Arizona republican. [volume] (Phoenix, Ariz.) 1890-1930, 1918-12-29
ORDER To
RUN CARS ON
GRAND AVE. LINE
Phoenix Street Railway Co.
Goes Into Court To Have
Vacated Order Of The
Corporation Commission

Claiming that the Arizona corpora
ton commission did not have jurisdic-
ton in the matter, the Phoenix Ran
way company of Arizona yesterday
instituted court proceedings TO nave
the order of the commission that II
reconstruct and operate its grand
avenue line before January 10, vacated
The traction company charges that the
order was unlawful, unreasonable, un-
fair and unjust and beyond the au-
| thority of the commission to make.
The traction company discontinued
service on the Grand avenue line IN
April. 1918. According to the COM
plaint, the plaintiff was compelled 10
abandon the use of its tracks when
they became disintegrated as the re-
suit of paving north Seventh avenue
| The operations of twelve years ceased
only when it became impossible to
operate and shortly afterwards the
corporation commission cited the com
pany to appear and show cause why
| service should not be re-eStablisheo,
since it appeared to the corporation
commission that public convenience
and necessity required 1t.
Orders Service Resumed.
In due course of time, the answer
commission. The plaintiff claims that,
notwithstanding the lack of substan
tial evidence to sustain the citation
the commission made a decision to the
effect that public interest required the
rendition of service and ordered the
company to reconstruct the roao
which must be completed and In operr
alton by December IS.
then filed by the respondent, but with
out further hearing the commission
made it's order that the application p'
denied. The reconstruction period wa.
extended until January IS, 1919.
The traction company holds that tn
4 commissions act was arbitrary, un
l reasonable and unlawful and who'll!
: unsupported by evidence. 1t claim
that it did not have jurisdiction unde
. the constitution or the statutes not tn
authority to make the decision to re
construct the line because of the fac
: that the line is within the corporal
!, limits of the city and the power of reg
ulation is vested in the city.
Says It Is Losing Money.
further claim is made that it va
not in its rights to compel the com
j.. many to reconstruct the line, for tn
reason that it is non productive ana
losing money, and for the additions
s reason that the plaintiff has full pow
er and authority to abandon any por
ton of the line or lines that it is a
10 any time operating on a losing basl
The plaintiff contends the require
,, ments would involve an expenditure
- many thousands of dollars, and ths
~ the plaintiff has no money In II
IL treasury. Besides, being financial
% unable to pay for the work, the tra'
Is ton company alleges that war prlc,.
IS make it practically impossible to Of
"a tain rails and the scarcity OF labor
co also advanced as making the pin
40 reconstruction unreasonable.
10 Declares Line Not Needed.
% The company points out that the
vi is no public need for its resumlng sc
% vice. since the Atchison, Topeka a.
90 Santa F'e operate along Grand aven
"a during fair week and that Jitney Sc
. vice has been established. The IL
% has never been remunerative and
increase in the taking over OF |
nd Grand avenue line will increase |
operating expenses.