St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1889-06-23

OI SdlQ city. etc. Inc WORD exclusive Is
nowhere used by the city council in the
grant. The exclusive grant, must,
therefore. be claimed by implication,
but this, the law prohibits. Judge Dill
Ion says: The grant of authority to
construct street railway is not excluS-
i've. unless so declared in express
terms" Last March. Judge Caldwell.
in deciding the case of Citizens Railway
Company VS. Jones, said: 1T is canon
of construction that grants of fran
chlses by public corporations to individ-
ualS or private corporations are to be
strictly construed, and no exclusive
privilege passes. unless it be plainly
conferred by express words" Apply
the above principle to the claims of the
City Railway company that it has the
exclusive right to lay tracks in the
city of st. Paul and it completely de
stroys the claim.
1t must be admitted, however. that by
the terms of the grant which the legls-
lature confirmed and validated," in
1888, the City Railway company has
right to lay its tracks in any or all of
the streets OF the city with one excep-
ton, to-wIt. Third street from Sibley to
Wabasha, and
THIS RIGHT Is IRREvOCABLE,
by the legisture, as decided by our SUI
preme court in the case of Nash VS..
Lowry, ct al. The City Railway COM
pany, claims, through its counsel, MIR.
Horn. that the right to lay its tracks in
any or all of the streets of this city.
gave it the exclusive right claimed; not
by implication, for that could
not be successfully maintained in
the face of the legal principles above
referred to; but any new company de-
string to lay tracks in any of the streets
of the city must first obtain the consent
of the city council by large majority.
and the present street railway COM
pany already having that right, it could
as soon as it discovered possibility of
the new company gaining the desired
privilege. proceed at once to lay its own
tracks in those streets sought to be oe-
cupied by the new company and thus
retain possession. The city possesses
destructive power over the rights OF the
street railway company. provided the
city council desire to exercise it. The
grant is conditional one; section
II of the ordinance giving the
company its rights, provided as fol-
lows: That if required by a
resolution of the common council
adopted by vote of two-thirds of its
members, to build, equip and operate
an additional mile of said railway, on
any street or streets designated by the
city council, every six months there
after. the company accepting. these
franchises shall so equip and operate
said miles of railway or forfeit to said
city all rights or privileges to construct
and operate any line of railway or track
IN any street or streets, or part of street
or streets in said city. upon which said
company have not constructed any rail-
way track"
This would secure the construction OF
at least two miles each year, and that
on any or all streets, or in any locality
of the city which the city council may
designate.
This grant to the company gives that
company the right to lay tracks for
''horse railway purposes only: the
right granted being Ito operate horse
passager railway cars and carriages
thereon, which shall be propelled by
none other than animal power" This
confines the company to the use of ami
NAL power, and any Otner company de-
string to use motive power other than
animal can proceed without fear of
moiestation from the city railway COM
pany; provided. it can obtain the ma
jOrity consent of the council required
by the charter.
LEGAL VIEWS.
Judge Egan-This question was de-
cided by the supreme court of Iowa last
May. The case was one where the city
of Des MOines granted to the Des MoineS
Street Railway company. by legislative
consent, the exclusive right to lay tracks
and operate horse railway in all the
streets of that city. The city council
afterwards granted the Des Moines
Broad Gauge Railway company the
right to lay tracks in any of the streete
of the city not then occupied by the
first company: the motive power, how
ever. to be other than horse power. The
former company sought to prevent the
latter from laying Its tracks. The
court said: 1T seems to US, keep
ing in mind the fundamental
rule that corporations are invested
with such powers only as are expressly
conferred upon them. and such other
powers as are necessary to carry out 4
those expressly granted, there is little
room for discussion or debate as to the
powers conferred upon the street rail-
way company by this ordinance. It has
the exclusive right to operate its rail.
ways by animel power. and it has TO
HUI llSnt W iiIttI pOSc OUJectlOHS tO Tie
building of other steeet railroads to be
operated by other power than il no
grant of power had ever been made to
it''
Assistant County Attorney Num-
have grave doubts about the courts of
this state permitting the present city
railway company to take the position of
the dog in the manger, and thus OBJ
struct the efforts of any new company.
l am of the .opinion that the company
does not possess the exclusive right to |
lay horse railway racks in this city. |
And | think the company must build,
equip and operate at least two miles of |
new track every year, if directed so to
do by the city council, or forfeit all
right to the use of any street not then |
occupied by it. That. so far as the use
of any other motive power than animal |
is concerned, the city railway company |
has no more rights than any new com
pany or corporation that may be Or
ganiZed.
MINNEAPOLIS STU ALTON.
The Street Railway Company's |