The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1897-03-06
COMMITTEE yONe STREETS CoNTIN-
UES UNDECI3ED ABOUT THE
MILWAUKEE PROPOSITION.
ANOTHER 70 HEARING GIVEN.
MR. HORN lEBABoRATEs IN HIS
ARGUMENT. AGAINST ACCEPT
ING THE OFFER.
MIR. cuTcHEoN HEARD IN REPLY.
c. N. Bell Adds His Advice to Go
More Slowly About Tying the
City's Hands.

Another hearing-the fourth Of the
serles-as to the proposition Of the Mil
waukee road to lease the leVee from
the city. took place last night before
the committee on streets OF the board
of aldermen. It lasted until II p. M,
and the committee manifested the same
symptoms of indecisfon as were OBJ
served at the close Of the three pre-
vious hearings
Half of the evening was allotted to
H. j. Horn, who had requested the
privilege of replying to the arguments
of f. w M Cutcheon and w. Norris
in behalf of the railroad company.
Mr. Horn read his argument, which
consisted of reiteration in more elab-
crate form of his first presentation Of
the city's side of the controversy. Mr..
Horn laid special stress upon what he
termed the threat of the Milwaukee
road to carry the case to the United
States supreme court in the event OF
defeat in the state courts, and inti-
mated that such a course would not
worry him, as he was confident that
the city would be victorious, as it had
been in the state supreme court. MIR.
Horn stoutly disputed the statements
OF the attorneys for the railroad to the
effect that the Mississippi river didn't
amount to ANYTHING at this point. In
conclusion, Me-. Horn cautioned the
committee against the policy Of giving
corporations all they ask for.
1T is time.1p'a said MIR. Horn, ''for
the city council not to be SO prodigal
OF franchises TO corporations. There
was a time when we would get on our
knees to the corporations, when we
fairly wOrshipped a street car, when,
indeed, We felt it a high honor if the
president of a. corporation but touched
his hat to us. But that time has
passed" 10
Mr.. Cutcheotf was then granted the
floor in surrebuttal of Mr.. Horn. Like
Mr.. Horn, Mr.. Cutcheon did not enun-
ciate any propositions or arguments
that struck the committee as new. w.
p. Murray afterwards remarked that
the subject had been talked to death"
upon previous occasions. Mr.. Cutcheon
repeated his arguments, diSputing Mr..
Horns declaration that the decision OF
the supreme court went to the merits
of the controversy as to the title to
the property.
At the conclusion of Mr. Cutcheon's
I6I1ld1hS, mi nun SuSSSStCQ lIIctl Lie
committee hear a few words from c.
N Bell, who had been present all the
evening. Being invited to favor the
committee with his views, Mr.. Bell re-
sponded. .,.3.t- ..v.= .
He said that Mr. Horn had express
ed an idea that he wanted to- enforce,
and that was that city administrations
were continually changing, while cor
prrations, which did not change, were
continually asking for rights and priVi-
leges, which they never reHnquished.
The questions which were left were of
minor Importance, and did not go to
the citys right to control the levee.
Why then should the city yield its
rights? Mr.. Bell believed that the city
ought to have its hands free. when
it does want to make use of the levee,
to use it. That was Mr.. Bells objec-
ton to the council tying the hands
Of the city for any long period Of
years. Minneapolis was getting large
appropriations for improving the river.
Mr.. Bell protested against Mr..
Cutcheon's intimation that the river
didn't amount to anything. He had
faith in the future of the river. DID
anybody suppose that if the city was
victorious in its law suit that It
would send the sheriff down to the
levee to tear, down the milwaukee,
company's freight house unless the city |
needed the property.
AS for the Summit Avenue bridge. !
Mr. Bell suggested that for the mere !
construction of a. bridge that might !
last for twenty years was it just TO
say that the city must maintain 1t
for so, 100, 1000 Of S 600 years That |
was not the night policy to pursue. |
The Summit avenue bridge should not |
be mixed UP with the pending prop |
osition 1t hadmothing to do with it.
Mr. Bell said that the road had
fought a good fight, but thus far the |
city had been SUCCESSFUL, and the best
way to settle the Question was to grant
a short lease. The consideration of the
lease was not of SO much Importance
but Mr.. Bell thought the Milwaukee
road ought to deal fairly with the city
and haul down its red flag while nego-
tiations were in progress.
In response to question as to what !
he regarded as a proper period of the
lease, Mr.. Bell said that he thought
it should not exceed fifteen years, and
there should be no option providing for
an extension.
w. P. Murray expressed the opinion
that the rental should be nominal.
f. w. Root, one of the attorneys for |
the railroad. was of the opinion that
$20e year would be q fair rental
The committee, then adjourned until 4
next Thursday afternoon.