The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1896-08-27
= n
no MORE TRACKS
III liz THE THE s Property owners sis ms or
UNIVERSITY AVENUE AREa CON-
'o~ srT 'Hsq Bs SpLTED-,ei ee-s resroa
NEW STREET CAR ORDINANCE
ILL., lif'.p trnte ~ FNrffN hNffs
PRACTICALLYi, KILLED AT THE
MEETING sOF THE COMMITTEE
> vnfr ag0No STREETS; tssA 'ar evs
ANOTHER TsoNE IS no HE DRAW

oPr9c lzF17
Ordering the oBuiIding of Loop,
tsc''Bnth WhieR WIN Not Refer To-
tn~ 4,ooAr t4erExpress Linesssb sJt -
t,p~rl ss@rs 4ets -gf--44.sA-1zllln ~ xs1sq Tsnt
+ owners OF properly abutting on Uni
! .Xers1ty avenue need no longer fearathe
passage of an ordinace granting the
street railway company The Fight to
LAY two additional tracks on the ave-
nue. for the operation Of an express line
to Minneapolis Then commftte on
Streets of the board of aldermen at
It's meeting last night practically killed
I the, ordinace by appointing a subcon-
mittee, with. instructions to draft a new
ordinance, directing the street railway
I company to extend its loop to Broad
| way. The subcommittee was not au-
| thorized to embody in the new ordi-
| nance any section or sections ranting
the street railway company, additional
franchises or privileges as a considera-
ton of constructing loop via Broad
| way. 4ss
| Last nights meeting Of the commit
| tee was attended by several represent
ative wholesale men, among them be-
| ing Kenneth Clark, A H. Lindeke, r.
"A Kirk. Edward Schurmeier7- and
others, but they were largely outnum-
bered by the delegation of University
avenue property owners and attorneys,
who appeared in behalf Of other prop
<erty owners not present rs
Il After Aid Kenny had called the em-
nittee. to order, at his, request, AID.
| Shepard read the ordinace introduced
lat the meeting pf the board of alder
men three weeks ago, which granted to
| the street RAILWAY company the right
| to lay two additional tracks on Uni
versity avenue, TO be used as an ex-
| press line and 1aalso gave Them the
privilege of carrying express matter en-
all their lines In cars constructed for
that purpose. IL subsequently, Aid. Shep-
lard read an ordiGace which has not yet
been introduced at any meeting of the
council, which atsimplyr requires. the
street railway company to construct a
loop extending down Fifth street to
Broadway, thence along Broadway to
Eighth, street. and thence up Eighth
street to Wahasha street. At the con-
7cldsfon of th.e readng,s Alds Kennyere-
! marked: 80. yef, < a.,s4
Our ordinance gives the street rail-
way everything and the other gives it
nothing
G. N. Bell was the first to address the
/ committee, Mr.. Bell said that he rep
resented 700 feet of property on Uni
I versity avenue thattswere opposed, to
granting the rights yielded to the street
railway company by the ordinance9in
troduced at the meeting of the board of
aldermen. But without discussing the
merits of the question, Mr.. Bell pro
ceeded to raise the point that there was
no provision in the city charter author
ling the. common council to grant a
franchise to any company Or Icorpo-
ration oAoperate an electric CONNER
cial express nne' over any street, in the
city of ST. PathI In support q of this
declaration, Mr. Bell cited the special
ractssof4 1889, which is Incorporated in
the charter foFbidding or. denying 1.-THE
right OF the common council to- grant
franchise to any company or cerpo-
ration to construct or operate any. line
of railway other than one operated by
steam power or horse power This act,
MI. Bell said, was the result of an at
tempt of certain parties to constructaan
elevated railway in this city some
years ago. e@.s
Mr.. Bells point was not discussed to
any extent. however, and the com
mittee. proceeded to listen to what
other interested parties had to say with
/ reference to- the ordinance
Charles Magnusson, of Merriam Park |
said that the property owners on Uni
verSity avenue were opposed to the
laying of two additional tracks on that
avenue Mr.. Magnusson- thought that
there was no need1Of an express line to
Minneapolis aiidttflat if such line was
esta blished, the cars would be operated
at a higher rate of speed, which would
render the Avenue a more dangerous
place than it Is now
a-i Frederick McGhee, on behalf of prop
erty owners north of University ave
nue., spoke mi opposition to the ordi-
nance. He desired to know what ben
eft the peoples along the line would re-
ceive in return FOR granting a fran
chise worth $1s000,0oO. Mr. McGhee re-
ferred to the pfonise of the street rail
way conapanMl to dimprovee and bou1e-
ward University avenue in considera-
ton of the owners of the AUDITING prop
erty yielding ten feet of it. Before the
people surrendered. any more rights, |
something ought to be given them in
return. The .cstreet railway COMPANY
had not kept its promises. 9s,
Gen. Moses f.. Clapp, on behalf Of
Donald Grant, the owner of one-fourth
: Of a mile of property on either. side of |
etdn Eersdty avenue said that her esired |
to enter a, most earnest protest against |
! the passage of the ordnance
Attorney G.sJ.S Lomen on behalf EFF |
c. E. Dickerman, another owner of |
property on University avenue, also op-
posed the ordnance. Mr.. Lomen contend |
ed that the council had no power to |
grant the privileges asked. for blythe |
street railway company.
w. p. Murray began his remarks by |
reading Section No A. which gives the |
street railway company the right to
carry express matter on every one of its |
liEes. Then he quoted and commented |
upon the section requiring that 1.-The.
present interurban cars should not |
step oyer 10 times east of Dale street.
MIR. Murray explained how the assess
mfnts ef-damagess to property owners
on University avenue were Offset by:
rthe~ assessments ofhbenefits, except that |
1.-THE poor devils of property. owners" |
we're made to pay, the cost of the street |