St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1894-10-28
FIGHT over ASPHALT.
Lowry's Application for an
injunction Against Sew
enth Street Paving
ARGUED BEFORE JUDGEEGAN'
Mum Argdes That Asphalt
Would Increase the Cost
Of Operating @
THE SEVENTH STREET LINE.
City Attorney Chamberlain
and T. D. 0'Brien Oppose
Munn's Position.
ARGUED BEFORE JUDGE EGAN
THE SEVENTH STREET LINE.

The application for temporary in
junction in the Sibley street asphalt
paving matter was argued before Judge
Egan yesterday, and an opinion will be
handed down at 10 a. III. Monday, as to
whether temporary injunction will be
granted or not. In the meantime there
is no restraint against the work going
Oh. The application was made by the
ST. Paul City Railway company against
the city and the contractors who are
doing the work. Nj. ID. Mum pre-
scented the street railway side of the
case, urging that there are two reasons
why the paving across Seventh street
should not be made. There is no objec>
ton to paving Sibley street except the
crossing on Seventh street. but an adj
verse decision to the city would Droba-
bly, prevent the future paving of Sew
enth street.
The first point Of MIR. Mum is 10 the
effect that asphalt paving across Sew
enth street would interfere materially
with the operation of the electric line of
the company, as it is often necessary to
tear up the street to make repairs. and
1t would be very expensive to do so in
case asphalt paving is used.
His second point was that the asphalt
paving would destroy the underground
conduit used by the street car company
Tor Its cable. and the city has no right
to interfere with vested right by fill
ing up that conduit, thus preventing the
street car company from using the cable
at any time it SO desires on Seventh
street.
Thomas d. O'Brien appeared for Hen
nessey d Cox, the contractors, and. al
though he made no argument, asked
that the court protect their rights in the
premises. Leon T. Chamberlain APP
peared as corporation counsel for the
city and argued against granting even
a temporary Injunction. He asked that
the matter be taken up at once. and de-
ciined to consent to a continuance of
the hearing, as there was no reasonable
ground for delay. His points against
the injunction are as follows:
The assertion that it would be more
expensive to tine street car company to
tear up asphalt paving is not valid
objection, and is not sufficient to war
rant an injunction. 1t is not within The
province of the street ear company to
object OH tine ground of increased ex-
pense in making repairs. The conduit
was formerly used for the cable when
cable cars were run. The city, by an
ordinance passed May 6, 1898, changed
the line from cable to an electric line,
and the company accepted the terms OF
that ordinance and has long since ceased
to operate the life by cable, and has no
need of the conduit. That if the conduit
is in the way of the asphalt paving the
city has tn right to order it filed or re.
moved. The only right the street car
company has is to operate its cars. and
they must be operated IN conformity to
any ordinance passed by the city. The
city was not bound by any former Or
dinance, and cannot be bound against
making changes in the conduit system
or ordering it removed. The street car
company is subservient to the will OF
the people as expressed through it's
common council.