St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1888-05-15

| cation OF the road on that street.
OPPOSED TO MONOPOLY.
| Col. Davidson presented a resolution
| adopted by the real estate board recon-
mending that the franchise ''for line
through st. Paul, between here and
| Minneapolis, be granted, but not to be
exclusive" Speaking for himself
| Col. Davidson said: Il have a letter
| from gentleman in New York
who says that all business pro-
perty along the line of the elevated
railroad has been doubled in value; that
residence property has been injured,
but that the general effect has been to
greatly enhance the value of property.
Immediately along the line residence
I4prOperty is injured, but two or three
blocks away it is benefited. | can
| speak for at least $50 feet of
| front on Cedar street, valued with the
| buildings on it at not less than $500, 600,
and l say we, want it and want it
BADLY"
| Extracts from New York papers,
| showing that the effect on property was
beneficial, were read by A. E. Clarke,
one of the directors of the company.
| The ordinance of the st. Paul and
| Minneapolis Elevated Railway company
was read by Chairman Hamm. 1t is
| similar to the first, in all particulars
except the route. This line proposes
to start at Sibley street at the leyee and
| nue., to Wabasha, to University avenue
and thence to the west city limits, re-
| serving the choice of any other street
| prrallel with those named for three
| blocks on either side, and for six blocks
| Oh either side of University avenue.
| G. E. Otis and j. c. Moore appeared for
| this company.
Hon. E. f. Drake addressed the COM
| mittee i'll opposition to building the line
on Sibley street. ''It will prove de-
structive to some of the most valuable
property in the city, he said. 'Sibley
| street is narrow street, and there
is no room for an elevated road
| In New York Sixth avenue property has
been greatly benefited because it is a
very wide avenue, but on every part of
| that road below Sixth avenue property
has been almost utterly ruined. If L
had a piece of property five miles
out it would be benefited a hun
| dred fold, but that is no reason
why my neighbor at the other end
should be damaged without recon-
pense. 1t is just that the committee
should consider these things carefully.
and in granting franchises they should
select route along which the least
Will DC LII
| either one of these franchises the coun-
ell cannot be too careful to make reser-
yatlons for the future that the city may
not be overridden by such another
| monopoly as the street railway When
these companies have submitted to YOU
what they want and when you have
looked over and considered your side
of the question thoroughly then the
| ordinances should be printed and we
should all have an opportunity to read
them" Mr.. brakes remarks were
greeted with much applause. Another
protest in writing was presented by sew
eral property owners in the vicinity of
Eighth and Sibley.
ONE LONE SURFACE ROAD.
Last Of all the Metropolitan & Subur-
ban street railway was taken up. This
company desires to build surface road
on certain streets to be named by the
! council, and to be granted all
the privileges enjoyed by the st.
Paul Street Railway company. Its in
cOrporatOrs are Maurice Auerbach, Al
bert Schetfer. L. H. MaXfield, Paul
Martin and J. J. McCardy. Attorney
G. ID. O'Brien on their behalf addressed
the committee. He said: '''rhis is the
which does not provide for an expert
ment. 1t does not interfere in
any way with those Just read.
The granting of what is pretended to be
an exclusive franchise to the st. Paul
Street Railway company has proved to
be monopoly, and the mere question is
will you give US the benefit of testing
for the benefit of the corporation
itself and for the city, whether Mr..
LOwry'S road is to be the exclusive
line or not? If you will pass this ordi-
no will
petition, at all events. If your commit
tee shall receive from ten citizens of St.
Paul who are not stockholders and not
interested i'll Mir. I.owry's road a protest
against giving us the same rights, we
will withdraw the ordinance. "
There were no DIRECTORS present and
no protests were entered
The discussion being over, the alder
men began to talk of taking some action.
To test the sense of the committee Aid.
Sanborn moved that the committee
recommend the passage of Enos EleC trio
company ordinance. Aid. Long moved
to amend by recommending the passage
of the other two elevated road ordi-
nanceS. The amendment was lost.
Aid. SanbOrn-I believe that we
should pass the EnoS ordinance and one
or both of the others. The EnOS electric
route running out by way of Como is
a good line. If we can get rapid transit
between this city and Minneapolis it
will increase the value of
properties more than anything
else. | therefore make the motion that
it is the sense of the committee that the
EnOS Electric company ordinance as it
now stands, or as modified by the COM
mittee, should pass"
Aid. Cullen seconded the motion, and
it was carried by a vote of Z to l, Aid.
Weber voting in the negative
On motion of Aid. Long the further
consideration of the ordinances was laid
over, to be taken up at a meeting to be
called by Chairman Hamm. when repre-
sentatives of the various lines will be
present and the terms definitely fixed.
The committee then adjourned.