The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1896-10-13

In the loop be not made, because they
felt It would injure them. Mr. Stevens
cited Mr.. Lindeke's own argument to
prove that the retail interests would
be injured by the removal of the loop.
1t was well enough to let things re-
main as they are. Mr.. Stevens sub
United that the employees in the job
ping district were as reasonably well
cared for as those Of any other portions
OF the city. Would any Of these en-
ployes resign their positions. If the
loop was not extended? AS far as the
union depot argument, Mr.. Stevens
pointed out that the cable line was
nearer the depot than any other line
It was proposed to extend.
Mr.. Stevens then dwelt upon the ne
cessity or having an accessible hotel.
opera house and retail district. The
Ietaiiers mad located in the present dis
tIict In order that they might establish
their business on street not oecupied
by street car tracks, but conveniently
crossed by such tracks. Mr.. Stevens
insisted that no city could be entirely
prosperous unless it had successful re-
tall stores. Otherwise while the mer-
tnants would patronize the jobbers,
tney and their families would 60 to
another city to do their retailing.
While the retailers may have had No
iegaI warrant that the Robert street
loop would be permanent, still they had
a right to look to the legislation OF the
city.
Mr., Holman has said" continued
senator Stevens, that ordinance No
l227 doesn't refer to tracks. Now lines
OF railway mean the roadbeds and
tracks, something that is an object of
construction. In my opinion the coun-
Gil mas no power to order the operation
OF cars and the construction of a new
me me around the proposed Broadway
loop because tracks are already there:
they nave simply the right to order the
construction of tracks on Eighth street
Ifom broadway to Robert street.
Mr.. stevens then submitted the reso-
iulion OF the Commercial club opposing
the extension of the loop. Mr. Stevens
also offered petition signed by TWEEN
ty-Ive or thirty wholesalers, who OBJ
J9cteu 70 the extension Of the loop
showing that the jobbers were not en-.
tlrely unanimous in desiring q BROAD
way loop Among these sigma t11res
were those Of Tarbox & Co., Guiternnan
Brothers, Seabury &, Co. RYAN Drug
company, Powers Dry Goods comnanv
and Nichols & Dean.
In conclusion Mr.. Stevens said: "The
real question is, will it help the CITY
at large or hurt it. I am convinced
II would seriously injure the retail dis
; trlct. LII you are gong to make a
Change, pulid something up don't tear
gown and destroy. Let's follow the
me or progress and build a line to fine
union Depot as suggested by Mr.. Nash.
W. II. Lghtner followed Mr.. Stew
els, ana began by reading a, resolution
passed by the st. Paul chamber of com
merce yesterday forenoon, DECLARING
1le1ped1ent the extension of the loon.
Inc resolution was passed by a vote IF
ID to 19, after a f.ll and deliberate dis
cusslon. Mr.. Lsghtner said he repre-
sented certain property owners at
ol1tn ana Robert streets but he was
also lnte'~ sted as a citizen, and would
Try not TO be Influenced by his nrofaS
slonal relations in the matter. AS the
executor Of the Drake estate Mr.
Llgntner declared that the removal Of
the loop from Robert street would in
?ure the property because of the general
INJURY to the city that would follow
Mr. Llghfner thought the most serious
',iihS 10 CONSIDER was that the city
should sustain in every proper wav ia
retail trade. Third street had to On
out the city had suffered in conse
quence. But now the citizens of ST
Paul were interested in seeing a
nucleus OF retail trade established on
Sixth street "a
Look at Sixth street." continued Mr.
Llghtner, you will find pieces of va
cant property between st. Peter and
olpiey street. That property is going
10 De and must be improved. and elf.
izehs should see that no obstacle Ia
thrown in the way to retard or nre
vent such Improvement.
- tHihS mat exists today should not
De changed unless there are the stronp
est kind of reasons, stronger than tbe+
ol taxing It away from ROBERT street
and lnJuring private owners meraly
TO put it elsewhere to benefit otbey
private owners. What we want is the
construction of street railway line
from the union depot to Soma noi,+
connecting with the main line. RI Won
put this loop on Broadway Won haven't
gone one inch toward the union denot
moreover, II you extend the loon vo,,
VIII not put single street car thrai,vb
any portion Of the city that is not 81
ready furnished with street cur service
LIT, ne more you expand the loop the
more incopTenient you make trans
poTtation. Why shouldn't the new
posfoFice, Seven corners or West g.
raul be included in the Ioon9 va
can see the manifest absurdity IF an
lafglng the loop so as to include
bfoadWay If this loop should be re-
moved to Broadway, it wouldn't ha
twelve months before the people womb
aenand that 1T be restored to Robert
street. All can say, in concl1sion
is that the best interests of tha civ,
require that the loop be allowed r.
ieilla1iH Wnofe 1t Is. =
W1filam Dawson, ST., was then asked
20 express his opinion Mr.. Dawson
said that he believed in spl1shinp tba
loop along. 1t ought to be enlarged
Mr.. Lowry had admitted tina. tba ioor
was too small. Mr. Dawson did nnt
understand that there was any in+nn-
ton OF removing the Robert street loon
Dut SIMPLY 70 construct another one.
He was confident that the extension
OF the loop would benefit the civ Mr.
Lawson said that he was opDOsed RI
monopoly. He owned property within
the Robert street loop. but he was per
lectiy willing to give his neighbors a
chance.
A. B. Ovitt, in behalf Of TIE retai1ars
eaid he did not believe that the extan,
SION or the loop would be of any ma
ter1al benefit to the employees in the
wholesale district. And for This alone
the 1obbers asked for great sacrifice
on the part Of the retailers Not over
one man in fifty would derive anv
advantage from the enlargement of
the loop y
=. +. Noyes spoke briefly in favor
OF extending the loop expressing tba
opinion that it would also aeconn1n-
cate the employees of the railroad Of
fees. "a
Mr.. Lightner took occasion a. tb,s
juncture to resent Mr.. Dawson's alI,1-
sion to monopoly. Mr. Ligntner said
tnat ne knew nothing of any monon
ollstic interests in the matter and he
demanded specification of the nature
of the monopoly
Mr.. Dawson replied that while there
might not be monopoly, the restrict
ed character of the loop, that is its
limited extent. rendered it MONOPOLY
in effect
Assemblyman Krahmer asked Mr.
Lightner why, If he did not believe in
monopoly, he believed in centralza-
ton.
Because. answered Mr.. Iightner.
Il am Republican. Capitalization 10