The comet. (Johnson City, Tenn.) 1884-1916, 1911-01-26

ter OF GOOD business sense and judy
ment not to grant a franchise of an
kind or character of longer duration
than twenty years.
Therefore, the statements con
tanned in publication that the NOR
conservative element of the bushes
men in Johnson City favor til,
granting of thirty or forty year
franchise in this or any other in
stance is most respectfully, but EN-
phatically challenged or denied
Therefore, let us beware of per
petual franchise or one which ex
ceeds such reasonable period of fiji
teen or twenty years. We CANNOT
pursue any other course and safely
and honestly conserve the rights anC
best interests of the people of John
son City now and in the years tc
come.
Construction of Old Franchise.
The second feature of this new
application to which we desire tc
call attention is the clause OF
wording of the additional or new
franchise so as to enable it to be
said in the future that the pres
ent action of the board shall be
construed as an Interpretation Of
the old franchise to be perpetu-
al franchise. 1t is fair to say
that this may be prompted by no
evil intention, but in its effect
and consequences it is both inju-
rious and of the most dangerous
character. This arises on the
reference made in the new grant
to the old grant, wherein it is
provided in the new graft that
the exclusive feature of the new
grant shall terminate at the same
time the exclusive feature of the
old grant terminates. BY the use
of this language the board, if it
passes the ordinance in that form,
will be made to say, in legal eff
feet, that the old grant gave an
exclusive franchise and also an
open franchise of unlimited dura-
tiou. By pointing out the exclu-
sive feature of it, without refer
ence to any other feature, the
conduct of the board will be open
to the inference that the said
original grant contained also an
open franchise for an unlimited
period. 1t is this provision of
wording of the new grant which
may be the most injurious in its
consequences to the people of
Johnson City. When the original
grant was made the board did
not know or understand that it
was to be for anything other
than an exclusive franchise for
twenty years. The question of
being a franchise r1on-exclusive
after twenty years was not raised,
they were not asked for any such
grant, they state it was not
known to them that any such
grant was being made, and in
fact, a reasonable and fair con-
struction of said grant as it now
stands will not permit the Trac-
ton Company TO draw this infer
ence. We can not do other than
say that this is unfair on the part |
of the Traction Company. 1t is
a question of overwhelming i'm
portance in respect to this matter
as to whether or not the Traction
Company can occupy the streets
On which it is now operating for
ever and forever.
Is it possible that the people
IAN be thus taken by surprise ?
Can it be possible that the board
IAN have made such a mis-
AXE as this? Can we thus be
1eld against our will and consent
oy what we may call mere snap
We answer GER
:ainly not. But in order to make
sure of our footing on this ques-
ION, let it be seen that no word
,r phrase be used in the grant of
IN additional franchise at this
line, which will lend encourage
nent to any such view.
We therefore invoke on the part
If the city council the greatest
iigilance in respect to this matter.