The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1903-02-05

confidently expected that the court would
Uphold the power OF the city TO require
protection 10 the public. In t1is expeeta-
s aPe OF or Mr. a f. Mason. ''1 Who drafted the
city charter. I have at hand now letter
from him under date of Dec ), 1874. IN
which he said. in preparing the sub
topic OF Railroads In Section - or the
city charter undertook to give pre-
cisely the same powers TO the city in re-
spect 20 the elevation OF tracks which were
given in respect 20 viaducts. careful
Reconsideration OF the language OF the sec
ton confirms me In my opinion that there
Is no difference whatever in the extent or
the nature OF the power OF the city of In
dianapolis over the two subjects. An
amendment in my opinion Is entirely I'M
necessary 1t will be found that the Ian
guage In the city charter OF indianapolis
on this subject Is almost precisely the
same in the charter of Chicago. while
the track elevation ordinance is substan-
TALLY the same as the one known there as
which the railroads were brought to
terms lnasmuch as the Illinois courts
upheld both the charter and the ordinance
on on tbs question we have expeG f snae
view OF the matter. The decision, now
ever. Is against the city. and II becomes
necessary TO appeal to the Legislature TO
now give TO the city the power when we
haze supposed IL already had. This Is the
manif st duty CT the Legislature, for GER
rainly the city should have ample power 10
II the Legislature fails 70 confer upon the
city ti,is power the public would then be
at the mercy OF the railroads. bill fully
safesus riding public rights and conterrins
upon tie city government ample power 10
properly deal with the question should be
passed without delay
The present situation calls for inn
mediate action. The mayors commission
was appointed. IL Is understood. at the sug-
gestion of the railroad companies, who In
their communications have recognized the
necessity of doing something for relief OF
be public. and have indicated that with
the cooperation OF the commission they
hoped to be able TO adopt the best plan.
sne vesd 1hs city sr To
out the plans which are under considera-
ton"
MR.. KERN'S VIEWS.
Former City Attorney John w. Kern. who
prepared the track elevation ordinance. de-
clared invalid by the Supreme Court, In
discussing the courts decision, said:
II have read that part of Judge Jordan's
opinion which was published In the evening
papers. The opinion seems TO have beer
carefully prepared, and shows that the
court has given careful consideration TO al
points raised The ordinance which the
~ copied from the O'Neill track elevation
ordinance OF Chicago, which was the pre-.
Hminary enactment OF the Council OF thai
city on the track elevation proposition. As
a matter of precaution, experimenting thai
the Supreme Court might decide this case
just IL has, a vigorous effort was made
four years ago, and again two years ago
To- have the Legislature so amend the
city charter as to confer specific and un
questioned authority upon the municipal
authorities to compel the elevation o.
tracks, but the railroad and other corporate
interests proved strong enough to preven
a serious consideration OF the proposed
amendment Two years ago the pendency
of this suit was urged as a reason why
the charter should not be amended. Nov
that the question has been decided by th'
court that objection Is removed.
1.-The litigation has accomplished a usefu
purpose, namely, IL has brought about
decision of the highest court which define: