The Indianapolis times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1922-1965, 1931-01-03
CITY ASKED TO
BUY Street
RAIL SYSTEM
Security Holders Proposal
Made After Rejection of
insult Plan.
NEXT STEP UNDECIDED
Mayors Committee Unable
10 Go Ahead Without
Further Orders.

Whether insult interests have
withdrawn with f1nality from the
proposed purchase of the defunct
Indianapolis Street, Railway Com
paly, presented new problem to-
day to city officials as they turned
to consideration of steps for rnu-
nicipal ownership of the utility.
In statement issued by attor-
neys for proponents of the insult
purchase, including street railway
security holders, the citS's rejection
Of the proposal was scored and the
attorneys said security holders
would welcome a chance to sell the
property to the city at its fair cash
value"
Arthur L.. Gillioin, attorney for
proponents, today said he could not
make any statement OH the proba-
bic action by the insult organization.
officials Favor Plan
Charles w. Chase of the Mid
land United Company is the only
man who could answer the ques-
ton of future moves of the insult
organization" he said. There will
be no further moves that we know
of. That is all I can say
The city hall street car commit
tee, headed by E: Kirk Mckinney,
has no immediate plans for the
future, members said, because they
had been named only to consider
the insult proposal and would await
directions from Mayor Reginald H.
Sullivan.
It is reported that majority of city
officials are sympathetic with
municipal ownership of the utility
and Sullivan is expected to as
sign the present committee or name
another to take up municipal own
ersllip.
Statement Presented
The statement of attorneys repre-
sentlllg security holders follows:
The response ef the mayors committee
TO- the service at cost franchise heretofore
submitted by. US to the mayor. manifests a.
hostile attitude on the part OF the city
administration to any service at cost
franchise. or indeed to any municipal
franchise.
We very much regret this attitude, as it
seems to preclude any ADEQUATE reha-
bilitation. Of the street railway system
such as is required for the purpose OF
furnishing good service. and in which the
public vitality is interested.
The YenPasentafivAr n t1,a
ers have given much time in an effort
to place before the, city administration a
plan which offered the basis for render
ing a real service to the public and at the
same time protecting the rights of Sc
Curity holders.
This effort apparently has been futile.
but We trust that in the end it may have
proved helpful in a solution OF the exist
ing difficult situation.
During the public hearings statements
we're made by various persons that there
we're methods of handling the situation
other than that which had been proposed.
One Of these, and that most insisted upon,
was a purchase Of the property Of the
city.
without assuming to express any opinion
as to the wisdom of public ownership. the
security holders, from a selfish standpoint,
would welcome a chance to sell the prop
erty 10 the city at its fair cash value.
We shall. of course. take steps to pro-
tcct in every practical way the interests of
the security holders, and meanwhile shall
urge the receiver to give to the public
the very best service possible under exist
ing conditions.
In turning down the insult pro-
posal the city set out twelve reasons
for its not being acceptable.
Twelve Reasons Given
Included were: The proposal
called for perpetual franchise that
would preclude the city'S rights;
insult sought a monopoly on all
on all forms Of transportation in
the city; the proposed service-at-
cost provisions were not acceptable;
city would have no control over is
suance of securities: there was no
possibility of altering the rate OF
return, despite business conditions;
fixed bus fares were not feasible;
acquisition of a taxi monopoly could
not be included in any franchise;
proposed arbitration methods would
prevent. the city from exercising
any control; insult sought to have
the city maintain the streets; the
city was excluded from knowledge
Of existing liabilities on street car
property, and that any rights Of the
city could be wiped out by state
legislation.