Tin: Ruiuiimc;an was not unfair in" saying that the Democratic minority of the city council was arrayed against tho Mahler proposition, a necessity, and in favor of the Independent telephone tele-phone company, a doubtful luxury. That minority Tought tho Mahler franchise fran-chise In cvciy conceivable way possible, possi-ble, and those who followed tho various vari-ous tilts In the council at the time the franchise was up for consideration have no doubt of that minority's attitude. atti-tude. There were dozens of speeches against the granting of that franchise, and It Is true that soino very good changes were made as a lcsultofthc light, but It was evident continually that the minority would have passed that measure only alter It had been so altered that Mr. Mahler nor any other man could have accepted it. The Journal says they were against any blanket Iranclilscs, yet tho rranchlso asked ror was not In any sense a blanket franchise. They werc"agalnst the franchise unless some substantial guarantee appeared.' In other words, they were ufiaid Mahler wanted tho franchise ror speculative" purposes, that he would sell It, and they wanted a money guaiantcc that he would build tnc road. Why should tho council coun-cil caio ir he sold tho franchise? Noonu would buy the franchise unless lie expected ex-pected to make use of It, and why need wc bo particular who gave us the road in lino with tho provisions or the franchise? fran-chise? That minority was against "100 year franchises" hi other words the pioposltion would be good for us for 23 years but it wouldn't bo good for our prostcrlty. But what's the use to thrash this all out again? The minority of the council worked, spoke and continually voted against tho Mahler franchise, and yet readily granted the Independent Co. a franchise. fran-chise. It is not unfair to say this, for it Is fact. Tiik Rici'Uiimcan docs not question tho mlnoilty's honesty, but with the majority docs question tho minority's consistency.