Evening journal., 1911-09-01
fconlinued From First Page.l

NOOnOnuCN from FlIhL Gdkotl
T. Crosby, president, and Henry p.
Scott, a director OF the Traction
Company Charles G. Guyer took a
stenographic report Of the proceed
ings One Of those in the gathering in
the Council chamber was Federal Dis
trict Attorney John p Nields, who
also was at the first hearing.
A communication was received by
the Board from the Wilmington
Lodge, Order Of Railway Trainmen,
Charles r. Donovan secretary, pro-
testing against the abolition OF strip
! tickets
Regrets Raising Of Rate Question.
President Taylor at the outset an
nounced that the object Of the meet
ing was to hear any additional in
formation I'm answer TO the complaint
against the abolition Of strip tickets
that the Traction Company would
care to submit.
Herbert H. Ward. Of counsel for
the company. said that while he was
not present az the previous meeting
he understood that the Board had
taken the position that the only quas-
ton IL would consider would be the
reasonableness of the five cent fare.
Mr.. Taylor said that was the position
taken.
Mr. Ward said he thought this was
rule that could not be a general
one. He regretted that he could not
have been present at the previous
meeting before any rule of procedure
was adopted. He believed the Board
eventually would have to establish
some other rule.
Mr.. Ward said the question of rates
was the most important question that
could come before the Board, and
thought It unfortunate that It should
be the first question to come up for
consideration.
The decision Of the Board that. 1t
would not consider legal rights, but
would ask the company to put in evi-
dence. left but little for the company
to do, Mr.. Ward said. He thought
it an unusual ruling. but he would
not appeal TO have Il changed He
wished Il understood clearly that the
company wanted no quarrel with the
Board. and he deplored quarrels. He
feared future relations might be ting
ed because Of the result Of this pro-
oedure.
"If the Board declines to- consider
our rights as rights, then we don't
feel that we can put in eivdence,p
said Mr.. Ward
How can we put IN evidence" he
asked, and he desired to know what
rule would be followed to determine
the reasonable Of rates
1--WE can't introduce evidence at
large, helter-skelter. without know
ing what point we are aiming at or
what line we shall hew along" AS
this had not been determined Mr..
Ward said, the company felt that It
could not put in evidence.
Mr.. Hastings Explains.
City Solicitor Hastings said he felt
II was due TO the Commission and to
himself to explain the position he had
taken. He felt that the Board had the
jurisdiction, and not he, but he was
named by law as legal adviser Of the
board. He said he had read the law
and undertook to follow IT as he un-
/. derstood It. He said he had taken the
law that II had given the board juris
J. diction over rates. Whether or no
charter rights give a company a iigh
TO do certain things. he thought shoull
4 not be determined by a board no
composed of lawyers.
Mr. Hastings said that even II he 81
believed as to charter rights, If h.
4 should write an opinion TO the boarI
that the charter gave the company tn
! right to charge a five cent fare, h
would not be able TO live in town
Half of the lawyers would say | wa
wrong and ninety-hve per cent. of thu
people would say so, too" said Mr.
Hastings.
Even II he had such a view Of tn
law as 10 charter rights, Mr.. Hasting
K said he would advise the board It ha
jurisdiction and a legal right to pro
ceed with its investigation as he hal
advised IT, On the other hand MI
Hastings said that even II he we're q
D the opinion that the company had n
. charter right to charge a five cen
fare at all times. he said he woul
follow the same course and would ad
wise the board that it has jurisdiC
. tion over rates, and advise It to g
a---------