The Indianapolis journal., 1903-01-16

manded. The commission then sought to
bring the power of the city TO effect its
TO the platform on which he was elected
and which declared for track elevation.
The mayor sought first to deal directly with
the companies, but failing 10 bring about
settlement he threw the weight of his in
huence in favor of the track elevation Or
dfnance, and Ii was passed by the Council
a week before Taggarts nomination for a
third term. AT that time there was -four
ishfng a Public Safety League, made up
mostly Of residents of the South and East
Sides. and which was said TO have a mem
bership of 10000. The ordinance as passed
required the work 10 be done i'm two dis
tricts. The first district affected the Union
halfway Companys 8 tracks only, and II
was required that the work begin April /.
1890. and be completed Sept /. 1901 AS
work was not begun in May, 1900. City
Attorney Kern brought mandamus pro-
ceedlngs against the Union Railway Com
pany. The city lost the suit I'm Judge Car
ters court, but appealed TO the Supreme
Court. where the case is still pending.
Inc city ordinance followed the Chicago
ordinance almost literally, because the Chi
cago charter provision was the same as
the indianapolis provision, and had been
sustained by the Illinois Supreme Court
The only difference was that the lndianap-
oils ordinance provided for two districts
and the Chicago ordinance had more. The
indianapolis ordinance required the com
mencement of work I'm the second district
Sept /, 1901. No work required has ever
been begun.
Since the litigation was begun the agita-
tion for elevated tracks has been directed
along educational lines. 1t was not until
last month that Mayor Bookwalter an
nounced that he had secured cooperation
from the railroads in reaching an amicable
settlement in the interest OF the protection
of the public. The railroads intended to pro-
long the litigation, and this meant nothing
of benefit TO the city. The mayor also ex-
pressed the belief that universal elevation
of tracks was not desired by public senti
ment, but that there were other means Of
relief for certain districts.
In October City Attorney Joss sent a let
ter TO President McCrea at Pittsburg con-
cerning the repairs to the viaduct. Mr..
McCrea replied that the repairs would be
unreasonable IL the city was to require the
elevation of all tracks. Continuing he said: (:
The facts here intimated force upon your
city administration and upon the railway
companies having tracks in Indianapolis
this very large question, namely: What is
the best thing to be done with reference to
steam railway street crossings in Indianap-
oils? On behalf of all the railway COM
panies interested L am authorized to say
to the indianapolis city government, and
do now say, that ii is neither the wish nor
the purpose of any one of these railway
companies to evade this question or post
pone Its answer. 1t is my opinion-in which
the officers of all the above mentioned
companies copcur-that the question stated
can be best answered by commission of
not more than FIVE persons: accordingly
suggest that all of the matters involved in
and incident to that question be In due and
explicit form submitted TO commission
of not more than five persons, who shall
devise a plan to be carried out by the city
of Indianapolis and the railway companies -
This was followed by conference at Gin
cinnati, where the mayor met representa-
tives of the roads and the situation was
discussed. On Dec. 10 the mayor sent a
reply to Mr.. McCrea accepting his proposal
but suggesting the creation of a commission
of seven instead of five. To this Mr. McCrea
Immediately assented, and the mayor has
since been seeking men whose relations
were such that they could fill the places on
the commission.