The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1897-11-30
MENDATION OF TIE ASSEMBLY
STREET. COMMITTEE.
LET THE COURTS DETERMINE
THE RESPECTIVE RIGHTS OF THE
CITY, PEOPLE AND THE
COMPANY.
REFUSAL To PAVE STREETS.
Defiant Attitude of the Company in
That Connection Al Large Fac
tor OF PrGyocation.

assembly at a meeting held yesterday
afternoon decided by a unanimous vote
to recommend for passage the ordin-
ance of Assemblyman .Albrecht, forfeit
ing the franchise granted the street
railway company to construct and
operate the cable line. Mr.. Albrecht
stated that he had referred the ordin-
ance to the committee so as to get the
opinion of the corporation attorney. In
his opinion ordinance 704, under which
the company constructed and operated
the line, did not mention the time of
the franchise, and failed to state that
the franchise was a perpetual one, as
the company had claimed. 1t was a
question with him whether the coun-
ell in 1886 had the right to grant q
perpetual franchise. The passage of
the ordinance would bring the question
as to the time Of the franchise to an
issue and test it.
Mr.. Kirke suggested that If the suit
was brought the street railway COM
pany might quit operating the line. In
this case, which was not at all likely,
he would guarantee that a new COM
pany would start and operate the line
at once. The company had, up to date,
refused to accept any restrictions and
the council should settle the question.
Corporation Attorney Markham stated
that the cable line ordinance gave no
stated duration of the franchise and it
was reVokable. Perhaps not absolutely
or arbitrarily, but for just and proper
cause. If the company was not giving
proper and adequate service and it had
not carried out the provisions of the
ordinance, it was just cause for for
fixture and it was not necessary to
recite the causes in the ordinance. The
question as to whether the company
was giving proper service on the
cable line was judicial rather than
a legislative one. If there were causes
which justified the council in revoking
the franchise the council might simply
declare revocation and then in court
give the causes.
Mr.. Kirke questioned whether the
ordinance should not cite the reasons
why the franchise was to be revoked.
Mr.. Markham said if the reasons We're
cited in the ordinance it might limit
the position of the city when the case
came before the court. If the streets
were needed for the public use, if the
company did not give reasonable SER
vice then it prohibited and prevented
other companies from using the
streets. If the council desired to put
the street railway company off the
streets on which the cable line was
operated, then the present ordinance
would be the proper one. He advised,
however, that the ordinance briefly
state that the company had failed to
comply with the terms of the ordinance
and the demands of the council for
reasonable service and had failed to
accomplish the use for which the grant
had been made.
Mr. Kirke raised the point that the
council had never gone on record as in
forming the company that a reasonable
service was not given. Mr.. Markham
held that this was not necessary, as
under the ordinance the company was
required to give a good service. There
were, he said, two ways in which the
question could be settled. One was to
apply to the supreme court for a writ
of quo Warranto. The other was to
apply to the court for an injunction re-
straining the railway company from
occupying the streets on which the
cable line was operated, because it had
failed to give a proper service. In
stead of applying for a temporary in
junction which would prevent the COM
pany from operating it's cars an agree
ment could be entered into by which
the line would be run until the question
was settled by the courts. The refusal
Of the company to pave Fourth and
Third streets as ordered by the coun-
ell Mr.. Markham said, could be set up
in court as one Of the reasons for declar-
ing the franchise forfeited. The COM
mittee, he thought, should first pass on
fI0 To h.
nance should be passed by the council.
After this had been done it would be
an easy matter for the ordinance to be
prepared as he had outlined, and it
could be presented at the meeting
Thursday night. The committee
recommended the passage of the ordi-
nance and it was referred to the cor
poration attorney for amendment.
The communication from Mrs. Peter
son protesting against the slaughter
house of John Marty, which, 1t was al
legged, was within the city limits, and
a nuisance was laid on the table. Mr..
Marty explained to the committee that
his place of business was formerly To-
Gated in the township of Little Canada,
but the city had taken into it's limits
that territory. He had started in bust
ness in 1880 and did not care to be leg
islated out. Mrs. Peterson did not ap-
pear and for this reason the matter was
laid over.
The resolution directing the cutting
down of trees on Grove street between
Temperance and Canada streets was
reported back from the board of public
works with the recommendation that
six trees be cut down. The committee
referred the matter to the corporation
attorney for an opinion as to the rights
OF the council to order the trees
destroyed.