Arizona republican. [volume] (Phoenix, Ariz.) 1890-1930, 1915-04-07
LOOP CASE UP
To COMMISSION
Many Attend Hearing at
State House and Much
Testimony introduced on
Both Sides Early Decis-
ion Expected

Reasons for and against the pro-
and removal of the ear line from
First to Fourth street, We're present
ed at the hearing of the matter be-
fore the corporation commission yes
terday. The case, when was sub
mitted late yesterday afternoon with
out argument or briefs, viii be decid-
ed by the commission today or to-
morrow.
Property owners on both sides of
the question filled the supreme court
chamber when the case came up for
hearing at 10 o'clock, and Attorneys
Ling and WesterVelt for the petit
TONERS announced that a number of
those present wished to testify in
favor OF the proposed change. Bar
ney Kersting. d property owner on
First street, first took the stand and
presented his reasons for the re-
moVal of the line from First street.
He was cross examined by Leslie G.
Hardy, assistant attorney general, for
tie commission and j. {. Adams,
extension. Kersting admitted he was
interested in property on East Wash
inSton street and also on Fourth
street. and that he had subscribed
toward the bonus of $4,000 TO he paid
the company for building the line
proposed. He stated that he thought
the line would greatly benefit the
IA II Gina IN It Of
and said that property owners on
First street had all the disadvan-
taSes and none of the advantages OF
car line.
At the afternoon session S. II.
Mitchell, manager of the Phoenix
Railway company took the stand. His
testimony went to show that the
struct a new track at once either
on First street or somewhere else,
between Roosevelt and Washington
and that while the Fourth street line
was regarded favorably by the COM
panY it was not ready 20 undertak
the construction of a new line there
without some bonus from property
pany had openly opposed the paving
on First street and that when coun-
ter petitions were being circulated
| that the statement had been made
that the line might be removed To
Second or Third street lie was
closely questioned by counsel for the
commission and the protestants as
/ "a nf Sfr
the value of adjacent property. The
crowd saw the humorous side of the
| matter when Commissioned Geary
upon being assured that the stree.
railway company desired to follow
| the commissions orders at all
times, remarked Il appreciate the
fact that you are always in a hurry
10 follow our instructions"
! DIR. \. y. Gurley also took the
stand for the petitioners He was
followed by II. r. Wilkinson, w B
! Lount, Charles Korrick, vic stein
cgger and Judge c. F. Ainsworth, all
OF whom presented testimony against
the proposed change. Property own
ers on First street, it was stated
line was built, among them f. Nj
Mognett who had donated sum OF
money and two lots to the street
car company. Mr. Steinegger read
into the record a statement from
Mr. Mognett to this effect. All OF
those testifying against the removal
OF the line asserted that the change
proposed would materially affect
property values on First street, espe-
cially south of Van Buren,. Chalmers
and Kent appeared for the street
railway company.
The commission has taken the case
under advisement, and "A decision
will probably be handed down today
or tomorrow, as the company is
anxious to know whether to com
/ plete the loop at First street or t.
carry out the proposed extension