The Cape Girardeau Democrat. (Cape Girardeau, Mo.) 1876-1909, 1895-07-06
Shall We Have Many Ferries.


signed TAX Payer published il
your last issue, Saturday 18th, inst.
: is so unfair and misleading as TO de
|, serve prompt aud emphatic denial
The admission in that letter. that III
to this time the City Council has acteC
fairly and impartially. and has beer
governed by sense of duty alone
was made, either himself or is a slOb
bering attempt 10 stab the Council II
the back for no other reason than
that in the discharge of its sworn duty
it cannot see as Tax Payer" does.
who in this instance. for all we know
TO the contrary may be looking
through a pair of hired spectacles.
Tax Payer says: The Supreme
Court Of Missouri has repeatedly held
that it is not in the scope of the pow
erl:) of Il City Council to grant any
party or company an exclusive ferry
license. The Supreme Court of Mis-
souri, never used such bad English in
the first place, nor such a disjointed
| innuciatiOn of the law in the second
place.
! 1t has said that the constitution of
this state forbade the granting of ex-
| elusive franchise, but that the charter
of this city conferred upon our City
Council the exclusive right to grant
and refuse ferry franchises. and they,
the Council, were made by law the sole
judges as to how many ferries the bus
mess of this city demanded.
So that if Tax Payer knows any
thing about their decisions he knows
that when the Council thus acts, it is
doing a sworn duty under the law and
are not ''voluntarialy assuming the
attitude of law-breakers.
The two profound and obstruce
questions propounded by "TaxPayer"
as to who elected the City Council"
and whose agents they are, etc.,
expected to go sounding down the COR
ridor of time as gems of the purest ray,
''but not" born to blush unseen
Let me ask TAX Payer who elects
any one to Office, if not the people?
Does Tax Payer mean to say that
because the people elect man to an
Office in which it is his duty to act I'M
der his oath, and his duty alone, that
he must forswear himself and let out
siders govern and control his judg-
ment by petitions?
But the laughable and absurd part
of TAX Payers" wonderful article is
where he virtually asks, rs it not the
interest of the city to have as many
ferries as possible?" and then says,
"It is no answer to say that business
will not justify two Or more ferries,
that is no concern of the Council. -
And then to undertake to compare a
ferry franchise for five years to
saloon license for six months. If
Tax Payer has ever read any law
on this subject, he ought to know and
SO state, that the courts have uni
formly denied that there was any
analogy between a license to facilitate
for the public at large
and a mere license to keep saloon. /
Where does TAX Payer get his idea
of five hundred dollars from: The /
of this city require that |
the sum of fifty dollars for a ferry
license be paid into the city treasury
every six months. But now for few |
plain words. The law imposes upon .
the City Council the duty OF looking .
after the commercial interest of the .
.ity. They alone are the judges of /
what streets. alleys. by-ways or ferries .
are needed. and when they discharge .
his duty what right has some anony-
nous scribbler iwho may be tax
payer when compelled by law to pay
% attack them. Especially since this
Council has done only what every
other Council for the last fifty years
laa done in granting only one ferry
license.
No, the Council has done Just right.
Il wants a hrst-class ferry boat and
wants it 10 run everF hour in the day
md II the very lowest rates it can run,
md do legitimate business and it
las made its arrangements according
y. The Council knows if TWO boats
IRE licensed in less than TWO months
me or the other will Withdraw or be
jriven QUIT may be by an inferior
BOAT with more capital.
But as the Council mas under its
,ath OF Office twice passed on this
question. further argument IS deemed
PHLLO CRBLS.