St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1893-03-30

urban line to Minneapolis. -
Gerhard Bohn wanted TO know II
there was any arrangement 10y whlch
the railway company would run cars IN
connection with the North 81. Iaul
company. MIR. Lowry sad IN reply tlat
such arrangements hao oetn haue' anu
in case an acceptable ordinance was
nasSpd The street railway company
would make contract with me CITY lOr
such service.
Mir. Thompson requested the alder
men who were opposed to the Llghth
ordinance 10 state their objections. Nj.
Oplenheim thought there had been an
attempt To disregard the rules OF laif
Dlav i'm the new ordinance. The idea OF
allowing the North 81. Paul company
The right 20 run over the street railway
tracks without compensation was almost
unheard of. All parts OF the city were
interested in reaching Phalen and Como
parks, and il should be adjusted IN
business-like way. He one time
owned part OF the street railway
company and knew it then never
paid a dollar. What it was doing now
he didn't know, but he imagined not
much money was being made. Inc
Iightner ordinance, he thought, was a
fair one, and he advised in the best in
tereStS of the city it be passed.
Nr. Rogers said the difference be-
tween the new ordinances and the
Iightner ordinance regarding the trans
fers seemed to him to be the main
objection or cause for differences. He
suggested some member of the board
of aldermen explain the difference
between the ordinances. Mr.. Thompson
renewed his appeal for those OF the al
dermen who were opposed TO the Light
ner ordinance to state their ooJecti0iis.
There was no response, but at some
ones suggestion the clerk was ordered
to read the Lightner ordinance.
MI. f. V. Smalley didn't quite get the
giSt of the ordinance, which lie said was
read in a gallOping style. He wanted
the difference in the boulevafding and
transfer clauses in both ordinances eX-
planned. Mr.. Mum read the sections
which referred to transfer from the or
dinance now in force and the Lightner
ordinance. The Lightner ordinance,
he said, provided that trans
fers should be issued to all
lines now or to be operated
in the city which would give the public
the right to travel with transfers on
nine lines not now allowed. The Ordl-
nance allowed transfers to be used on
the interurbaR for local travel when
tracks not less than ten minutes apart.
The ordinance read for the first time
last night. Mr.. Mum said, changed the
present transfer system all around.
There were objections 10 the new or
dinance. Mr.. Mum said. The first was
the section allowing the North ST. Paul
company to use the cOmpany'S tracks
without compensation. The second the
boulevarding of University avenue, with
crossings left for each street. The third
was the adjustment of transfers on the
present interuTDan line and not on
future lines.
j. E. Markham said the Lightner Or
dlnance provided for the adjustment
of the interurban transfers al once. but
the ordinance reported by the committee
provided that the transfers should not
be abolished until the improvements
were completed.
II. f. Stevens said all differences in
legislation were largely matter OF i'll
terests. There was not much differ
ence between the Lightner ordinance
and the one reported by the COM
mittee The substantial difference
was that for the immunity
or privileges granted the railway COM
pany was in the Lightner ordinance
given the right TO abolish through trans
fers as soon as the ordinance went into
effect. The committee ordinance pro-
vided that the transfers on the inter-
urban line should not be abolished until
the work of changing the East Seventh
street line and other work were COM
pleted. The public were anxious to
have the street railway matter settled,
and he was of the opinion that the
Lightner ordinance should be amended
so as to provide for such completion be-
fore the transfers were abolished and
then passed.
Mr. Thompson again made an ear
nest appeal for the aldermen who OBJ
jected to the Lightner ordinance to
state their objections. Whether this
would have been done or not is a
question, but Mr.. Rogers arose and
wanted 10 know if the aldermen would
pass the ordinance they had brought in.
There was only one question or any I'M
pOrIance, he said, and that was the
question of transfers. Mr.. Lowry was
not compelled to build line
to Como park and make 1t second in
terurban line by thSsRay of st. Anthony
Park, unless the restriction to all inter
urban lines as to transfers was applied
to it, If the hopes and dreams of Mr..
Cochran and others were ever to come
to pass, not only one, but half dozen
interurban lines would be needed. What
difference did it make if no tracks were
built in two years aside from those men-
toned. He said these side issues were
irrelevant and it would be a wrong to
grant Mir. Lowry the right to abolish
transfers on one interurban line and not
on another. He thought the matter
might be settled tonight.
Mr.. DriScoli said it was more to the
interests of the citizens to get transfers
on all lines than to get transfers to the
interuIban line. lie did not believe II
the duty of the council to consider how
it was best to get cheap facilities to get
to Minneapolis. The committees Ordi-
nance was something in the nature of q
hostile report. Mr.. Lowry had already
spent millions of dollars in the city
and now intended to spend hall
s million more. With the state
ment that not one nor tel
OF the citizens could be got to spend
that amount of money, even with theil
immense capital, Mr.. DTiScOll sat down
MI. Lowry said the company woulC
grant the transfers TO all parts of The
city as soon as the ordinance acceptable
was passed, and he would not ask the
establishment of the interurban trans
fers until all provisions mentioned il
the Lightner ordinance had been com
piled with. He, however, excepted TIT
boulevard plan, which lie anticipated
would involve a lawsuit.
Aid. Cullen said he was not familiar
with either ordinance, and in order t.
test the sense of the aldermen wOulC
move for suspension of the rules. ant
the placing of the ordinance last re
ported on its passage. The rules wer
suspended, ana then roll call had Oh
the passage of the ordinance.
Aid Copeland said he had labored 70
some time with the ordinance. 1t wa
not drawn with any hostility to the rail-
road company, and Ne made this state
ment in answer to remarks made durin
the evening. The Lightner Ordinanc
was not acceptable to the aldermen an,
contained manX Wnndchncks The wa