The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1907-01-28
vIADUlC.T[aAGAlN LAGS.
City Railway and Railroads Refuse to
Sign Contracts.

Inc street railway company has re-
fused to sign the contract ordinance
| 70 put up its share to the reconstruc-
/ ton of the East Sixth avenue viaduct
ana the whole matter is now up in the
air; The proportion which the street
| railway company was to bear was ap-
| proxfmately $4,000.
Negotiations are dragging and it
LOOKS very much as if the ordinance
contract will have to be reintroduced
INTO the council and another vote
taken for reconsideration.
| The Santa Fe, and Missouri Pacific
railroads also have failed to sign their
names to the contract and the street
railway management has succeeded in
placing them in the frame of mind
where the two railroads are disin-
cl1ned to approve of the contract.
The contract ordinance was first
prepared and drawn up by the two
railroads in conjunction with the
street railway and presented to the
council at the regular meeting of the
council January Z.
The council decided that it could not
approve of the contract without GER
tain alterations recommended by F. G.
ations consisted practically of these
two things-that as far as the street
railway is concerned the Yiaduct would
not be maintained perpetually, also
that the right to use the viaduct would
not be granted for a longer term of
years than the life of the franchise.
This latter right could be construed
by inference from the text of the con-
tract ordinance as first presented
The street railway does not object,
it is said, to the amendment covering
the last named right, but 1T does OBJ
ject to the city declaring that 1t will
not maintain the viaduct perpetually.
L. E. Myers, vice president of the
street railway company, has made the
declaration that his company won't
contribute anything to the reconstruc-
ton because the contract has been
amended in the particular mentioned.
The cost of the reconstruction of the
viaduet is upon an estimate about
$4,000 With the contribution of the
two railroads amounting to $4,000. the
Santa Fe giving $4,000 and Missouri
Pacific $1,000, together with the street
railway company's contribution
amounting to an additional $4,000. the
city would have been able to scurry
around and raise the $4,000 remain
ing without eonsidera BILE difficulty.
Whether the city can afford to sign
away rights which it now possesses for
$500 is a serious question. The
street railway company has the same
rights over East Sixth avenue viaduct
that it has on any other thoroughfare
of the city-juSt that and no more. 1t
is bound to keep its right of way over
the bridge in repair, just as it is COM
PEELED to keep its right of way in other
portions of the city in repair. This
cost on the viaduct amounts to about
$2,20o. In addition the street railway
gives SO, 400 towards. the
general RECONSTRUCTION of the viaduct.
This it is not forced to do and can be
put down to the credit of the COM
pany.
But whether the city should agree
to perpetualiy maintain the viaduct
for the street railway company is
something that looms up pretty large.
The city is bound to maintain the via
duct in repair as long as reasonable
fair &c &c nd
TO do under previous agreement
made with the Santa Fe and Missouri
Pacific This agreement was a sepa-
rate instrument and did not take into
1t as a party the street railway COM
pany Also the agreement does not
sDecify perpetual maintenance.