St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1894-02-25
THE CITY FOLKS WIN.
HARYEy'S ORDINANCE DECLARED O.
X. BY JUDGE Smith.
FAVORABLE DECisaON

Must Give Transfers at All In-
terscCtions of Its LInes-An
Ordinance Is Not a Contract,
but Merely a License Subject to
Police Regulations.
Judge Seagrave Smith has handed
down his decision in the Harvey trans
fer. 1t is a victory for the city, and the
street railway company is defeated at
every turn. The decision is a lengthy
one. 1t holds that a mandamus Is a
proper remedy, and that IN ordinance
Is not a contract but a license. If an
ordinance could be construed as a con-
tract, the judge holds that the ordi.
nance OF 1890 has a reservation clause
il it whereby the company agrees
to he subject to such further
regulations as the council may see
tit to Impose. This alone affords
the Harvey ordinance an excellent X
cuSe. The ordinance may also he en-
forced by police regulations, which pro-
ceeding would be reasonable. The city
has no right or authority, as the guard
ian and trustee of the people, to sur
render any rights to the use of the
streets which are detrimental to the
public interests. The present method
OF issuing transfers is held as detrl-
mental to the interests of the public 70
! the reason that it fails to accommodate
a large number OF people riding on
treet cars as we'll as they would be
| a accommodated under the provisions of
the Harvey ordinance.
Persons coming from The residence
portions of the city 10 the business
center are in some Instances required to
ride from five to fifteen blocks to OBJ
tain q transfer, or walk a part of the
distance. or pay two fares, winch would
not be the case if they could be trans
terred as under the provisions Of the
ordinance under question. ut Is held
that the present mode of transfer Is dis
terminating i'll its operations, from the
| fact that persons living in certain local
ties are not permitted to enjoy the same
privileges under the same conditions as
the people living in other portions OF
the city.
The decision then goes on to say that
the present system OF transfer results i'll
producing a crowded condition of the
cars at their junction in the business
center of the city, resulting in the dis
comfort of the passengers, which would
to q considerable extent be obvIated II
| transfers were made at the junction of
diverging or intersecting lines, as pro-
| ylded for by the ordinance in question.
In reference to the claim of the com-
pany that it will lose money under the
Harvey ordinance, Judge Smith says:
The facts as established by this evil
l.. $50, 1,,anIn tAy fln ync,,rt.6ant
to be substantially correct. But it is
claimed that the change would be detri-
mental to their business: that it would
luse money if such a change should be
made AS demanded by the ordinances;
that it would be required to issue more
transfers and have less cash for the
| same amount, OF more travel, and that
there would be a much greater Oppor-
tunity to defraud the respondent by
dishonest passengers and employees.
The city did hot grant the right to the
respondent to use the public streets tor
railway purposes for its sole benefit. but
it was granted solely for the benefit of
its citizens aud the general public and
for convenience. In attempting to o0-
tain that object it would be impolitic,
as we'll as unjust, on the part OF the
city, to impose OnerouS duties and oDll-
cations on the respondent to the extent
that it cannot realize a reasonable COM
! %pensation for the capital invested be
, vond the expenses of operating their
railway; imposing obligations beyond
that would result in defeating the OBJ
| jectS for which the rights were granted.
/ "There is no evidence in this case
| tending to show that it the ordinance in
| question was enforced and carried out
| by the respondent it would SO far im-
pair the rights Of the respondent or
reduce its revenue to the extent that 1t
would not then. from its operation, re-
ceive a fair and reasonable compensa-
ton for the capital invested over ID
above its operating expenses, and maln-
tain ng the plant i'll a good and servicea-
BILE condition. Undoubtedly this city
has the best railway system OF any city
in this country, owing to natural cOndl-
tiOns, the energy and business ability
of its projectors and managers, II
the liberality with which che city
has treated it on its part. The interest
of the public, represented by the city
council. and the respondents are mutual
to a certain extent; the public desires
good accommodations for travel and
respondent a reasonable compensation
for the use OF its capital; the II can
not be had without the other. These
questions should all be settled between
JIG pQIliCo ou vi OOuI W oO NAV eAS
rights of all should be preserved.
Courts have not the power that the par
ties have in the matter, but they have
the authority to protect the public In
terest, as against the greed of indlvid-
uals or corporations serving the pubic
as common carriers when they want
regulations provided for their conduct
in serving the publid, which are moi
unreasonable and for the public benefit
and do not in the performance of the
same destroy their property or unreaSon.
ably impair their property rights. Such
we believe this case to be-"
1t is said the street railway company
will appeal the case to the supreme
court. Mayor Eustis, it will be remem'
bered, vetoed the ordinance when it was
passed by the council and sent down t.
him for his signature. 1t was Their
passed over his head, and thrown into
the courts to test its validity. Mayor
Eustis said yesterday he had vetoed the
ordinance for the reason that he was o.
the opinion the city was breaking
contract with the street railway com
pany.