The Indianapolis times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1922-1965, 1931-01-02
Way Left Open for Utility
Magnate to Withdraw
or Amend Ideas.
PROTECTION is LACKING
Conferees Say Safeguards
Are Not Sufficient for
Municipality.

of the local board, with possible
provision for protection of the
utility that the local boards
action might be subject to arbitra-
ton.
10. The provisions relieving the
company from paying any part OF
the cost of paving and maintains
ing the part of the streets oc-
cupied by its tracks, and in MAIN
tenance and upkeep of bridges
and grade separations, it is not
acceptable.
II. Liabilities in connection with
existing leases, contracts or
operating agreements between the
present company and it's prede-
cessorS and various interurban
companies, including the Traction
Terminal property, referred to in
Art. II, Sec. l.. never have been
listed, and all power of the city
over the same expressly is ex-
Guided, so this presents an un-
known factor entering into the
overhead expenses of the COM
pany, to be reflected in fares
and rate of return.
City Is Unprotected
II. Since the city acts only as
the agent of the state in granting
any franchise, and the city ac-
quires no vested rights under this
instrument that can not be sur
rendered hereafter by the state i'll
mutual agreement with the util-
ity, this franchise may be sur
rendered by the company, if it
so desires, whenever the legisla-.
ture hereafter so may provide by
a statute containing possible pro-
visions which the company may
consider more advantageous to it
than the franchise.
This point is made only to en-
phasize the further fact that the
city really acquires nothing under
this franchise, or, for that matter,
under any notifications consented
thereto by the proponents, which
can be preserved for the city's
protection; whereas the utility
may have the alternative of en-
forcing the franchise forever, or
giving it up, as its own interests
may determine, regardless of the
city'S desires. The city'S sole re-
course would be purchase of the
property, under the franchise
terms or the statute, at a figure
possibly too oppressive to COLI
slider"
In attacking the monopolistic side
of the question. the COMMITTEES
stated that the franchise would
wipe out provisions for competitive
service, and would give the COM
pany the power to control, forever,
all or any transportation facilities
upon, over, above and below all
streets.
Give Buses a Chance
The franchise was scored for the
provision that permit no limit in
the amount that may be charged
for fares, and thus the provisions
for service-at-cost fares are SO in,
with other Objectionable
provisions, which the city can not
that the whole plan, as
is unacceptable"
The committee stated that il
buses can not be operated at a
profit, as claimed by proponents.
'the company should leave that
type Of service to others who are
more sanguine and willing to risk
their capital in that field and who
have no conflicting interest to di-
vert them from making such service
so attractive to the public as to
insure its becoming a pecuniary
Members of the city hall CONS
mittee are Mayor Reginald H. Sul-
Ivan. E. Kirk Mckinney chairmans
o. Britton and Louis @.
works board memberss
L. Elder. city controller;
James z. Deery. city attorney; Ed
ward H. Knight, corporation coun-
sci A. II. Moore. city engineer, and
II. Gene HAYNES. secretary.