The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1897-11-18
SHOULD PAY IT Alb
CITY's CLAIM CONCERNING THE
RAILROADS AND NEW RAY
MOND AVENUE BRIDGE.
MANDAMUS PROCEEDINGS ON.
THE COMPANIES DENY ANY OBLt-
CATION TO BUILD THE
STRUCTURE.
THEIR LINES WERE THERE FIRST.
And They Gave the City Permission
to Construct a Bridge Across
Their Right of Way.
MANDAMUs PROCEEDINGS ON
THEIR LINES WERE THERE FIRST.

Judge Brill was engaged all day yes
terday in hearing the mandamus pro-
ceedings instituted by the city to COM
pei the Northern Pacific, the Great
Northern and the Minnesota Transfer
Railway companies to stand the entire
expenses of constructing a steel bridge
| on Raymond avenue, over the rights
OF way of these three railroad compan-
les. L. T. Chamberlain represented the
Northern Pacific NJ. D. Grover appear
ed in behalf of the Great Northern and
w. II. Norris represented the Mime
sofa Transfer company.
The proposed steel bridge which is
to replace the present wooden struc-
ture, will be thirty-siX feet in width
a twenty-four foot roadway and two
six foot side walks. The cost, as esti-
mated by the city engineer. will be
about So, 900!
The city contends that the railroad
| companies should be compelled to pay
the entire cost of the bridge The
railroad companies dispute this conten-
ton, and hence the special proceeding
instituted by the city in Greer that the
rights and obligations Of all the parties
may be determined before the city
starts to build the bridge.
The defenses interposed by the rail
road com. anies are substantially as
follows:
In the first place all the companies
deny any obligation to construct the
bridge, alleging that Raymond avenue
was never opened or laid out across
their rights of way.
The Northern alleges that it pur
! chased it's right of way about Nov. 8,
! 1884, long before the plat of the addi-
! ton was filed. Like the Great North
| ern it granted permission to have a
! bridge constructed across it's right of
| way, but it denies cOnceding any
! additional privileges, and claims that
no street was laid out across its pro-
perty.
1t further denies the necessity Tor
! any bridge more expensive than that
now there, whether to be paid for by
the city or the railroads, and alleges
| that If street We're opened at that
! point, a bridge would be necessary to
cross the raVine whether there were
any railroad tracks there or not. 1t
alleges that eighteen feet headroom as
! provided for in the plan for the bridge
is not sufficient, ard that twenty-five
| feet should be allowed.
The Great Northern alleges that it
/ acquired title to its right of way in
/ 1880, and laid it's tracks thereon prior
/ to 1885, whereas the territory was not
made a part of the city until it was
! annexed by act of the legislature in
1885. 1t further alleges that in 1888
/ permission was granted by the COM
( pany to the owners of the abuttiug
! property to construct bridge across
/ its right of way on condition that they
| should forever maintain it, and it is
denied that there is any right to run
! a street across the property other than
that granted by this permission.
The Minnesota Transfer company
! claims to have purchased a portion of
it's yard room from the St. Paul, Min
neapOlis & Manitoba road in 1884, the
latter company having acquired it for
! railroad purposes in 1858, long, before
the adjoining property was plated. In
| 1885 it purchased additional ground
| from the owner of the addition, and
! it claims the property was sold free
| from all incumbrance and undivided
| by any street. 1t denies laying any
tracks since the bridge was dedicated
! This company and the Great Northern
admit that demand was made on
| them to contribute toward the build
| ing of the bridge, but the Northern
! Pacific denies that any demand was
made on it.
The witnesses examined yesterday
were c. H. Pratt. formerly the presi-
| dent of the st. Anthony Park associa-
| ton, and Mr.. Armstrong, a former as
sistant in the city engineers depart
ment.
The hearing will be resumed this
| forenoon.