The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1897-02-09


this railroad company Of the state of Wis
consin, (Which has in fact made this city
but the way-station Of its road (having its
terminals, general Offices and machine shops
outside of this city,, has upon st. Paul, at
the end of It's defeat, after persistent liti-
cation Of rights of the city so apparent
that 1t seems to me they should not have been
seriously questioned.
The articles that have so far appeared
in the newspapers have not gone fully into the
history of the origin Of the claim upon which
the defendant corporation attempted to hold
the premises in question.
The city traces it's title to the patent of
Louis Robert, issued in 1649.
In 1856, some one, supposed to be squat
ter, procured a survey Of what is sup
posed to be Island No. II of government land,
as a separate lot.
separated from the mainland by slough,
forming part of Hopkins addition and part Of
the union depot grounds and embracing the
premises in question.
In 1862 the st. Paul & Pacific railroad COM
pany made claim to this Island No. II as be-
ing part OF the land grant under the act OF
congress OF 1857, to which that line of road
was entitled Mr.. Schumacher, who had
erected warehouse at or about the corner
or Wacouta street and the levee upon certain
lots OF land derived under the title of Louis
ROBERT, opposed by suitable action against
that company the construction Of its line of
road upon these premises. The question
was fully tried and was decided both in the
state courts and finally in the supreme court
OF the United States, that this Island No
IL, so called, was part of the mainland and
passed to Louis Robert under his patent long
before the land grant under which the St
Paul & Pacific claimed.
This question was determined in the SUI
preme court Of the United States in Decem-
Der. 1868, against the railroad company, being
The celebrated Schumacher case reported in
It'll Wallace, page 272.
This substantially determined the only claim
that the st. Paul Pacific Railroad com
pany made, and the city, although not
party to that litigation, considered 1t au-
thoritative decision by the highest tribunal
upon that point, and has always claimed the
said premises a matter of right.
The st. Paul, Minneapolis e Manitoba Rail-
road company in 1879 succeeded to that part
OF the line of road and property of the old
company.
About the same year the union depot project
was Initiated, and the Manitoba Railway com
pany became Interested and made proposal
to sell to the Union Depot company certain of
its levee lots for it's site. The plan of the
Union Depot company involved the vacation
OF parts of certain of the cross streets run
ning through its grounds, and also part of the
levee in front Of the levee lots in Hopkins
ADDITION and st. Paul proper, and it became
necessary to have vacation of that part of
the leVee required by the latter company.
Mr.. James j. Hill, as representing the Man
ltoba company, was a party to the vacation
davit.
The petition, as we'll as the official pro-
ceedings, described the part of the levee as
the public levee," which was claimed as a
recognition by the latter company of the
pubic character of the levee, and it was so
found to be so by the last decision of the
supreme court, not upon the same evidence,
as enormously stated in one of the news
paper articles as given in the first trial, but
upon additional evidence.
At that time the statue of limitations had
not run out against the city, so that neither
the Milwaukee nor the Manitoba Railway
company had in fact or in law any substan-
no Ito
OF the transfer 1880 of the interest of the
Manitoba company to the Milwaukee com
pany.
The Milwaukee company remained ouiet
until the twenty-year limitation had expired
and in the present litigation relied not on
any me11torious claim or contract right be-
tween 1t and the CITY, but upon it's adverse
possession or the statute of limitations When
1t was defeated in that particular, it then
made claim Of rights under the ordinance,
No. 286, in question.
How far such claim is meritorous the Dub-
judge. y p0- '0N-'S "
The advantage of the city being located
upon the Mississippi river and at the head of
Placucai navigation has been one of the
factors IN its growth, business and prosperitv
ana while do lot underrate in the least
me importance OF railroad transportation, vet
the Potlcy OF our general government as we'll
as our local government, has been to improve
and render serviceable the WATERWAYS Of the
country, having the tendency, which thew
chGAnPOinp
rates Of transportation.
congress every session makes appropria-
ions OF large sums to improve these water
ways, anu the courts are laying down rules
InVolVlhg SafeguadS for their preservation and
~
This was Notably the case in the celebrated
lake front suit which held that part of the
waters CT Lake Michigan forming tha min
cipal harbor of the city of Chicago were
protected from the encroachment of tha
illinois Central Railroad company, BY a pub
nc tfust. me act OF the legislature of the
STATE Ct Illinois, in favor of the company,
a1emrCng to grant it certain rights and priv
lleges upon the lake front was held tn no
null ana void, as conflicting with this public
The same rule might be considered as an
plying to the harbor of St. Paul.
Something has been said in some of the
articles published in the st, Paul naners
about the Importance of deep river navipatioT
for larger boats than those which have -heen
accustomed to ply on the upper Mississippi.
ana OF the lmpTacticability of the landing Of
such boats upon the premises in question in
their present condition -
Scundings were taken shortly prior to the
last trial CT the case by Mr. Armstrong. as
oiStant clty engineer, in front of the nrqTn
iSeS from W2c0uta street to Broadway and
at low stage OF water at stations fffv feet
apart, and he found that at thirty feet from
the water line the depth Of water was nva1,
three feet, except in a single instance where
it was nearly three feet. This would he
aeep enough for beats OF ordinary draft nav
SoCiiS ClS upper hlSSlSSippl to land at this
.eYee' extending, perhaps, the platform a few
rect AS to boats of much heavier draft that
might require deep water navigation il wouId
De OF very little advantage to the city for
Such po2ts to travel up and down the river
Wlthout having q practical landing DIaca
for Sucn boats, when necessary, the CITY has
1he power under its charter to construo+
suitable wharves. but which it would he nre.
vented from doing by the warehouse Of the
defendant railroad " ''o
beg leave to call the attention of 1ba
prphc in conclusion TO the able editorial n1th|
sned IN the st. Paul GIobe of Nav y
THE LEVEE RESTORED.
The nlomentous Importance to the city nf
ne decls4on of the supreme court in the case
MOVING the rights Of the Chicago, Milwgukee
ST. Paul Railway company 10 OccUDv tbo
'iVer front has scarcely been appreciated bv
ne people. A brief summary in our new.
columns shows that this is one CT the n1rsI
Important victories for the peoDle thar haS
)oen won in many years.
Inc Inomentous gravity OF the issue is
measured by the estimate Of value of from
1aif million to enc million dollars that has
1een placed upon the property
me time will probably come in the futura
Fhen this portion of The levee will be wortb
millions In money, while its commercial nil
ty WI be beyond estimate We ccnprat71Iato
ne people OF St. Paul on this most signal and
vindication of the city,"
Henry j. Horn.
CANNOT GARRY a CDru