The Caucasian. (Shreveport, La.) 1900-192?, 1910-02-27
THE LORENZ FRANCHISE.

THE LORENZ FRANCHISE.
In lengthy written opinion submit
ted at the session of the District Court
civil section, yesterday Judge Murtt sus-
tains the plea of the Traction Company,
which in substance is that it is not bound
by the provisions of the Lorenz iran
chise and that is is simply operating
over that line to Gladstone under slip
ulated contract.
The Caucasians mind is, unFo1tur
ately. not possessed of the length nor
the breadth of legal knowledge sutfl-
Gent to distinguish the differentials OF
hair-splitting technicalities in law, but
it has reserved to itself in no egotistical
spirit. at least come particles of conf
mon sense, from which it would view
practically and fairly every issue which
may be discussed in public print. From
this view then the decision of Judge
Murff may be considered calmly and
without prejudice.
Il is clearly provided in the Lorenz
franchise that whenever it shall operats
cars on its tracks as stipulated that from
that moment the franchise shall issue
and become active.
In his contention against this proposI
ton Judge Murff holds, practically, that
what is known as the Gladstone line, op-
Grated under a charter granted Loren"
and acquired BY the Atkins Brothers, Is
being operated under contract for
which the Traction Company is paid a
specified amount for its service over the
Lorenz line owned by the Atkins.
Is this conclusion sound and logical
Ii il be. then it were useless to waste
time and money and legal talent in an
attempt to compel the enforcement of a
contract, whose requirements would be
vitiated when operated by some other
party in interest, who, as i'll this case,
would claim exemption on the plea that
it were left to his pleasure or his dis
cretion TO carry into effect and in opera
ton only SO much of their contract or
agreement as would best subserve his
purpose.
In his opinion Judge Murf lays much
stress upon the words appropriation,
and otherwise" the inference being
that the Traction Company would be
liable for transfers if it had eNpropriat-
ed the right to operate over the Lorenz
line. But why should the Traction Com
pany appropriate the right to operate
over the Lorenz line when through their
agreement it is receiving the fullest
share Of compensation for the service il
is giving
If the decision of Judge Murf BIZ
sound and logical, to evade the common
sense understanding of the requirement:
of the Lorenz franchise as to transfers
it will only be necessary for the Trac-
ton Company and Atkins Brothers te
continue operating this line under lease
as is now in force Under this lease sys-
tenn the evasion of the transfers require
inents could be continued indefinitely.
We have always been led TO believe
and have heard expounded as being
good law, that when two parties are in
terested in any agreement or agreements
that each party must carry ont in good
faith each and every stipulation of tlt
agreement
Agreements would be of trivial value
if one party to a contract were permitted
to construe and TO carry into effect only
such part of the contract as would pro
mote his interest regardless of any
detriment the public would sustain
The contention of the Mayor, repre-
senting the people through legal coun-
sci. is that under the terms of the Lor-
eng franchise as it is being carried into
operation by the Traction Company, that
transfers must be given, under for
fixture Of this charter 1t is not speci-
fed in this Lorenz franchise that tbs
rights of people can be ignored and the
agreements evaded, as IS now being
practiced, in the operation Of the High
land Park and the Gladstone or Lor-
enz line.
In this Lorenz franchise are vested
some rights to which the people should
be and are entitled and they should en-
JOY.
From the decision Of Judge Murf
there will follow an appeal to the SUI.
preme Court. although a motion for q
new trial has been filed and is fixed fol
argument tomorrow.