Omaha daily bee., 1894-01-14
MIR. THURsToN EXPLAINS.
Compromise Union Depot Ordinance ar
what IL Means.

Compromise Union Depot Ordinance and
what 1t Means.
General solicitor Thurston, in explaining
how he came to offer a new ordinance relat-
ing to the Metropolitan Union Depot CON-
pany as a substitute for the ordinance nov
in the hands of the judiciary committee of
the council, said: "When President Clark
examined the ordinance introduced by Coun-
Gilman Saunders he raised some objection
TO it on the ground that it was not
specific enough and | was called upon to
redraft the ordinance. Representing the
Union, Pacific company as | do | had no
other recourse than to introduce the safe
guards which are embodied in the new
ordinance. The ordinance introduced by
Mr.. Saunders is most general in character
and relates only to the quoting OF title in
the present depot grounds. There have
been other questions raised as to grounds
now occupied by the Union Pacific, and to
remove from controversy these lands in
which a legal title is vested in the Union
Pacific | have sought to have the whole
su inject forever set at rest.
Il have no interest In this matter one way
or the other, but as the representative of the
Union Pacific railways my only object has
been to wipe off the slate and start afresh."
Some objection is raised" said the re-
porter, "to the new ordinance. on the ground
that III the present shop yards are included
in the quoting of title it will remove one of
the safeguards which the city insisted upon
in the old days, that the shops should never
be removed from Omaha"
THAT idea about the shops remaining for
ever in Omaha is purely a myth; it only ex-
lists In the minds of men, :" SAID Thurstop. In
the deeds of grant to the lots and lands
in question there Is no mention of continuing
the shops in this city. The deeds provide
that the grounds shall be used for railway
purposes, The Union Pacific could operate
4 single shop on these grounds, in fact put
down rails simply and yet hold an absolute
version is explicitly stated that whenever the
grantee shall fail to occupy the lots for rail
way purposes, then the lots are to revert to
the grantor. So long as the Union Pacific
performed it's part of the contract 50 long
can IL hold against all corners, But the
question aside, 1t is the purest folly to
suppose the Union Pacific will ever abandon
its present system of machine shops or head
quarters in Omaha. 1t would mean the out
lay Of millions of dollars and therefore is not
to be considered a moment.
SIN the discussion of this question it must
DO borne in mine. that the Union Pacific can
get along with its present depot facilities
very much cheaper than to so into a new
depot at the foot of Farnam street. 1t will
cost an Immense amount of money to get
into the depot from the Union Pacific bridge,
The settlement of this question cannot be
one-sided, for the Union Pacific is giving up
q good deal more than it receives, as will,
| think, be granted by every fair minded
man who studies the question from every
side. We only aim in the ordinance framed
by myself to forever set at rest all bicker-
ings and petty disSenslons. We only seek to
come into our own and have taken this
means TO remove from the field of contro-
the lands and lots occupied by the Union Pa
citiC company"