Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1882-10-01
COMMON COUNCIL.

COMMON COUNCIL.
Special Meeting Last Night to Continue til.
Motor-The Ordinance Passed After a
Prolonged Discussion.
A special meeting of the city council
was held last evening in accordance with u
call, issued by the mayor, for the purpose
of taking action on the motor question.
The committee reported in favor of an
ordinance amendatory, SO as to continue
the line one year, to give Col. McCrory an
opportunity to adopt motive power other
than steam, to propel the trains on the line.
Aid. Grethen moved to accept the report
of the committee, and that the committee
be discharged. This was followed by a
warm debate. Aid. Glenn spoke at length
in favor of the suggestion contained in the
ordinance reported by the committee. Aid.
Pillsbury S only object in not voting for
the adoption of the report was the fact
that he was not in favor of continuing a
year, although he was in favor of continu-
ing the line temporarily. The motion,
after careful discussion, was carried and
the ordidance was read.
Aid. Watt moved the
suspension of the rules and the placing
the ordinance upon the second and final
reading.
Aid. Barge stated in his opinion should
the ordinance pass it would be invalid.
Aid. Pillsbury would not vote in favor
of suspension of the rules, but he would
vote for the ordinance if amended.
Aid. Watt explained the ordinance
could be amended on its second reading,
and called for the question.
The city attorney was called for his
opinion. He stated the rule of the city
council prior to its amendment by the
legislature that 10 ordinance could
be passed upon the night of its
presentation except by a two-third's vote,
but the legislature passed a new rule so
that an ordinance to be passed on the
night of Representation, unless upon an
unanimous vote of the council, except in
case the ordinance had been referred to a
committee, and upon that he stated, in his
opinion, that no suspension of the rules
was NECESSARY.
Aid. Holscher thought this was simply
committee report, and not an ordinance
which had been referred to a committee.
Aid. Watt withdrew his motion upon the
opinion of the city attorney that it was not
necessary to suspend the rules.
Aid. Nelson then moved that the Ordi-
nance be placed upon its second and final
reading without suspension of the rules.
The motion was carried.
The ordinance as amended simply
changed the old ordinance in point of date,
changing October 1, 1882, to October 1,
1883.
Aid. Barge moved to amend to insert
January 1, 1888, instead of October /,
1888.
Aid. Barrows moved an amendment to
the amendment, inserting the 1st of March,
1888.
Aid. Pillsbury opposed Aid. Barrows'
amendment, but would vote for Aid.
Barge's. He had pledged himself at the
time the original prohibition ordinance had
stated, the officers of the road could show
to his satisfaction that the company was
endeavoring to substitute some other mo-
tive power, he would vote for further time.
He would now renew that pledge, that is, if
on the first of January, Col. McCrory could
show that he had contracted for some diff
ferent power, but had not got it perfected
for good reasons, he would again vote to
extend it. He knew that the public senti-
ment was in favor of granting further
time. The papers had criticised the coun-
Gil, and he wished to say that he consid-
cred the councilmen as competent to pass
ordinances which were in the interests of
the city, as were the editors of the papers
which had severely censured, the action of
the council. He did not propose to sub
nit tamely to such unfounded criticism.
Aldermen Nelson made an argumenta-
tive address in favor of the continuance of
the motor line, but to effect compromise.
He would propose the LIST of June. He
considered the discontinuance of the motor
great injustice to the property owners
who had gone out along the line of the
motor. Many are poor laboring men who
had invested their all in what they expected
to make their home, and in good faith that
they were to have means of going to and
from their homes and workshops. Most of
these people only have a bond for deed
for the property upon which they had
built houses.
Alderman Pillsbury wished to assure the
alderman from the FIRST ward that he had
conversed with many of these property
owners, and they had told Nm they should
prefer street cars, and he would assure
the council that street cars would be pro-
vided in the event the motor line was dis
continued. Upon vote Alderman Bar
rows amendment was lost.
Alderman Watt moved an amendment
to substitute the LIST of May.
Alderman Grethen then suggested that
there were many objections to the running
of the cars to Bridge square. He
thought that if the motor was stopped at
Third street, he would vote to give the
company one years time.
Alderman: Glenn took the floor in favor
of the amendment to the amendment Of
fered by Alderman Watt, inserting the
word May instead of June.
Aid Watt thought that it would not be
worth the while to extend the time at all
if only extended to January 1. The vote
stood nine to nine, and was lost. And
Glenn moved an amendment to the amend
ment, setting the date at the LIST of April,
1883, and after warm support of his po-
sition vote was taken, and the amend
ment was carried, eleven to seven.
The result was greeted with applause by
the crowd of people in the lobby. The
amendment as amended was carried; the
ordinance was read by its title and passed,
fourteen to four. Aid. Barge, Holscher,
Morse and Mr.. President voting in the
negative.