South Bend news-times. (South Bend, Ind.) 1913-1938, 1919-03-05
COMPANY ASKS
ORDINANCE De
DECLARED VOID
Makes Appeal to Public Serv-
ice Commission Against
15-minute Service Bill
Passed by Council.

Holding that the conditions con-
tanned in the ordinance passed by the
city council Feb. / of this year. pro-
viding for a 15-minute service on all
street car lines in the city, are un-
reasonable and cannot be enforced
with justice to the street railways
company, the Chicago, South Bend
& Northern Indiana Street Railways
CO. has filed a petition with the IN
diana public service commission,
asking that the ordinance adopted by
the South Bend city cornell be de-
clared void.
The petition points out that the
first section of the ordinance is un-
reasonable and void in that it would
require the street car company to
operate car each way on all Of
it's lines in the city every i min
utes. including its sidings and
switches. The petition goes on TO say
that public convenience in South
Bend does not require such service.
and that its demand is unreasonable.
The petition holds that the ordinance
is so indefinite and ambiguous as to
render its enforcement uncertain.
and the violation Of its terms unde-
terminable.
Charge Ambiguity.
Further ambiguity and uncertain
ity Of the ordinance is pointed out in
the petition which holds that the or
dinance does not say what kind Of
car the street car company must op-
crate on all of it's lines every -
minutes
The public service commissioners
are also told that the enforcement
of the ordinance would deprive
densely populated sections Of the
city along the company's lines a
more frequent service than that de-
manded in the ordinance, owing to
the terms Of the measure adopted by
the city council. Further unreason-
ableness of the ordinance is held in
the petition by pointing out that
the operation of the 15-minute serv-
ice is required without regard to
weather conditions, traffic accidents
and other distractions of operation
but requires the company to operate
its cars on the 15-minute schedule
at all hazards. The petition also
holds that the city council has no
power in law to enact such an ordi-
nance. All OF the foregoing objec-
tions of the petition are directed at
the first section OF the ordinance.
Attacks Second Section.
Attacking the second section Of
the measure adopted by the city
council, the petition declares that
it is too indefinite and uncertain as
10 its provisions for the company
TO be able TO follow its provisions.
and that a court would not be able
TO determine when an action of the
company was in violation Of the
( terms of the ordinance
Further attacking the second sec
tion Of the measure. the petition
points out its unreasona bleness in
that the enforcement Of its terms
would force the company TO make
extensive changes in its lines. which
the petition holds are unnecessary.
The petition says that the present
operation Of the lines of the com
pany compels il 10 maintain in the
business district of the city certain
loops that are necessary 70 the Civ
ing Of good service and that under
the enforcement Of the terms Of the
ordinance. il would he impossible 10
operate these loops. The further un-
reasonableness of the ordinance is
held by the company TO be i'm that il
forces q compliance with its terms
without regard TO revenue 10 be de-
rived by the company.