The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1897-12-22
THE LATEST STREET RAILWAY
ORDINANCE.

we 90 HOL KNOW lndL IL IL WI III
while to spend any considerable time IN
discussing the street railway ordinance
for whose presentation the council kind
ly awaited the return from the East of
Mr.. Lowry and his legal representa-
tives. This is mainly because or the
general supposition, thoroughly war
ranted by past experience, that this IS
only another move in the game Of cross
purposes and delay. Whether the street
railway company wishes the passage OF
this ordinance or not; whether 1t has
arranged with the council to pass 1t or
kill it; whether the council is now sat
isfed with something new to talk about
and to serve as a pretext for doing
nothing; whether in a word, this is an
other move in the same old game or
actually means business, nobody out
side Of this sacred circle can tell. In
the meantime, there are several reasons
for suspecting that 1t is simply part
OF the two-year-old comedy Of How
Not To Do It. One Of these is that. in
general, the ordinance makes several
concessions which the street railway
company, in a previous communication,
had declared to be fundamentally i'm
possible. Another is that 1t retains just
enough Of the features Objectionable to
the people Of the city to assure further
discussion and protest.
In many particulars the ordinance
would be satisfactory. 1t does not, Of
course, cover properly the matter Of
overcoming the Selby avenue hill. We
need not reiterate that no permission
ought to be given to the street rail-
way company to operate electric cars
over this route until the hill is either
cut down or tunneled so as to afford
safe grade. This is the great central
fact, upon which the council has never
been disposed to insist and which, Of
course, the company is delighted to
evade. The old arrangement for
safety device" of unknown quality is
included, and this. in our judgment,
ought to defeat the ordinance.
Other points improper to concede are
year 1915, and Of the time for paving
between tracks to 1899. No franchise
covering the use Of electricity as a mo-
tive power should run beyond the limit
set in the franchise already granted for
other lines. After the delay and the
obstinate and contemptuous refusal Of
the street railway company to keep
faith in the matter of paving Third and
Fourth streets, not one hour should be
granted. On the other hand, the
company comedies the issue Of transfers
from the cable line to all the other
lines not at present covered by trans
fers, except the interurban. The argu-
ment in this case is that passengers
from ST Anthony hill for Minneapolis
can take the cable line in the other di-
rection and transfer at the corner of
Prior and University avenues. There
Is reason in this, and the transfer ar
rangement seems to be satisfactorily
settled.
On the other hand, no sooner does
this ordinance appear than the Broad
way loop hobs up again. We do not
understand how the persistent coupling
Of the Broadway loop with this cable
line ordinance can be anything else
than an attempt to delay and defeat all
Improvement. We are speaking now
entirely without reference to the merits
of the Broadway loop proposition in it.
self Were it to be all that it's
be no excuse for making it rider to
an ordinance dealing with an entirely
distinct and separate part Of the sys-
tenn Of public transportation. The
Broadway loop ordinance has already
been passed. 1t would become no more
effective If incorporated in another or
dinance In the meantime, the only eff
feet of insisting upon this is to post
pone or defeat any and all changes.
The situation, therefore, is precisely
what it has been before-an apparent
agreement, except in a few particulars,
between the street railway company
and the majority of the council. with
just enough gound left for DIRECTORS and
advocates of delay to make a stand
upon We shall see presently whether
this is Of accident merely or, as many
e1cnnnt Of dnlihara to i,ntnntinn