The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1907-11-08
DIVIDED ON VlADUCT.
Councilman Jordan Not Satisfied With
Proposed Franchise.

The streets and walks committee OF
the council is divided on the franchise
ordinance permitting the Street Rail
way company ard the Santa F'e to con-
struct the Branner street viaduct. AS
q result of this division of opinion three
members of the committee last evening
recommended to the council that the
ordinance be passed. while Councilman
c.. E. Jordan brought in a minority re-
port holding against 1t.
The difference of opinion arises over
whether saving the city from damage
suits that might arise by reason OF the
construction of the viaduct should De
contained in the Observation-Disclosures.
AS the ordinance was drawn there is
no reference to such a clause. The sec
ton under dispute occurs In all OIL the
ordinances granting. rights OF ways TO
railroads or franchises tc public corpor-
atoms and is as follows In the FRANCHISE
of the Topeka Railway company:
THAT said the Topeka Railway COM
pany shall save said city harmless from
all cost, damages and expenses, Tor the
payment of which said city may become
liable to any person or persons or cor
poration by reason of the granting OF
the rights herein granted to said rail-
road company, or by reason OF the con-
struction or operation OF SAID railway,
or any viaduct thereon, or by reason
of said railway company failing to con-
struct suitable or proper crossings, Gull
verts or waterways or viaductS as here
in provided or by reason of said COM
pany failing to conform with any OF the
provisions or requirements contained IN
this ordinance"
F. G. Kelly and Albert Patten, repre-
senting the Topeka railway company,
were present, while the members of the
committee attending We're Counc1lmen
c. K. Holiday, w. G. Tandy, Z. W.
Horn and G. E. Jordan.
I'VE. are not insisting the passage
of this ordinance" said Mr.. Kelly to
the councilmen. I'VE don't want you
to think that we are insisting on it,.
When Jordan asked that the clause
saving the city harmless be inserted he
was met with the objection of the rail-
way company Now, 1 don't see what
occasion there might be for any dam
age to be brought" said Patten. I'VE
have been planning for this vfaduct for
the past four years and have changed
the plans at least ten different times
in order to avoid as much possible
any chance of damage suits arising.
We thought now that we had this ar
ranged. We have purchased land on all
sides of the viaduct in order to avoid
that very thing of damage suits. 1t
doesn't matter very much either way
whether that clause is in there or not
except for this reason that some one
will see that clause in there and make
1T a peg on which to hang a suit. That's
our objection to it. There are four or
five who have purchased homes in there
with the knowledge that the viaduct
was going to be built and they might
want to bring suit, though they knew
that this was going to be built"
well, if it doesn't make much differ
ence either way why not have it in?"
asked Jordan. 81 am simply standing
up for the city's interests and want to
see the city protected. 1 would like to
see that viaduct built and 1 am for it,
THAT viaduct is a great thing for the
Second ward" said Councilman Holli-
day. THE whole Second ward wants
1t and don't think that anyone should
stand in the way now to keep it from