St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1886-12-04
The Rosy Clint of What the Future
Probably Holds in Store For
the Twins.
Potent Factors Which Built Chicago
Quickened in Their Northwest
ern Work.
The Home of Hope Built by the Faith
of Men in Future Serene
and Sure.
The Twin Cities.

The Twin Cities.
No one ever questioned the eternal fitness
of this appelatiOn; its utter appropriate
ness was never disturbed by doubt; yet
few, upon whose tongues 1t has been
trippingly uttered, have ever reasoned out
the why and wherefore of the name. st.
Paul and Minneapolis are not twin cities
merely because they adjOin each other. and
because one boundary line is nearly mutual.
Twin implies something more. and in the
solution of that implication lies all the his
tory of the growth, development, energy,
enterprise, and. above all, the bOundless
future of these two great cities.
use the word future ad-
visedly. and not futures, for in
the destiny reserved for this double expo
nent of what may be wrought. there is no
room for pluraIs. They are twins because
the children of a common mOther-cause and
sisters in the evolutionary work of progress
sive civilization. They were born of one
motive and have grown by one impulse.
and i'm common cause. Bound together
by the band of mutual interest. they are
one in all that might affect the material
welfare of either. Benefit one. and the
other feels the Impulse; strike at one.
and the shock is carried at once
to the other Their interests are
so common and so intertwined that they
are one in everything but name and mu-
nicipal government. Twins also implies
something of similarity and equality-of re-
sembance in form and condition. Mime
apolis and ST. Paul, compared. again illus
trate the aptneSS of the cOgnOmen. One
would scarcely speak of st. Paul and Mer-
RAM Park as twin cities, or refer To Mime
apolis and Hamline as twins. for this rea-
son. 1t is obvious therefore. that in apply
lug the title, Twin Cities,-and 1t is ap-
piled with equal satisfaction in either-the
idea is communicated of two municipali-
ties, adiacant and alike. identified and har-
monized and in all but name. one in prog
resS and prosperity, growth and greatness.
They are alike. yet how different!
1t would be difficult matter to find two
as large cities. differing SO widely in many
essential characteristics Here are two
flourishing towns, occupying the same gen.
eral plane. striving for the same good and
necessarily very much alike in many re-
spects. yet peOpled by an aggregation of
races in no way similar except in the at
tribute of enterprise. st. Paul is older
and more conservative; Minneapolis
younger and more impulslye. st.
Paul calculates, plans and maps
out before moving steadily to its object;
Minneapolis, cOnceiveS and with an i'm
pulsive rush. reaches for its goal. Both
s'get there one by a carefully laid out
route that avoids and sets aside obstacles;
the other by an impetuous dash that sur
mounts and overtopS all impediment. ST.
Paul is thoughtful, Minneapolis mercurial.
The population of the Flour City is rash. en-
ergetic and eXcitable: that of the Capital is
philosOphc, solid and not readily stirred
up. Incidents that would blockade Min
neapOlis avenue with an eager crowd, would
scarcely divert a ST. Paul pedestrian from
the direct path he was pursuing. st. PaurS
populace is trading people; that of Min
neapoliS leans to manufacturing. Butwhile
general ideas run in these respective chan
nels, the fact does not prevent an increase
OF trade with the one and a spread of
manufactures with the others; neither does
it prevent the sharp scanning by each of
the new directions in which the other is
branching out. So the cities are d fferent
in those points where resemblance is the
strongest. Minneapolis is aggressive and
invincible st. Paul progressive and power
full Both are ambitious and emulOuS.
And how we'll that is.
Nothing could be better.