St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1889-07-15
A new POINT OF LAW
Directed Against the Right
by Which an Exclusive
Franchise
Over the Streets Of st. Paul
Is Claimed by the Lowry
Company.
Is the Confirming and Vail
dating Act Of 'S3 Con-
stitutional?
Did Not the Amendment OF
81 Make That Act
Illegal ?


public over the much moOted question
of Mr.. Lowry's right and that OF his
company over the streets and citizens OF
this city, During all the time that the
matter of new roads and franchises has
been agitated, the community has stood
by in sad doubt and perpleXity. ''Mr.
Lowry's exclusive right" was the cry
which went up, from the throat OF the
most obscure individual to the learned
men who are supposed to guard the In
terests of the city and see that its laws
are enforced, as we'll as that in itself per-
forms its contracts with the supporting
features which comprise its prosperity
When a new concern breaches the sub
iect of franchise to build new lines of
rapid transit for the convenience and
welfare of our citizens and for the
benefit of our landed interests, the
common council inaugurates the cry of
'helpleSs and law-bound," which is
taken up and accumulated by the mob.
This serVile submiSSiveneSS is due to
nothing else than lack of knowledge
of our own laws and decayed state of
enterprise on the part of the guardians
of the city. The public desire, cry for
and demand new enterprise which
will afford them greater and better
facilities for transacting The ends of a
busy life; yet, when such is offered, the
council falterS. hesitateS and ponders.
In the meantime Mr.. Lowry appears
upon the scene, and upon no other
ground than that possession is nine
points in law and force, he alleviateS
the distress of the body by declaring
himself sole and absolute manager and
custodian of our entire system of pub
lie thoroughfares and the public yehi-
cles thereon. Says Mr.. Lowry: II
have an exclusive franchise, and L
shall see that you live up to it, gentle
men; that is all"
And there we are. The public leans
willingly to the theories of Mr.. LOWry'S
attorneys, who are well paid to fake up
plausible stories for it to feed on.
Hands are thrown up and single man
walks off with the title to all the streets
Of st. Paul in his inside pocket. Now,
how is it that the public dares stand
against the overwhelming evidence
drawn from the coolest canOnS OF our
law, which makes Mr.. Lowry's bold
claim a prepoSteIOuS one, pinned into a
deluded people by the trick and subter-
fuge to which our guardians fall like the
frail craft in the claws OF Scylla. EN-
inent men, judges, lawyers and others,
were cited in the GLOBE a few weeks
ago, as of the we'll founded opinion that
Mr.. Lowry had no exclusive franchise,
and that under the charter upon which
his roads exist and are operated, he can
not have the exclusive right for the rea-
son that the body granting that right
had no power to grant an exclusive"
right to any company.
The st. Paul City Railway company
claims an exclusive right to lay its
tracks in the streets OF the city, and
bases its claim upon chapter 297 of the
Special Laws of 1888. This act was ap-
proved Feb. 2S, 1888. The supreme
court of this state decided in the case of
Nash VS.. Lowry, 81 Mimi, 261, that
without this confirming and validating
act of 1888" the city ordinance under
rights would be invalid as being an
irrevocable contract" and beyond the
power of the city council to grant. 1t
becomes a very plain proposition, then,
that if the said act of 1883 is unconstitu-
tional, the ordinance under which the
company claims its rights has no more
validity or the company no more rights,
than if the ratifylng act OF 1888 had
never been passed. 1t becomes impor-
tant, then, to know whether or not this
act of 1888 upon which the street rail-
way company bases its rights and I'M
der which it claims so much is constitu-
tional.
In 1881 we adopted an anne ndment to
article of the state constitution known
as section SO, article 4, which reads as
follows:
"Section SO. The legislature is pro-
hibited from enacting any special or
private laws in the following cases:
"Tenth-For granting to any individ-
ual, association or corporation, except
municipal, any special or exclusive
privilege, immunity or franchise what
ever" See page 2 of the Session Laws
of 1888. This amendment was adopted
more than two years prior to the pas
sage Of the confirming act of 1888.
The supreme court having decided
that the city council could not make
such a grant, the only source left for
the So-called exclusive rights and priv
ileges Of the company is this act of 1883;
and that act is unconstitutional, being
directly in conflict with the constitu-
tional prohibition above referred to.
Who will dispute this logic? The
source from which it is derived is en-
inent. The only way to settle this
question is to freeze the aggressive Mr..
Lowry out by building new roads or
by giving him a fair shake in court
shake horses and do him up three
straight.