The Richmond palladium and sun-telegram. [volume] (Richmond, Ind.) 1907-1939, 1908-02-20
NEITHER OF THE ORIGINAL
RANTS ISSUED BY THE CITY
AS THERE A CLAUSE PERMIT
NG FREIGHT TRAFFIC.
,CTION ADMITS DEFEAT.
sci Says That the City Holds
e Winning Hand in the Freight
ute Question-Argumen Before
Q Commission.

is thought that Judge Anderson OF
tUnited States district court, at
lnapolis, will make a ruling in the
mond-T. II. |. & +. traction com
case, which will be a victory for
city. 1t is the general opinion
Judge Anderson will rule that the
zion company has no authority to
ate freight cars on Main street
:, however. it is thought that he
shand down a decision that the
has no constitutional right to pre-
.the company from operating pas
er cars on Main street east of
ah street.
; city of Richmond is principally
crned in forcing the company to
ute freight cars through the north
eff the city. If this point is de-
q in favor of the city. it will be
n than enough to make up for an
,orable decision on the other point
introversy. To secure a freight
Through any section of the city
iuld be necessary for the traction
cany to first secure a franchise.
Ig won its point on the freight is
she city would stand willing to
ghe company favorable' terms in
tianchise for the operation of pas
sr cars on Main street east of
IN street.
brney Wilfred Jessup. who as
81 City Attorney 7. J. Study when
thse came up for hearing in the
fl court. made the following
shent today: In speaking of the
cit would be- wise to review lit
1story. The Terre Haute. In
dpolis 4 Eastern traction compa-
N the successor to the old Rich
m Street and Interurban Railroad
ttHy uuu iHS ihuiuhh N CdStSih Ii
Ton company. The company
othe franchise granted the street
company in 1889 by council. It
bht suit last fall to enjoin the city
reinforcing its freight ordinance
as Main street ordinance.
the bill of complaint filed by the
tpn company. the city filed de-
N Arguments on the case were
N in the federal court Tuesday and
Nesday of this week. The court
hot yet passed on the case. Dur
tie arguments, Judge Anderson
81 that the company had no right
tbdle freight in cars in the city un-
,ae terms OF the 1889 franchise.
Itourt suggested that there was
xidoubt in his mind as TO whether
thy pursued the right course when
ordinance prohibiting the opera
tif traction cars on Main street
ef Eighth street was passed. He
SHAT he thought ii would have
bbetter had the city brought in
jlbn proceedings against the
ceny in the state courts because of
tintractional relationship between
THY and the company which had
sf out of the two franchises held
by company--the 1889 franchise
arc Lontz and Freeman franchise
OF.
eaked out during the argument
thst summer just after the freight
orlce had been enacted and Just
pro the enactment of the Main
stprdinance the T. H. l. 4 E. trac-
tiompany had filed a bill of COM
pl3n the federal court. seeking to
enthe city from enforcing the
FIRE ordinance. AT that time Judge
Arpn told Mr.. Winters, counsel for
thppany. that he did not believe
anlction against this ordinance
wdhold good. Mr.. Winters then
wiiw the complaint
tase the eour suStains the de.
me city has filed against the com
plSf the company the proceedings
@H at an end. unless the company
tain appeal, If the demur is not
pontipnad pn<-Ea2s Tanl