St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1884-03-20
limits of the city to lay down and maintain
street railways.
The rest of the act relates to details which

Inc rest or the act relates to details which
have no relevancy.
February 80, 1872, there was another act
passed entitled, ssAn act to revive, continue
and amend,n an act entitled, "And to re-
viye and continue an act, and the corpora
ton. created by said act, entitled IAN act to
incorporate the st. Paul and st. Anthony
Railroad company approved March 2, 1858,
and to amend the said act, approved March
4, $685."
Section provides in substance that the
persons named in the act of 1868, and TWEEN
ty-seven other residents of st. Paul and Min
neapolis, their successors, etc., ''are hereby
created a body corporate perpetual Shy the
the name and style of the st. Paul Street
Railway company"
Section 2, adds to the terminal words in
the act OF 1868 the words 'or Minneapolis"
strikes out the words can ordinance to
authorize the. construction and operation
OF rail carriage'ways in the city of st. Paul."
passed Dec. II, 1867, approved Dec. q,
1867, and inserts in lieu thereof can or
dinance to authorize the construction and
operation of horse railways in certain streets
OF st. Paul, " adopted by the common cOun-
ell Jan. 20, 1872, approved by the mayor
Jan. 1872.
Section "revives and continues the act
OF 1868 except as amended
/ have given above all of the legislation
upon which the street railway company
POUNDS its right to use our streets.
1t cannot admit of doubt that this so-caHed
corporation has no existence as such-that it
is an intruder and usurper. The single and
very simple question is, did the act of 1858
create corporation with the right to construct,
maintain and operate street railway in st.
Paul If it did not, both the act of 1868 and
the act of 1872 are void, because to re-quote
the language of c. j. Gilfllan, they "attempt
such radical and essential changes in the
constitution of an old one (acD as to amount
to the creation of new one and
must be just as clearly within the constitu-
tional prohibition as though the Legislature
intended such result.''
l will not argue so automatic proposition
it is postulate.
present these views for public reading
because the street railways demanding adj
ditional favors and because both state and
municipal legislation upon the subject has
been VIGOROUSLY ldr and detrimental TO the
comfort and even safety Of the people.
Double tracks are being laid down against
the protest OF the property owners; the streets
on which its tracks are used are made almost
impossible in winter by snow banked upon
their sides, which the city removes In the
spring at its own expense; the property own
ers are taxed to sprinkle its tracks in the
summer, and Fort street at least is for more
than one-third of its area inflicted with the
nuisance of its cobble stone pavement be-
tween the tracks which is so incapable and
cheaply laid that it depresses the centre Of
the street and prevents the effiuence of
water to the cutters, making the street
almost impossible at all periods of victor in
clement weather. The common council has
abundant power to protect the public and
there are no equities to prevent the exercise of
this power.
had supposed that the subject lately
brought before the council was put to bed by
ordinance No. 224, passed Sept. 81, 1880,
approved Sept. %, 1880. This ordinance by
its terms (Sec. 3, p. 10, proceedings of com
mon council for the year ending January LIST,
1881 was to be and was contract after
its acceptance by the board of directors of
the company, which acceptance was duly
made. l will quote SO much of the ordinance
as here appertains:
"And when any new improvement, paving, re-
pairing, planking or replanking, grading only ex
cepted is ordered by the common council on any
have laid hereafter may lay any track or tracks
the said railway company shall in
the Same manner and with like ma
terial as required of owners of property as to
other parts of the street, make such new i'm
provement on so much Of the streets of the said
city as may lie between the rails of each track
and for space of two feet outside of its track
or tracks used and occupied by their railways as
Aforesaid
The remainder of the ordinance declares
that if the board of public works ''deem it
inexpedient'' that the company make such
new improvement the board may do it and
charge the cost to the company; or if the
company neglect to make such improvement
when ordered by the board, it may be done,
and the expense collected from the com
pany.
Much of your space has been occupied by
this letter, which has been condensed SO far
as consistent with naked statement of
facts. J. B. BRIsBIN.