Los Angeles herald., 1905-10-18

Councilman Hammon, who acted as
chairman of the committee OF the
whole. then called on Attorney Goudge
for an expression Of opinion.
"What you shall do rests with you
and the city attorney cannot recon-
merely advise" said Mr.. Goudge. Then
at the instance of the chairman he
went over the nature of the suit now
pending in court, stating that 1t was
not an action to validate the franchise
of the railway but to determine wheth-
er or not the city might be enjoined
from tearing up the tracks.
This suit is based on and cannot
exist without the motive Of tearing
up the tracks," said Mr.. Goudge. "Un-
der those circumstances If an agree
ment should be made and that agree
ment drawn to the attention of the
supreme court, the suit would be lost to
the city If the railway company
should go before the supreme court
and say that the city had consented
to it's operation of the line, the city
could have no further rights in the
case. This company once before went
before a court and, stating that such
an agreement existed, urged that as
a reason why their tracks should not
be torn up as the city had threatened
to do, and also urged the fact that
they were then in possession of the
line. Do you not believe they would
do the same thing again if we put that
weapon into their hands?"
The councilman from the Sixth, the
ward affected by the tearing up of the
tracks, thought he had a bright idea to
evade the law and that was that some
one, presumably little bright-eyes him
self, should go down there in the dead
of night and relay the tracks and re-
place the wires and the council hold
meeting in the morning, at which right
eous indignation might be properly eX-
pressed and the street superintendent
Instructed to tear up the tracks as
soon as the supreme court had decided
against the railway company, If such
should be the decision. But Attorney
Goudge would not countenance any
such action.
Attorney Trask here presented a
communication from the legal advisers
of the railway, Bicknell, Gibson, Trask,
Dunn & Crutcher, signed by W. E.
Dunn. The communication follows:
In view of the controversy which
arose yesterday regarding the operation
of the Los Angeles Railway company's
line on South Park avenue, we desire
to make the following statement:
In May, 1908. when the controversy
arose between the city and the railway
company as to our right to build Or
South Park avenue, the track was
nearly completed. The city threatened
to stop the work, however and the
company brought suit for Injunction.
A temporary injunction was issued en-
joining the city from interfering with
the track in any way. At that time
the court ordering the injunction in
sisted that the question should remain
'in statu quo" and that the tracks
should not be connected up by the
railway company until determination
of the injunction, unless with the con-
sent of the city authorities. 1t was un-
derstood by all the parties to the con-
troversy and so stated by the city at
torney at that time, that the legal
question involved was a very close one.
The railway company went before
the city council and proposed to them
that we would connect up the track and
operate it until we had a supreme
court decision upon our rights. The
attorney for the company stated upon
the council chamber floor that If the
supreme court decided against the
railway company, we would either re-
move the track or apply to the council
to purchase a new franchise within
twenty-four hours of the decision.
With this understanding the council
gave their consent to our connecting
instructed the street superintendent not
to interfere with us in doing this. If
this understanding had not been had,
we could not have been operating over
the track at any time during the past
two years.
The city attorney knew of this un-
derstanding, and our statement of the
question will be borne out by the men,
bers of the old council.
Af oi1 n
make the understanding official, by
reason of the possible effect on the liti-
cation then pending, but it was as
square and clean cut an understanding
as ever was had between men, and
was with the full knowledge of the
city attorneys office, which was COM
posed at that time of the same gentle
men who now compose that very able
department. If there is any doubt
about this question in the minds OF
your honorable body, we will refer you
to the members of the old city coun-
Gil, who, we believe, will substantiate
our statements.
The recent tearing up of tracks and
cutting Of wires on South Park avenue
was distinct breach of this understand
ing, and was not done for the purpose
of preserving the citys rights, nor was
it in any manner necessary to the pres
ervation of these rights. Immediately
after Judge York's recent decision, one
of the attorneys for the railway COM
pany saw the city attorney and told
him that we would be very glad to ex-
pedite a hearing of this question in the
supreme court.
This attorney for the railway COM
pany, Mr.. Trask, offered to go with the
city attorney to the supreme court to
be in session this week, and ask them to
put the case on the calendar for hear
ing at the earliest possible moment, be-
cause of its public Importance. He Of
fered again to agree that Immediately
upon decision of the question by the
supreme court, If the decision was ad-
verse to us, we would remove our tracks
from the street and stop the operation
or that we would apply for and pur-
chase a franchise of the city for the
continued operation Of the line. The
reply of the city to this offer, in line
with our original understanding, was
to tear up the track and cut the wires.
We repeat again that the legal point in
volved is a very close one. The supreme
court of this state stood three to three
upon a point similar the last time the
question was raised before It, AS judge
VOrlr said in his recant decisfon the