St. Paul daily globe., 1889-07-04
THE OTHER SIDE.
President Lowry's Reply-Judge
Rooms Idea of Monopoly.

hOOn'S idea OF Monopoly.
President Lowry began the short
talk he gave the committee by saying
that was a pretty good speech of Judge
Shaw's, but it isn'tOriginal. I've heard
the same story from Randolph Burgers,
and his attorney. I. E. Byrnes. told
even better than Judge Shaw. And t
heard it once again in court when Judg L
Shaw was on the bench himSelf.'e
Mr. Lowry then exhibited a map
of the street railway system to show
that there is no portion of the city
for which a franchise is asked by An
derson & Douglass that is not fully COW
cred by the street railway company.
Monopoly or no monopoly" said he,
"if one company can cover the territory
it is infinitely better than that it should
be covered by two or three" He
claimed every effort possible had been
made to arouse popular feeling against
himself and his company. He quoted
communication to the council OF Sept.
l, 1883. offering to have test made of
an electric line on Hennepin and
Lyndale avenues, and a request of
July %, 1887, that Nicollet avenue
should be severed for cable to show
that his Willingness to put IN cable and
electric lines is not of recent date as the
result of threatened competition, as has
been claimed. He had endeavored also
to have the railroad crossing diff
Guilty on Washington avenue north
settled so that cables might
be put in on that avenue.
As to the city being held responsible,
he said the charter gives the street rail
way company the exclusive franchise,
and doubtless some of the Eastern stock
holders. or the trust companies furnish
ing the bonds, would hold the city for
damages if another franchise is granted.
He said, with considerable feel
ing, that he had been misrepre-
Sented by the Tribune under
its former management as saying
that it was necessary to reduce the
wages of his employees. that the cable
lines might be built. The journal has
also reiterated this statement, although
it is neutral. He had stood solely and
alone to establish the fact that labor
agitatOrS, who never do a days work
themselves. should not dictate to busi-
ness men, who have the interests of the
city at heart. as to how their affairs
shall be conducted. For this he has
been abused by both press and pulpit.
He went on to say that his company
has at all times. and is now willing to
meet the requirements of the public for
street car service.
Judge KOOn said that some reason
should be given as to why this new COM
panY should be granted franchise. 1t
has nos not been shown that the street
railway company has not lived up to its
contract and is not willing to meet all
demands. Nor has it been shown that
the lines asked for by Anderson &
Douglass are needed. He denied that
the street railway business is like any
ordinary business. A monopoly is a
right granted to a few of a something
that was before common right. Yet
the knowledge of operating street car
lines was not before a common right.
He quoted decision in which Judge
Shaw had concurred when on the bench,
in which it was held that the Mime
apolis Gas company was entitled to an
exclusive franchise similarly granted
by the council. He did not exactly
threaten but he intimated that the city
would be held for damages should a
franchise be granted another company.
Much of his argument was in the