Arizona republican. [volume] (Phoenix, Ariz.) 1890-1930, 1905-10-07

enue to the territorial fair ground
though the company yesterday began
moving the ties and otherwise indicat-
ing that the work would be abandoned
in consequence of the action of the
supervisors the day before in repeating
the Dunbar franchise. At the request
of Chairman ]. c. Adams of the board
of directors of the fair association and
member of the territorial fair commits
sion, a meeting of the board OF sup
ervisors was held in the afternoon, re-
suIting in the proposal by the board of
a modus vivendi Mr.. Adams made
a strong presentation of the case of
the fair association and the commits
sion. He said he did not care to en-
ter into the merits of the dispute be-
tween the street car company and the
supervisors. Such a dispute he said
was untimely now that the fair was
so near at hand and that so much de-
pended upon securing transportation
facilities. He said that the company
had declined the suggestion of the
upe.visors that it apply for permit
to build the track according to such
reasonable restrictions as might be
proposed. The company believed that
such an application would be a waiver
of the rights conferred upon it in the
Dunbar franchise.
Assistant District Attorney Bulla.d
replied that no such right existed; TO
which Mr.. Adams replied that he had
not come to discuss that question Of
law but to arrange for the building Of
a line. Mr.. Billiard further said that
admitting that the company had rights
under the franchise, the making of the
application would be no more of a
waiver than had been the application
for a right on Min eteenth avenue.
Again Mr.. Adams declined to be
drawn into a discussion of academic
questions but stuck to his purpose of
securing a railroad.
Mr.. Billiard then proposed that, in
order to save the pride of the COM
pany and put the matter of the wal
yer out of the way. Mr.. Adams take
a perm3, and allow the company to
use it. To this Mr.. Adams said the
company had made the same objection
that that would be an admission of
its want of an existing right Again
MI Billiard denied that it had a right;
ii had no franchise and never had one;
the board of supervisors under the law
could not grant franchise. What had
been called the Dunbar franchise was
after all only 4 permit which could be
revoked at any time and 1t had been
revoked the day before. If said he.
il had been a franchise Il could not
have been repealed.
There seemed for a time no way
in which the company and the board
could be brought together. But late
in the afternoon the supervisors sub
mftted another proposition. That was
that the company be given a permit
20 build a line on the avenue under
certain restrictions and that it be set
forth in the permit. that on the part
Of the county, the permit was not an
admission of the right OF the company
to the use of the thoroughfare under
any franchise, and on the part Of the
company that the acceptance OF the
permit was not to be considered a
waive- of its rights under the Dunbar
franchise.
There was no representative Of the
company present at the meeting. Last
night superintendent Mitchell of the
company was asked If the company
would likely accept the proposition OF
the board. lie said that he was un-
able to express a definite opinion ON