St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1890-01-25
Which Council Did Not Offe r
to the Manitoba Com
pany.
The Broadway Bridge Confer
ence Failed of an Agree
ment. ~
But the Contract Is Approved
and Work Will Go -
Forward.
Judge Otis Prae tieally Knocks
Out the Manitoba In "a
junction. ~ ~

"There will be an executive session
the COMMITTEE on streets in connection
with the special committee appointed on
the Broadway BRIDGE" said Aid. Hamm,
as he raped with his gavel at $40
o'clock last evening. ''Mr. Norris and
MIR. Collins, of the railway, the city en-
gineer and city attorney, are requested
to meet with the committee"
Previous to this announcement there
had been great deal of hobnobbing
and buttonholing among the members
and interested persons present.
The executive session lasted just one
hour and two minutes.
''The result is nothing" said the city
attorney, with smile, as he sauntered
out with his hands in his pockets, head
ing those who bad been in the commit
tee room. The first matter to come up
was the taking of property for bridge
purposes on Canal street at the MilWau-
kee crossing. The order passed, as did
similar orders for bridges at Rondo and
Iglehart streets; grades on Lawton and
jerks streets; the construction of a.
sewer on TuscarOra street. A petition
from Arlington hills citizens complained
that their children could not get to
school on account of the snow banks
piled mp by the street car company.
The petition went to the commissioner
with instructions to carry out the exist
ing law.
in the Broadway bridge matter is now
in order" said President Hamm.
This was the important business, and
what all had been impatlently waiting.
The clerk took up mass of papers and
began the reading. First came a letter
from the city attorney TO the officials of
the Manitoba road. The communication
recited the circumstances of the an
pointment of the special committee and
asked:
First-Does your companyelaim to own any
portion of the land lying within the lines of
Broadway south of Third, extended to the
river, and If so, how much is claimed, and
will the company attempt to stop the con-
struction of the Broadway bridge on the dis
puted land by injunction or attachment?
Second-Does your compa ny claim that the
construction OF the bridge and the change of
grade of Broadway for the purpose of max
Ing the approaches will damage its property,
and # T So; to What tho appToxmaie
enter into contract with the city
granting the right to enter on the disputed
land and construct the bridge without any
compensation 10 the company, the contract
no claim for damages, neither party waving
any right or claim to the disputed land. and
will the company enter into any agreement
permitting the city to construct and maintain
the bridge; and If So what will be the proba-
BILE terms of such agreement?
In reply Vice President Clough goes
on 10 say: m
First the Manitoba company claims to
own, and does own, through purchase made
many years since, all the land which would
be included between the lines of Broadway
if extended south from Third street. Second.
that its property would be irreparably dam
aged by the construction of the bridge
Third, the company should feel itself eoin--
PEELED to resist the construction of such a
bridge by all available means and could not
consent TO any compromise under any con-
ditions.
Accompanying these communications
was resolution by Aid Conley, as fol-
lows:
7 hat the st. Paul. Minneapolis & Manitoba
Railway company, having given no assent to
the con struction of the bridge across the
Mississippi river now in course of construc-
ton by the city of st. Paul, that we deem no
such consent is necessary; that the claim of
such sna , railway company is unfounded
taken is only such quantity as
would be covered by the foundation and
construction of pedestal pier for the con-
struction of such bridge, and that the pre-
ton of such an improvement. so meritori-
Gus, SO desired by the public, and calculated
to promote the growth OF the city, is deserv-
ing of censure.
Resolved, further, That it is the sense of
this body that work on the construction of
said bridge proceed without further delay
and that contracts be let accordingly.
Aid. Sanborn said he would favor the
resolution if the censure clause were
stricken out; but Aid. Conley would
not consent. Aid. Sanborn thereupon
moved to amend the resolution by strik-
ing out that clause. On a vote the
amendment prevailed. The vote there
upon recurring upon the original reso-
luton, it was passed by a unanimous.
vote. =
Aid. Sanborn introduced a resolution
providing that the city engineer be di-
ected to cause one of the piers of the
Broadway bridge constructed forthwith
on that part of Broadway claimed by
the Manitoba, and also another upon
the property claimed by the Milwaukee,
within the lines of Broadway. Aid.
SanbOrn'S idea was that this would
bring the dispute at once into the
courts. The resolution caused conSid-s
cradle discussion. Aid. Gehan's opinion
heiug that sit was all bluff on the I
part of the railways" anyway. On vote
the resolution was lost by vote of
eleven to six.
Aid. Sanborn called for the reading of
Kirkland & Starkey's contract, which
was done. The special committee, con-
sisting of Messrs. Minea, Yoerg, Melady
and Conley, to which was referred Aid.
Cullen's resolution, calling for the APP
proyal of the contract for the substruct-
ure of the Broadway bridge, reported
favorably, and upon vote it was sus-
tanned, those voting in the negative
being Aid. Bickel, Book, Cullen. San
born and Yoerg. The result was, re-
ceived with loud clapping of hands by
those in the lobby and an i'm
mediate stampede followed. President
Hamm called the members back, an
nouncing that Attorney Chris O'Brien.
wanted to be heard in behalf of the new
telephone conduit asked by the North
western Telephone Exchange company. +
he urged the claims of the company in
a fifteen-minute speech. after which