The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1897-02-18
THEY THINK IT FAIR
REPRESENTATIVE JOB3ERS EX-
PRESS THE BELIEF THAT THE
MILWAUKEE'S OFFER
TO SETTLE THE LEGAL FIGHT
SHOULD DE ACCEPTED BY THE
CITY IN THE INTEREST OF
ALL CONCERNED.
DISCUSSION BEFORE COMMITTEE.
Length of Time Asked for the Lease
of the LeVee by the Milwaukee
Is Regarded as Pretty Long.

The propositions made to the city
by the Milwaukee road by which the
present legal difference between the
two corporations may be settled were
discussed at a meeting held in the
council chamber last evening. The
committee on streets from the board
of aldermen was represented by Aids.
Kenny, Bigelow, Kaldunski, Larsen,
Bell and Shepard. Assistant City At
tOrney Phillips appeared for the city,
as also did H. ]. Horn, Who as coun-
sci for the city, has been engaged in
the suits for the past ten years. w. H.
Norris, F. w. Root and F. w. M Clutch
con represented the Milwaukee road
Charming Seabury, D. r. Noyes, r. A
Kirk, A. H. LindeKe and E. A. Young
representing the jObbers Of the city,
also took an active part in the dis
cussiOn. Aid. Kenny, as chairman Of
the aldermanic committee, endeavored
during the session to obtain an idea
as to what would be considered a fair
rental for the property in case the
propositions of the road should be &C
cepted and also an expression of opin-
ion as to whether the city should fix
the time of the lease at fifty years,
with an option of twenty-five years
more. The majority of the opinions
was that the lease for seventy-five
years was too long, but as to the rem
tai none of the gentlemen desired to
express an opinion. H. j. Horn in
sisted that there should be no compro-
mise with the road for the reason, as
he claimed, that the city had won a
victory in the courts and should not
grant the Milwaukee road exclusive
rights to the levee property as against
the best interests Of the city and other
roads which might want privileges
After three hours discussion an ad-
1ournment was taken until next Thurs
day evening, Mr.. Horn informing the
committee that he desired to be heard
In reply to the statements made by
the attorneys of the road.
w. H. Norris one Of the attorneys Of
the road thought the meeting was a
conference or informal talk The
propositions expressed, he thought
We're very clearly stated. It was not
anything new and what they asked
was to be left as they were, in possess
ion of the rights which had not been
adjudicated by the courts. He was Of
the opinion that those who objected
should be first heard The supreme
court in its last decision had left only
two questions to be settled and sug-
gested that the city and the railroad
company should get together and agree
on some settlement of all questions in
dispute. The company had in the past
fifteen years not been engaged in any
law suits with a city except St Paul.
The litigation with the city had been
running for ten years. He had asked
what the city wanted Of several
OF the corporation attorneys In
that time. Did it want to sweep the
levee and break up the road and the
interests of the city? He had never
been answered Suppose the road
should confess judgment what would
the city ask CT demand from the road.
The company had not offered to settle
the leVee question alone. There were
four of these cases and If legal battle
was demanded, each one could possibly
be dragged along for ten years the
same as in the present case
The Summit avenue bridge matter
could be made an agreement without
taking any legal view OF the case. He
thought the law compelled the road to
both build and maintain the bridge
The company might take a lease for
less than seventy-ive years, but he
took this idea from an ordinance which
had been passed by the council Civ
ing land on the West side for that
length of time.
In reply to the questions OF Aid.
Bigelow as to the status Of the case
and the rights adjudicated Mr. Norris
explained the course Of the suit which
had been tried twice and twice appeal
ed to the supreme court It had re-
Gently been sent back from the SUI
preme court for new trial on two
questions. One was. is the brick
freight house calculated to assist river
commerce. The second one was the
public needs Of the ground for river
commerce, and does the public
need the sole and exclusive use of
the ground for this purpose. The court
recommends that some arrangement be
made, If possible, between the city and