The Lake County times. [volume] (Hammond, Ind.) 1906-1933, 1919-08-20

The Common Council rejected our proposal
for increased fare and has made it impossible for
us TO carry out the agreement with our men. No
one denied that the company was entitled to more
money or that the agreement with the men was
just Our figures and estimates to the added
cost from the increased scale and the revenue
that seven cent fare would bring were not dis
puted. The Council arbitrarily refused to grant
relief unless the Company would agree to build
extensions and make changes in the present
method of operation that would cost the Company
over $4OO,OOO.OO.
The Committee of the Council, which met
with lis on Monday, presented eight written de-
mands, none of which had any connection with
the question of increased fare to provide money
to pay the increased scale. We were and are
financially unable to comply with these demands,
and at the meeting the Committee served notice
on lis if we did not build the line on Calumet
avenue and comply with the other demands they
would force receivership.
To build on Calumet avenue under the pres
emit high price of material and labor would cost
100000. The Company has built, within the
last year, the Columbia avenue extension on the
east side of Hammond, for which it has assumed
an Indebtedness of $15OOOOO0 This extension
has been IN operation since July lst and is being
operated at loss Of 100000 a month. The
Calumet Avenue Improvement Association at
tempted TO force the Company to build on Calu-
met avenue in 1918 through the Public Service
Commission. That Commission heard the evi-
dence in full in June, 1918, and gave its decision
that the facts showed concluslvely that they were
not warranted in ordering the construction of the
line. We are only asking for an increase of fare
to June 1st, 1920, and the entire receipts from
the additional fare between now and that time
on our estimates, which have not been disputed,
would not be sufficient TO build the Calumet ave-
nue. line If we had to use the extra two cents
for this purpose we could not pay the 65-cent
scale and operate the Lines under the wage
agreement with our men. Why the Council IN
the face of the existing emergency, which is de
priving the public of street car service should
require us to do this impossible and unreasonable
thing, il is difficult to understand.
Another of the written demands is that we
pave Indianapolis Boulevard from the State Line
to the Whiting limits. Our franchise requires us
to pave the part of the street occupied by US
when the city paves. The City did not pave In
dianapolis Boulevard It was paved by the
County three years ago and paid for out Of the
general tax fund.- TO which Company con-
tributed Our annual tax bill is S2500000. The
Company therefore, contributed to the existing
pavement on the street The additional pave
ment would cost $5O00000 Our franchise does
not require us to do this paving In attempting
to force us to do So the city is attempting to tax
us twice When the County paved indianapolis
Boulevard and paid for it out of the general fund
if an individual property owner abutting on the
street was required at his own expense to stand