The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1907-11-12
To ASK FOR BIDS.
Branner Street Viaduct Fran
chise Goes Through.
Opposition of the City Council.
Withdrawn.
MIR. HURLEY NETTLED.
Didn't Like the Objections of
COuncilmen.
Sewer Scandal Is. to Be Probed
Some More.
MIR. HURLEY NETTLED

|
| Bids will be asked for Immediately by
| the Topeka Street Railway company
| for the construction of the new Branner
| street viaduct which it has been esti-
| mated will cost $4,000
THE concrete foundation will be built
this fall if we are successful in award
ing a contract" said F. 6. Kelley sec
rotary of the street railway company.
if this is to be done this fall. The work
on the superStructure will probably be
started early next spring and by the
middle of the summer we hope to see
the viaduct completed and be ready to
route our cars to Oakland by way of
it. If we fail to let the contract this
fall it will have to lay over until next
spring. 1t is probable that the con-
Struction of the concrete foundations
and the viaduct proper will all be let
to one contractor"
The franchise ordinance permitting
the street railway company and the
Branner street across the Santa Fe
tracks passed the council last evening
by unanimous vote but not without
fight which BODIED i'll for the passage Of
the measure for a time.
The absence of a clause which would
save the city harmless from all damages
arising out of the construction of the
viaduct was the source of the opposi-
ordinance passed by the council has
such clause in it and 1t was argued
that the one presented last evening
should contain a similar section.
The street railway company contended
that the fact that ViaductS were men
toned in the save harmless clause of
the street railway franchise was ample
and sufficient to cover the construction
of the Branner street viaduct even
though the street railway was not
ia
ton.
T. F. Doran, attorney for the street
railway company stated their position.
This in no way mobiles our liability
under our original franchise ordinance"
said he. This specifically mentions
viaducts and 1 think covers all possible
liability. The need of putting this in
this new franchise I cannot understand,
it simply burdens it. We are giving the
city a viaduct with a roadway and
sidewalk that we agree to perpetually
maintain. Now you are asking US to
light 1t like street. I don't believe
that we ought to do it. think it's
good proposition as it stands"
The city attorney lad drawn up a
substitute ordinance franchise which
proposed a number of amendments over
the one submitted to the council by the
street railway company. Principal
among them was the -.'save harmless
clause" which guaranteed to protect the
city against all damages caused by rea-
and also an amendment which provided
that the viaduct must be kept lighted
with street lights from one end to the
other. The street railway company
stated they didn't object to putting in
some incandescent lights on the stair
ways leading to the viaduct but they
objected to furnishing street lights.
IF the railway agrees to build 1 can
not see why they are not liable for any
damages. If it isn't acceptable, so far
as the Santa Fe is concerned, am in
favor of withdrawing the ordinance"
said j. E. Hurley, general manager of
the Santa Fe.
Mr. Hurley then suggested that the
city might have the privilege at any
time and make repairs if repairs had
been neglected by the constructors of
the viaduct and charge the cost of re-
pairs to the street railway company
and the Santa Fe.
A number of the members of the
council urged the passage of the ordf-
nance. Councilman c. K. Holiday
said: 1.-THE council should be willing to
stand gamble on a 100000 proposition.
This is a matter that vitality interests
our people down there and doesn't af-
feet the rest of the city. We want that |
viaduct down there and we want it bad. |
Don't tie it up now with red tape
Mayor Green stood out strongly for |
save harmless clause. 'Thsi viaduct |
is being constructed by the railroad |
companies because it's a necessity"
said he. TITS of benefit to them. The |
benefit is not for the city at all. To |
protect the city against damages, that |
Is the question at controversy. The |
city certainly ought to be protected"
1T can't agree with you,' said Mr..
1--WE did it to accommodate
our employees, it is true, but they are
residents of your city and they repre-
sent q considerable number and pay a |
large proportion of the taxes. I would |
prefer to withdraw the franchise" Mr..
Hurley then put on his hat, walked out
Of the council chamber and shut the |
door noisily after him.
Councilman Jordan and Mayor Green
remained steadfast in their resolution
that the city be protected. Finally a |
conference was held between the city
attorney and T. F. Doran, attorney for |
the street railway company, and an
drawn up which provided
that the city may at any time when II
believes that the viaduct is not being I
maintained, make the neces-
sary repairs and charge the cost of the |
same to the railroad companies. Then
after a whispered consultation with the |
,ity attorney, Mayor Green withdrew
MS opposition as did Councilman Jor-
Ian and the ordinance passed unan-
The council, however, broke
sharply on a previous vote, Councilman
Jordan being the only one of the coun-
,ilmen to stand by the mayor out of
he ten present, but the mayor managed