The Bellefontaine Republican. [volume] (Bellefontaine, Logan County, Ohio) 1855-1905, 1903-10-23

and this revision by the city, at that
time. is to take effect and go into op-
Grafton. and continue in operation, |
whether the company is satisfied or
not, unless the company shall see fit |
TO sue in a court OF equity, and it shall |
be held by such court. upon fall hear
ing upon both sides. that the changes /
made by the city in the terms and |
conditions of the grant are unreason-
ably onerous and buTdensone.
This revision at the end OF 20 years, |
you will observe. has all the effect of |
o new grant, except only that the COM |
pany is saved from public bidding. for |
the right to remain in the streets, |
against would-be competitors and yol |
will further note that this revision. |
wrich the city is thus authorized to
make. and which Is the equivalent Of
q new grant. since the city is autlor-
lied to make any changes 1t sees fit
to make. is to come only four years
later than the expiration of the aver
age time OF 16 years that the grants
already had to run when the law was
enacted.
6. II is further provided in the Rog-
ers law that every Is years after the
first revision there shall be another
revision of the same character. and
with the same consequences.
Z. The street railroad company Ia
obligated to pave and keep paved and
in condition the streets between their
tracks and for a foot and q half on
each side beyond their outside rails.
s. From the foregoing 1t will be
seen that there was nothing in any
provision of the Rogers law that was
OF any positive advantage to the rail-
road company, except only the long
period of so years. ls of which the
company already had, that the COM
pnny was assured OF the occupation of
the streets.
3. The necessity for this fixing Of
q common time for the expiration of
the grants already in enjoyment. and
postponing that time for such a period,
was in view of the fact that the use
of electric motive power, which the
company desired to adopt, and which
the travelling public required il to
adopt. necess.tated a practical recon-
struetion of the entire system, invoiv-
ing an expenditure amounting to more
than six millions of dollars. which
were in good faith expended after the
passage OF the Rogers law and before
the decision of the superior court,
holding that law to be unconstitu-
tional, which decision OF the superior
court the curative act was intended TO
remedy.
There were plenty OF people in Gin
cinnati and elsewhere who had no in
terest in any street railroad. and who
knew nothing about the risks Of the
business, or the extravagant disburse-
ments necessary to construct and
equip street railroads and operate
them. and who knew nothing about the
difficulty OF raising five or six millions
of dollars for such purpose. who were
ready to cry out against so long
grant, but every thoughtful business
man when informed sees at once. first.
that the Rogers law wisely protects
all the rights of the public; and, in the
second place. he sees, that to induce
! capital to go into such an enterprise
: 4 reasonable permanency of the invest
( ment was necessary. ANY one who Is
intelligent enough to understand such
/ transactions. can understand that
, without such legislation as the Rogers
, law. or something similar. 1t would
have been an utter ImpossibIlity for
the company to have commanded the
| money necessary TO reconstruct and
| re-equip with electric motive power
the street railroads of Cincinnati.
1t can be said, therefore. of the
Rogers Law. in all truthfulness. that it
was legislation that was absolutely
Necessary to enable the street rail-
roads OF Cincinnati to meet then ex-
isting conditions and requirements.
and. further. that no more just or
equitable measure was ever placed on
the statute book.
| The outcry against the law was fool
ish and unreasonable. inspired by
demagogues AID enemies OF the street
railroad interests. doubt IL there
| were ten newspapers in the whole
state, that saw MT to eriticise the
Rogers law. that knew enough
| about il to know that the grant
under it was not for 50 years. but.
as have explained. for only "a years,
and that that grant was subject To re-
vision as TO fares and all other terms
at the end OF 20 years. and every Is
years thereafter, as shows.
Certain IL is that MIR. Johnson and
others. who attack the Rogers law.
and complain about the curative act.
never allude to any of these features
OF that statute.
The decision of the superior court
was wholly unexpected. The street
railroad company in the utmost good
faith had invited subscriptions to its
stock and had expended the money of
its stockholders to the amount, as
have said. of over six millions of dol
lars Having acted in good faith, and
in accordance with the provisions OF
the statute, IL was entitled to protec-
ton. The constitution provides that
in such cases the legislature may en-
act curative laws. In my opinion nc
honest man, when fully informed oi
the situation. could hesitate to vote
for legislation. the purpose of which
was to protect investments of such
magnitude and such character. Eel
the Legislature to have refused to dc
all in its power to overcome such a
disaster would have been a disgraes
to the state that would have put tC
shame every honest minded voter.
Moreover. it must be remembered
I
to all franchises. valid or invalid