St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1893-12-10
HARVEY ORDINANCE VOID.
so THE ANSWER OF THE STREET
RAILWAY COMPANY CLAIMS.
1T WAS FILED YESTERDAY.

The Company Asserts That the
Ordinance Is Unconstitutional
Because 1t Impairs the Obliga-
ton Of Contracts-It Is Also
Alleged That the City Is En-
titled to no Relief.
The street railway company filed its
answer or return yesterday to the writ
of mandamus directing the company to
accept the Harvey ordinance, providing
for the issuance of transfers at all
points by conductors to the passengers.
The answer is a lengthy document,
covering nearly thirty typewriter
pages.
The street railway people set up in
their return to the writ of mandamus
all the legislation relative to its rights
to use streets OF the city pertinent to the
question from 1875 down to the time of
the passage of the Harvey ordinance
and the acceptapceS and agreements by
the street railroad of the terms
and conditions of each of these
ordinances and resolutions, they
being all supplemental to each other.
Having set ont the foregoing, the street
railway company claims that the fore
going ordinances and resolutions, and
their acceptance thereof, constitute one
valid and binding contract between the
city and the railroad company, which
the city cannot alter or change without
the company'S consent. The road fur
Their claims that any attempted altera-
ton or change by ordinance, resolution
or otherwise of the terms of this agree
ment is void and of no effect, and COIL
trary to the constitution both of the
state and the United States. THAT pro-
vision forbidding the power of state
10 pass laws impairlng the obligation of
contracts.) And the return further
shows that pursuant to the provisions
of this agreement the company has
built more than 116 miles of road, and
has equipped the same III the best man
nor with machinery and appliances, and
has to meet the wishes of the
people, and, owing to the demand
for rapid transit has recently, expended
an enormous sum of money in recon-
Structing their road and adapting it to
the use of electric power, pursuant to
the terms of the agreement, and that
any attempt by the city to impose ad-
dilional duties upon the company by
ordinance or resolution is not only void,
but imposes upon the company an un-
just and unreasonable burden.
For these reasons the street railway
company claims that the city is not en-
titled to the relief asked, and that if the
city were entitled 10 any relief. it has
plain, speedy and adequate remedy at
law, and cannot enforce its rights by
writ of mandamus. Its further claimed
that the writ upon its face shows that
the court has no jurisdiction in the pro-
ceedlng, and that the city is not enti-
tied to the relief demanded, or any re-
lief whatever.
The return was filed late IN the after
noon, yesterday being the last day to
file it. The case will probably be
reached during the latter part of ,Janu-
airy. The Off cials of the street railway
company consider that the city has
treated the company unfairly during
the present administration. They point
to the expense the city entailed upon
the company year ago in passing the
ordinance for the building of $1,000
station on the Market house square, and
then repeating the measure after the
had expended considerable
money in preparing the plans. etc.
Then the council passed the Harvey
ordinance over the mayors veto. and
this ordinance if accepted. would, so the
street railway company claims, greatly
and uniuStly reduce its revenue, or as
one of the officials put it, lit would
practically give free transportation over
Il majority OF our lines"