St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1889-07-08
MINNEAPOLIS.
A PECULIAR PHASE.

The learned lawyers who are en-
ployod by corporations possessing and
seeking franchises from the city council
are posing before the public as great
opponents of the law appertaining to
the extent of the franchise now pos
sessed by the Lowry company, and the
power of the city council to grant the
Philadelphia company franchise. The
question in which the people are inter-
ested is not so much the limitations of
Lowry'S contract; that is matter of
the past, and however far his rights
may extend or however curtailed they
may be is not momentous in the present
controversy. Whatever they are they
are his by reason of his contract, and
the city cannot alter them. He knows
and his lawyers know well enough that
he has no exclusive franchise in this
city to anything aside from the right to
lay and operate street passenger rail-
ways to be propelled by animal and
pneumatic powers" And it is not GER
tain that he even has the exclusive right
to that. But, assume that he has, from
whom did he derive this franchise? 1t
is commonly understood that he &C
9uired it from the city council of this
city. Nothing is further from the truth.
1t is well known by every in
formed lawyer that the power to grant
franchises is vested in the sovereign
power of the state.
The legislature, representing the peo-
pie of the state, is the only source from
which franchise of any sort may by
obtained. In 1872 the city of Minneap-
oils was organized under the present
charter by the legislature of Minnesota.
In, through and by that charter the
state of Minnesota delivered to the cor.
porate authorities of this city, certain
powers and legislative functions, be-
longing to the people of the state. In
giving construction to those powers and
functions, the same rule of law, which
has become conSecrated as maxim i'll
the Interpretation of the rights Of cor
porationS, governs i'll constituting the
grant to Mr.. Lowry. viz: Powers
granted to corporations are to be con-
strued strictly; nothing is to be taken
by way of implication"
IAN examination of the charter of this
city diScloSeS the circumstance that the
city of MINNEAPOLIS has no power to
grant a franchise to any person to con-
struct street railways on the streets of
this city. No such power Is expressed
in the charter, and therefore none such
exists. That power remains alone in
the sovereignty of the state.
Mr.. Lowry recognized this so soon as
he discovered the value of his supposed
franchise in 1888, and thereupOn forth
with applied to that sovereign power,
through its instrument. the legislature,
and procured the sanction of the state
to the hitherto void and unauthorized
grant of the city council to the Mime
apOllS Street Railway company, and
Mr.. Lowry's corporation, by special
act of that august body in 1883, procured
the franchise he now holds.
80
There has been no change in the
charter of this city since its OrganiZa-
ton, in this respect, and. therefore, the
city council cannot grant a franchise to
the Anderson u Douglas company any
more than it could grant to the M. s.
Railway company in 1875, when it as
sumed to make such a grant.
1t is not at all unlikely that this dis
covery has been made by the learned
lawyers who represent these corpora
tionS in their contentious before the
council. The mystery of the affair is
in the concealment of this condition.
One side tells us the city council has
no right to make new grant, because
it has already exhausted its power by
having granted to it the exclusive right
TO build street passenger railways. The
other side denies this, and asserts that
the council may now grant to them a
new franchise.
The people who are opposed to fran
chises need have no fear. No franchise
will be granted. Anderson d Douglas
may obtain a license to lay street rail-
way upon the streets of the city, but it
will be nothing more than license, and
there is very broad distinction be-
tween license and a franchise. The
way company. when first granted, be-
cause of the want of power in the city
council to bind the people, amounted to
mere license. Until the legislature
breathed into it the breath of life in
1888, the city authorities had a perfect
right to compel that company to tear
up and remove its tracks from the
streets of the city and drive it out of
town. After that Legislative enactment
the Lowry company was possessed of
franchise: but not till then.
Now, suppose the city council should
pass an ordinance granting to Anderson
u Douglas the privilege of laying a
cable line through the streets of this
city, would those gentlemen have a
franchise? Clearly not. They would
acquire mere license to use the streets.
The city council can control the latter
under its powers to suit the public con-
venlence, but that tunctionary cannot
bind the next generation, nor even the
next succeeding city council, to permit
its doings to stand. A power to grant a
license carries with it the power of re-
vocation. A franchise granted is a
binding contract, and its owner is
clothed with a vested right, irrevocable
in Its nature.
The result is that this furry over
street railways will probably come to
naught. 1t is quite likely that a suffi-
cient number of patriots will be found
in the city council who will be opposed
to the assumption of any questionable
power, and who will therefore not favor
the Anderson-Douglas scheme. Again,
Anderson 81 Douglas may not be so
sanguine in their desire for franchise
when they discover that such thing
cannot be procured except from the
legislature. But there are already ap-
parent in the proceedings of the coun-
ell strong indications that the oft-re-
peated remark, Lowry owns the coun-
Gill;" has some semblance of truth.
Should that be the case, Anderson &
Douglas will not even get the license
the council has perfect right to grant
them. and which every honest man in
the council must understand, as mat
ter of duty to the public he represents,
he should favor.