Omaha daily bee., 1892-12-27

grounds that would give the city the much |
desired depot. Since that time every question
been rung in. He never had |
thought for minute of waving |
the rights guaranteed to other roads. |
The city voted $150,O00 short time ago, TO |
secure what was already guaranteed by the |
terms existing between the city ana the |
Union Pacific. Now, if the council was to |
throw away all hold the city has on the
Union Pacific, what was the use OF voting |
those bonds to the Nebraska Ceutrall Give |
away all this property TO the Union Pacific, |
and then in q short time release the hold |
that the city might have on the Nebraska
Central. The situations are almost Identical.
Each road cuts the city in two in the md
die, and entails an expense on the city III
regard to viaducts. He would say
"No" TO the proposition, Tor
he was opposed IL to .,,.,r releasing s5S tg
giving any road absolute title to the streets
and alleys. As long as the Union Pacific
wanted TO use them for railroad purposes 1t
was all right for them to use them, but he
was opposed TO debarring other roads from
all rights He objected to any such settle
mcnt and would not be party to 1t. The
old timers had done some good work for the
city, and he was opposed at this late day to
handing over all that the city possessed to
the railroads or TO any one OF them.
Omaha would Get Nothing.
General Gown said that he felt as he
thought every other citizen fclt-if a salts
factory settlement could be brought about,
it was a consumation devoutly to be wished;
He did not know the terms OF the proposed
settlement until he read them in the papers
on the preceding day, and he could only say
that as it now stood he was very much OPP
posed to it.
"What the city is to get by these terms is
not to be considered at al" he said. at
would gladly give all that it is to get, for
suitable depot with decent ground and
proper access. A city that would vote
s7500O0 in bonds and other privileges worth
S500000, does not hesitate to give Sl50OOO for
union depot This ordinance does not con
slider single proposition of the terms on
which the bonds were voted. The company
couldn't get those bonds anyway, 50 it gives
us nothing in that particular 1t seems to
me that some of these matters could not
have been very seriously considered by the
council The land acquired by the Union
Paci fc by purchase deed is insignificant
Practically all of the land III controversy was
acquired on conditions, not one of
which has been fulfilled or performed.
1t would revert to the city anyway.
There is no reason to think that the council
has done otherwise than what seemed to it
To be for the best interests of the city, but
by this plan we are to give something for
nothing. If we are to have a union depot,
let it be one in fact as well as in name; the
same as they have in other cities, where all
the roads come in instead of coming within
fifty or 100 miles, and then diverting to the
north or south, as is the attitude of several
Then followed the history of the building
of the Union Pacific bridge, and the original
contract and agreement on which the city
and county voted bonds.
What is Proposed.
"Twenty years ago" said the speaker
t'this vast tract of land went into the hands
of the Union Pacific on these conditions, and
only one of them has been fulfiled-it built
the bridge. Twenty years ago small band
of citizens, not strong in number, but strong
in integrity and in earnestness in the in
terest of the city, imposed those condi-
tions. Is it right now to wipe out all those
conditions and give that vast tract Of
land free and unencumbered9 1t is useless
to say that we can not compel the Union
Pacific to let other companies over that
bridge and into that depot Suppose even
that mandamus will not lie, and that we can
s-~cat compel it to do these things, we can
exact the conditions and make it give us
back those lands, and we will give them to u
company that will comply with the condi-
tions. Does this council want to abrogate
the contract made twenty years ago? Does
IL mean to say to a our fathers, You You didn't d,
property to the road without restriction or
TeturnH
II supposed, when | urged settlement
some months ago, that the conditions of the
original contract would at least be exacted
after the city had given over 81 ,000, 900 in
money, and all this land with it. While
believe that the council has acted in good
it has asked to hear the voice of the tax
payers"
What the City Attorney Thought.
Mr.. Conucll then found an opportunity tc
say that he had been acting solely in the
interest of the city. He was not in favor
of giving something for nothing, nol
of selling the city's birthrght for
mess of pottage, but he certainly was il
favor of getting all he could. He outlined
the history of the negotiations, and then sale
that there was no use crying over spilled
milk. He declared that not one of the con
ditions in the old contract was worth any
thing, and that not one of them could be en-
forced. He said that ten years possession
gave good title in this state, and that every
one of the conditions was violated
fifteen twenty years ago. Th'
proposed settlement was giving to th'
Union Pacific nothing but what it has today
for the statute of limitation had run, all con
ditions having been violated more than tel
years ago, and the city would have no stand
ing in court in the case. He said that th
provision with reference TO the entry o
other roads had never done the city an.
good and wanted the council to go after TIN
substance and quit chasing the elusiy
shadow He would, of course, like to see
depot at the foot of Farnam street, and di,
not pretend TO say that the proposed dcpo
was what the city was entitled to, but h
felt that il was to the interest o
the city to have the concessions made
Mr.. Gown didn't think the city attornc
hear him state that provisions in IL contrac
with the city could not be cxacted from tn
railroads.
Connel wanted to know if the city cou
compel fulhlment.
Could Easily Hold the Company.
81 ASSERT replied Mr. Gown, upon m
honor as u man and my learning in my prt
fession, that the city can assert and mair
tain all its rights in this contract
The statute of limitations does nc
run unless the party holds adverse posse!
sion. This city has never held adversely I
the company and the statute does not run a
!. long as there is undisputod possession. III
Cnion Pacific has not refused TO allow othe
roads the privileges guaranteed them unit
within the past three years, and the terms
agreement have been renewed within thre
years, AS they were renewed when the bond
We're vOted.n
Thurston denied that the Union Pacif
had ever refused the Rock Island or Milwal
kee the right 10 operate their trains in a'
cordanee with the terms of the origin;
agreement but on the contrary had take
pains to serve them with notice that The
would do rs the agreement called for, bl
would not comply with the terms of a coi