Arizona republican., 1909-03-09
GrantiRgOf gOfFranchisesWiI|Be
 Submitted to Vote ARE VIOLENTLY OPPOSED
LII. Chalmers Delivers Heat ed Argument Against Sub- urban Railway Resolution and J. L. B. Alexander Against New Telephone.

Two resolutions which will have an important bearing on the industrial future of the city were passed last night by the city council. A resolu- tion providing for the submitting to popular vote the granting of a fran chise to the Suburban Railway com pany to construct a road and operate it within the city limits was passed after violent opposition by the repre- sentatives of the Phoenix Street Rail way company. The dissenting vote on the resolution was Yeager.
 A resolution which was recommend ed for passage by the committee of the whole provides for the submitting to popular vote at the next election the granting of a franchise to Dwight B. Heard, E. s. Wakelin and Dr. John W. Foss for the installation of an ad- ditiOnal telephone system It was passed unanimously.
 The granting of both of these frar- chises will be submitted to a vote at a special election on April 20.
 After the street railway ordinance had been read and the resolution sub mitting it to popular vote was pre- scented to the council. L. H. Chalmers, representing the Sherman interests, made a violent and bitter protest, not so much against the passage of the resolution. but more as an arraignment of the members of the council for the manner in which he had been treated. MT Chalmers oration was delivered in tones that shook the windows. He said in part:
 T am here 10 protest against the treatment that I. the accredited repre- sentative of the Phoenix City Railway company, have received in this mat ter The ordinance that was read at the last meeting of council was en- tirely different from the one read to- night. The property of the Phoenix street railway company is a part and parcel of this ordinance and on the ground of fairness we should have something to say in regard to it, and we were told last Monday we would have an opportunity to discuss it. Yet tonight I come here and find very different ordinance than the one which was read before and I am ap- parently to be given no chance to look over it's provisions"
 MT Chalmers argument was that no forfeit was provided in the ordinance for the non-observance by the com pany of its provisions. The ordinance is absolutely meaningless" he said. and the company can do exactly as they please. as there is no penalty for not carrying out the specifications"
 City Attorney Prescott asked bland ly: Where is the forfeiture clause in your franchise?"
 T don't think we have one" replied MT Chalmers, and I thank God for it. But there should not be two fran chises of the same sort in town of this size.''
 MT. Chalmers continued by saying that MT. Sherman had invested from $250, 900 to s3O0,0O0 in this city and had a right to be heard. He has a right to know the terms by which some of his property is to be shared by others Take out the clause about the tracks of the new road crossing our tracks and I have nothing more to say As it now stands we should be given time to consider the provisions of this franchise and be permitted to