The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1897-10-08
PROCEED TO BUSINESS.


by this time to the dullest intelligence
in the common council that there is but
enc method of dealing with the street
railway company When it gets what
it wants, all is well. When any condi-
ton is introduced favorable to the peo-
pie, it asks for time and objects. I'm
less it can see a direct benett for Itself.
it coolIy refuses to do anything what
ever Thus it's action with reference to
paving between it's tracks on Fourth
street is contemptuous defiance or the
people; while it's refusal to accept the
ordinance for changing the Selby ave-
rue line to an electric, though fortu-
nate thing for the city as 1t seems 10
us, shows conclusively that IT there Is
to be any Improvement in our street
railway service we must proceed TO
comnel it by means clearly within our
power.
It will be observed that the letter of
Mr.. Lowry states an objection to every
feature of the ordinance that made it
considerations that induced aldermen to
CONQUER their reluctance and vote for
the ordinance were these two: first, the
securing of immediate through commu-
nication between Merriam Park and
the city; and, second, the extension OF
the transfer privilege to what should
have been insisted upon originally.
AS both of these conditions are among
those which Mr.. Lowry courteously in
vftes the council to eliminate from the
ordinance, we trust that the DISPOSE
ton of the company toward the council
and the people has been made plain
beyond misunderstanding. man who
has been kicked should not need a
knock-down blow to inform him where
he stands.
Mr.. Lowry's objections admit of
his claim that the work cannot be
done by the end of December we can
not judge, for neither we nor anybody
else knows what the proposed safety
device on the hill is to be. 1t may take
a month or a year to put that in. The
council, having made the astonishing
break of passing an ordinance author
ling the use of a purely hypothetical
appliance, must take Mr.. Lowry's word
as to the time needed for constructing
it. The limitation of the life of the or
Ginance is absolutely vital. AS has
been pointed out, the bondholders will
gladly waive any objections if they find
that the validity of the present fran
chise itself is to brought into question.
1t would be reasonable to require the
operation of cars through to Univer-
sity avenue only until the line should
be transformed into an interurban sys-
TEN. On this point Mr.. Lowry's re-
quest could be complied with. The
transfer privileges were, as we have
said, the chief argument relied upon
by the defenders of the ordinance i'll
the first place, and must be insisted
upon. Therefore the criticisms of Mr..
Lowry do not raise some minor points
of difference; they are vital and COM
prehensive They seem to leave no
possible room for compromise or ad-
justment.
This being the case, and the council
having gone. in this ordinance, alto
gether too far to meet Mr.. Lowry, by
permitting him to run electric cars UP
and down a dangerous grade, why
should it now delay to take the
necessary and proper step, the one
that has been urged upon it from the
beginning? This is not to fire pop
gun at the city railway company, by
ordering it to pave between it's tracks,
but to institute proceedings at once to
have the franchise for the Selby ave-
nue. line declared forfeited on the
ground that reasonable service has not
been furnished. Since the street rail
way company does not wish to be rea-
! sonable. since it refuses to accept an
ordinance so favorable to it as to evoke
much adverse criticism, since it makes
! it's objections to the only features of
| the ordinance that made it tolerable
or even possible, is there any need to
waste more valuable time? Since we
| are to be compelled to seek redress and
Justice in the courts, shall We commit
to their slow process some petty issue
about bit of street paving, whose de-
cision would profit US little, or shall we