Indiana daily times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1914-1922, 1921-08-23

cob p. Brown and DR.. Sumner A. Fur
nisss Of the city council, represented the
city and Dr. Jameson and Mr.. Todd, the
company, in the conference.
NOTHING DEFINITE
EXPECTED OF 1T.
1t was expected before the conferences
opened that nothing definite would come
Of it. City officials were not willing to
discuss what took place, but it was
learned jitney competition, paving be-
tween tracks and payment of the fran
chise tax are the three main points at
issue
In his recommendations Council Presi-
dent Wilson said:
Il believe jitney competitor by or
dinanee should be removed tmmedi-
ately from streets containing car
lines" after declaring the city ''raa-
sonably should be assured there will
be no increase in the rate of fare"
ard that the company should by con-
tract agree ito continue to perform
those Of its former charter obliga-
tions which the city sees fit to re-
tain"
Here, city officials seemed to believe,
was a program upon which final settle
ment may be effected. In other words,
the way appeared TO have been opened
by Mr.. Wilson's recommendations for a
deal in which the city might trade the
car company protection from jitney COM
petition in return for continued payment
Of the franchise tax and paving between
tracks by the company
That 1t would require long days Of dis
cussion before such a settlement might
be effected was recognized from the fact
that so far the company has insisted that
1t will have to be relieved Of Jitney com
petition, the franchise tax and the paving
cost From statements of company
officials It has appeared that the COM
pany believes the only thing 1t has to
offer to the city is insurance Of con-
tinued good service at a low rate of fare,
and that TO give such guarantee it must
bo relieved of the three main burdens"
Mr.. Wilson's statement, supplemental
to the findings Of the junketlng commit
tee which bears no recommendations, is
as follows:
From the committees investigation as
detailed in the report submitted to the
council. 1t is by profound personal
opinion:
CONSIDER RELIEF
FOR NEITHER
u. We az enot concerned primarily
with either the welfare of the street car
company or the jitney bus. If regula-
tory legislation for the ijtney bus is
necessary, IL should not be viewed in the
light OF relief for, or aid TO, the street
car company but purely and solely as a
matter Of benefit 10 the public to the
city and to itsindividual citizens.
-. The situation existing between the
street car company and the city is very
similar to the condition in Des Moines
These the car company is insisting upon
cancellation OF its franchise and upon ths
city ordering the jitney busses of the
street car lines. At the same time the
street car company has refused, to date.
to state what provisions for the city's
benefit IL viii agree to in a new fran
chise. and has refused to discuss TO what
extent it viii agree to submit itself to
the city's regulations in any new fran
chlse, merely taking the stand that the
old franchise first should be cancelled.
quite naturally, the city authorities
are not in accord with this attitude
as stated in the mayors communicat ton
to the Des Moines council exhibit E).
1t IS our opinion that the present fran
chise should not be Cancelled until a new
franchise is drawn and submitted. He
thinks that the street car company should
bring in q new franchise definitely
worked out in detail and present it for
approval to the council. The company
has come before the council telling what
it wants the council to do for 1t, but Of
fering nothing in return.
LOCAL SITUATION
LIKE DIES MONIES.
This situation is not unlike ours. The
Indianapolis Street Railway Company
has surrendered its franchise and is OPP
Grating under an indeterminate permit is
sued by the State. It has been the city's
endeavor for some weeks TO reach an un-
derstanding with the car company as to
the future authority of the city over the
company, and TO induce the company to
continue to perform some of the obliga-
tions and conditions of its previous
charter
THE company recently stated to the
city, through its counsel, that 1t would
enter into no contract with the city. The
be performed by the company under its
old charter should be renewed by con-
tract, as the company's contention, at the
time the law was passed. permitting 1t
to surrender its charter, was that it was
concerned only with the valuations rate
Of fare, etc, and that 1t would continue
to meet its other charter obligations even
Continued on Page Nine.)