The Morning Tulsa daily world. [volume] (Tulsa, Okla.) 1919-1927, 1922-10-26
IITNEY BATTLE
AGAIN IN COURT
Drivers Are Fighting in
Court for Permission
to Stay on Streets
'C0lE CONTINUES CASE
After Day of Arguments
Judge Says He Will
Decide Nov.

Jl;uey owners and drivers went 10
tle mat Wednesday before District
Judge Redmond s. Cole with city
officials aad the Tulsa street Rail-
way company in a legal battle. which
when II Is finally decided will either
eyterminate the jitnoys forever or
give them new life. After an all
day session during which each point
was bitterly contested. neither eide
.r the fight giving quarter or asking
a7y, Judge Cole announced a con-
, uuuance until November /, The re-
straining order against the city off
clals. prohibiting any interference
with the operation OF the jitneys IS
20 remain In force until that day,
Judge Cole announced.
Injunction Is Issued.
The question that Judge Cole will
decide when the hearing is COM
pieted is the issuing OF a temporary
Injunction against interference with
the operation of jitneys. The issuing
OF this injunction would mean de-
Claring the new Jitney ordinance in
valid and unlawful. II this ordi-
nance IL held TO be valid and consti-
tutlonal the injunction will be de-
MED. In either case, an appeal is TO
bo made to the state supreme court.
as both sides have said that IL they
lost they would carry the fight 10 a
higher court.
Most of the city officials, from the
mayor down, were present at the
hearing yesterday. Ira j. Under
wood city attorney. Harry Hallery,
assistant. represented the city and
Flint Moss was appearing for the
Tulsa street Railway company. The
tltney drivers were represented by
w. II. McLarin and Il. ]. Lundy.
The city drew first blood In the
hearing when Judge Cole agreed
with the viewpoint advanced by
Underwood that a court could not
go behind the ordinance to inquire
into the prompting motives, IL the
ordinance were valid. Counsel for
the Jitney drivers, however, declared
they were not attempting to attack
the motives prompting the ordinance
but the validity OF the ordinance.
Claim Ordinance Discriminatory.
Lundy and McLarin argued that
the ordinance was not passed TO
regulate the business engaged IN
operating cars for hire, but TO evade
the state law regulating vehicles for
hire. and prohibit jitneys from oper-
attacked the ordinance as discrimi-
natory and unconstitutional for the
reasons that II sought. by fixing an
excessive bond to prohibit the jit-
neys and permit the operation OF the
street railway husses.
Counsel for the jitneys quoted
numerous authorities 10 sus-
tain their points and consel for the
city and the street railway company
L.. .fg O. n
prove Lundy and MCLarin wrong.
Both sides were hopelessly disagreed
as 10 the meaning OF the law on the
subject.
Underwood for the city and Moss
for the railway company contended
that a municipality such as Tulsa.
which Is under a charter form or
government and therefore has more
powers than a city under the alder
mamie form Of government. had come
right OF regulation over its streets.
Both contended that the fixing OF u
5000 public sldemnity bond was
not excessive, but was less than that
usually fixed in large cities.
Jitne,s Continue to Run.
Pending a final decision IN the
fight that started three weeks ago,
when after the jitneys had been out
Of operation for two months. Irving
Thomas. a former iitney driver. got
himself arrested in order 10 test the
WIty ordinance. the jitneys will con-
tinue in operation on all the routes
No new routes will be started. q
habeas corpus petition filed by him
IN district court was decided in his
favor ht the same time that Judge
Cole declared the then existing jltney
ordinance was invalid. The ordi-
nance now under fire was passed
two days later by the city commits
sion, The next day the iitney drivers
obtained restraining order against
the city and II is on the point OF
whether this order will he made n
temporary injunction that the pres
e1t court battle IS being waged.