St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1889-09-06
VITAL POINTS IN LAW
Involved in the Contest
Against the Street Rail-
way Company.
f7l
Grounds on Which the De-
40
PENDANT Must Base It's
Clai ms. ~
Rights Of Community to De-
mand All Not Explicitly
Granted. n
-
Celebrated Cases Which In
volved the Very Points :
at Issue.

dDUut IIlO olICCI Qy lhU1OSlAOs OAO
of the gentlemen was a distinguished
Maryland lawyer. He was delivering
an off-hand opinion of the matter, and
the other members OF the group were
listening with Difference. From the re-
marks of the speaker and the COM
ments of his hearers, the following is
drawn:
As l understand the affair, the st.
Paul City Railway company asserts that
title to its privileges is derived from Or
dinances of the city council. enacted
for the benefit of It's predecessors.
which were acquired by it through
purchase from them. and which rights
were subsequently confirmed and vail
dated by an act of the legislature. The
grant was TO lay a line of railway with
single OF double track lin any or all of
the streets of st. Paul." and the cars or
carriages to be used thereon were to be
propelled "by none other than animal
power" W
The rival companies to which grants
have been recently made discard ami
nal power, and availing themselves OF
the light of modern science, will use
electricity as motive of propulsion.
GROUNDS OF DEFENSE.
The action of the city council will, it
is presumed, be resisted on the follow
ing grounds:
Flrst-That by virtue OF the grant to
Merriam and Others-to whose rights
the city railroad company succeeds-lt
was entitled in perpetuity to the use OF
streets in st. Paul.
Second-That this right was exclusive.
Third-That the city had not the right
to establish other lines of travel on any
of its streets; and
Fourth-That the grant to the city
railway was contract on the part OF
the city and state, andthat the grants
of the city council to rival companies
impairs the obligation of that contract
TO succeed, the city railway company
must show that the terms of the con-
tract between it and the city council
have been violated. In other words,
the company must show that the city,
had entered into a contract with it, OF
with those whose successors il claims to
be, to exclude all rival companies
from the streets. 1t must be promised
that on The grant from the city council
to the city railway the word exclusive
is nowhere used. Nor does the railway
company assume any undertakings be-,
yond those of pledges to faithful per-
| Torrance of its duties to furnish trans
pOrtatiOn to the public. There was no.
moneyed consideration for the grant OF
rights and privileges, as valuable as
they are extensive. The charter OF the
railway company Is a written lnstru-
ment which must speak for itself and,
| be interpreted by its own terms. 1t IS
| the grant of certain franchises by the
public to a private corporation, and in
| a matter where the public interest IS
concerned. The rule of construction IN
such cases is we'll settled, both in Eng
| land and by the decisions of our own
courts In the case of the proprietors
of the Stone Bridge canal against
Wheeler and Others, II. b. Il A, 793,
the court says: 1.-The canal having been
made under an act of parliament,
the rights of the plaintiff are derived
entirely from that act. Thus, like many
other cases, is bargain between COM
pany of adventures and the public, the
| terms OF which are expressed in the
statute. and the rule of construction in
all such cases is now fully established
TO be this: That any ambiguity in the
| terms of the contract must operate
| against the Adventures and in favor OF
| the public, and the plaintiffs can claim
| nothing that is not already given them
| by the act"
RIGHTS OF THE COMMUNITY.
In the case of the United States YER
suS Arredendo s. Peters UNITED States
supreme COURT, the leading cases upon
| this subject are collected together by the
learned judges who delivered the opin-
| ion of the court, and the principle
recognized that in grants by the public
nothing passes by implication. In the
case of Beatty versus Lessee of Knowles.
| ". Peters, Z. S. S. CT, the court says:
"That corporation is strictly limited
| to the exercise of those powers
which are specially conferred on
| it will not be denied. The
exercise of the corporate franchise be-
| ing restrictive of individual rights, can
not he extended beyond the letter and
| spirit of the act of Incorporation"
Again Chief Justice Marshall. of the
| supreme court of the United States, in
| the Providence bank.vs. Billings, ~.
Peters, 574, in speaking of the taxing
| power, SAYS: LAS the whole community
| is interested in retaining it undimin-
ished, that community has right to IN
| sist that its abandonment ought not to
| be presumed in case in which the de-
! liberate purpose of the state TO abandon
it does not appear.
The grant from the council to the city
railway company conferS on it the or
| binary facilities of a corporation for the
| purpose of building and operating the
| road. 1t authorizes the corporation to
lay lines of railway lin any or all the
streets of said city, to be operated by
none other than animal power"
CThird street eXcepted). This is
the grant Although it gives
to the city railway company the right
to operate its cars in any or all the
streets, it does not give the company
| A. ,-irr IN do If HnnS
| not arm the corporation with powers TO
prevent other persons from establish
ing lines of travel in the streets. There
is no agreement on the part Of the city
| that rival lines shall not be established,
no undertaking not to sanction COM
petitors none that improved channels
of communication shall never be auth
oriZed or established. Upon all these
subjects the charter is silent. No words
are used from which an intention to
grant exclusive rights can be inferred;
if the railway is entitled to them, 1t
must be SIMPLY implied from the nature
| of the grant, and cannot be inferred
from the words by which the grant is
made.
The whole community are Interested
in this inquiry, and they have right to
exact that the powers of promoting
their comfort and convenience. and of
advancing the public prosperity by pro-
viding safe and cheap ways of trans
portatlon shall not be construed to have
been surrendered by the city, unless 1t
shall appear in plain words that it was
intended to be done.
1t may be asked how the city railway
can be injured by the establishment of
rival companies. None of the fran
chises have been revoked by the city
council, and its right to operate its
lines and collect fares granted by the
charter remains unaltered. Its income
may be diminished when competing
lines are in full operation. But this re-
mote and apprehended danger might
have been guarded against at the proper
time by apt stipulations. 1t did not do
SO, and it must abide the con-
sequences. 1t will be readily con-
ceded that the city railroad is
without power to operate any
cars, except those propelled by amman
power" Conceding, for the sake of
argument, that its rights to this mode