, after so long a time had
been completed.
THE CITY's RIGHTS.
I'VE. therefore, addressed ourselves TO an
investigation Of the proposed franchises.
with a view. already stated. OF determin-
ing whether the citys rights and remedies
under existing contracts are, or will be. in
any wise diminished. We found that in a
few particulars the provisions Of the fran
chise Of the indianapolis Company had not
been reproduced in the Traction Companys
franchises, viz:
by Section permitting the extension Of
a new line 10 be made by direct prolonga-
ton of connecting lines instead OF placing
the new line in the center OF the street
by Section 10 in Withdrawing the right
Of persons obtaining transfers TO ride be-
yond the first point OF intersection and take
a car back over the same street by which
they came, and IN emitting the provision
of the old franchise that the Board Of Pub
lie Works should have power 20 fix reason
able rules and regulations for the transfer
of passengers.
by Sections and time varying from
three 10 five years is given 10 make certain
extensions and cross lines which the Board
OF Public Works would now have power TO
order at any time.
by the express requirement or approval
Of the Board OF Public Works for curves.
switches and feed wires contained in the
old franchise being omitted.
There are some changes OF verbiage and
forms OF expression in other Instances, but
in other respects so far as applicable the
provisions OF the old companys franchise
is carried into the new, and In the above
instances above cited the notifications
seem TO have been IN harmony with the
agreement made between the city authori-
tbs and the companies.
THREE SPECIAL FEATURES.
"Our attention was called 10 three fea-
lures Of the Traction and Terminal Com
pany franchise to which serious objections
were urged as being inimical 10 the citys
interest: l. 1t was urged that the fran
chise in question did not sufficiently protect
the right Of the city TO enforce the collec-
ton OF the annual payments 10 the city.
provided for in Section u OF the franchise
Of the Indianapolis Street-railway Com
pany: 2. 1t is also urged that under the Ian
glsage employed in the first sentence OF Sec
ton 10 Of the Traction and Terminal fran
chise that company would have the right.
maintaining itself as a separate corpora
ton, 10 operate an independent line charg-
ing slightly less rates of fare than are
specified IN the franchise: J. The third OBJ
lection was Clause OF Section ! OF the
Traction and Terminal Company's fran
chise which provides that certain lines. OF
railway should be constructed by that COM
pany within three years. Of such character
"A may be agreed upon by the Board OF
Public Works ana the company, II being
urged that IL the company failed or refused
10 agree with the board. the construction OF
the lines might be indefinitely postponed
After examining this proposed franchise
with such care as IL was possible Tor as 70
bestow and after an examination OF all the
objections urged IN the newspapers OF the
city. in interviews, editorials and communi-
cations. and after comparing these pro-
visions with the franchise OF the Indian-
apolis company we were individually OF the
opinion that In view OF the we'll settled
rules laid down by the courts for the con-
struction OF franchise contracts Of this
character, none OF these objections was
likely 20 be sustained by the courts but
that the courts would sustain the PROPOSE
ton that none OF the rights OF the public
or the city under the former franchise
would be impaired in these respects.
we. however. recognized that plausible
and even forcible arguments could be made
In favor OF a contrary construction. and