The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1897-02-26
%rrtt er,ac. ST = sN'r
LONG LEASE TO THE MIL WAUKEE
4 RAILROAD IsavIGoRoUsLY OP-
POSED.
ATTORNEY HORNS ARGUMENTS
PRESENTED BEFORE THE ALDER
MANIC COMMITTEE ON STREETS
LAST NIGHT.
SUGGESTS CERTAIN SAFEGUARDS
That should he Thrown Around Any
Release of This Valuable
Property.

The proposition made by the Milwau-
kee road looking toward a seventy-five
years lease of the levee property were
discussed before the aldermanic COM
mlttee on streets last evening by H. j.
Horn. Present at the session were:
Aid. Kenny, Bigelow, Shepard, Larsen
and Bell, of the committee. while the
assembly was represented by Mr..
thompson. MeSsrs. Cutcheon, Norris
and Root appeared for the Milwaukee
road, and Assistant City Attorney
Phillips represented the city.
Mr.. Horn, who has been engaged in
the suits brought by the city against
the Milwaukee road for the past ten
years, relative to the rights of the city
to the property now occupied by the
road, talked for nearly two hours on
the general subject and gave the COM
mittee a vast amount of detailed facts
At the conclusion of his argument the
| committee adjourned until Saturday
night at 7:30 O'Clock, when Mr.. Clutch
| con, on behalf Of the Milwaukee road
will be given a hearing.
Mr.. Horn read the proposition of the
| railroad company. and then followed
with a history of the suits in the courts
brought by the. city against the rail-
read companyiJ He read from the de-
cisions of the1Supreme court to show
that the rights of the city had been
recognized as to the property between
Sibley street and Broadway, except as
to that portiono occupied by a part of
the railroad freight house. In this
| connection the Ac6art had questioned
whether the ALLOWING of the freight
house on the property was not a per
| version of the provisions of the ded-
icatory acts of the person from whom
the city. secured fights. He also quot
ed from the briefs of the railroad com
pany showing 8that the property was
valued at 100000, when the case was
argued in the supreme court. |
| The most important part of the prop
ositions was that Felating to the rental
| of the levee. ASSUMING that the city
| had the. power to grant the lease, it
should be carefully considered With
| the exception of the property at the
foot of Jackson and Sibley streets, the
| city had no levee property. On this side
| of the river the levee privileges were
confined to the property between Jack
/ son street and Broadway. At present
| the premises in question was the only
/ real levee property in. the city. For
| this reason the city should use every
| care in the leasing of~~the property
| which was sought by the company.
He called attention to the much
| lower rates for transportation of
| freight by water than by rail. The
| tying up of the 4evee property for sew
| enty-five years. as asked for by the
| company, would possibly be of great
| disadvantage to tthe city. He quoted
| figures to show, that many years ago
| st. Louis was. a small city, much small
| er than st. Paul today. A greater part
| Of it's prosperity had been due to the
| river commerce. ST. Paul had an add
| ed advantage in that it is a great rail
road center and occupied a good po-
| sition on the river '-''''-' @iF'*' .'' =
| The $3.50 bridge at Summit avenue
| should be. under the law, constructed
| by the railroad company, and it should
be a suitable one. The company had
| paid ne-rents for the property for the
last htteen years. AS to the right of
| way in the Broadway bridge. the com
| pany did not, in it's offer, relieve the
city of litigation in this connection.
| Suit was now pending between the city
and the Great Northern railway in
| volving the right of the city, and one
trial had established the rights of the
city to s1Xty-foot roadway on Broad
/ way hC NOTlnGTn cOmDanV
| had offered the case to the supreme
| court, but the evidence was such that
| but little douBt was expressed as to
| the decision OF the lower court being
| sustained 'yaFi9'
| The intimati6n that the Milwaukee
| company might take the case to the
United States Supreme court, Mr.. Horn
sald' was entitled to very little con-
SideratiOn. The proposition of the road
| was that the levee suit should be dis
| crssed. If the railroad company was
| sincere in cOncee9ing to the city its
| title, there should be no objection to
| having a concession in such form that
| the question could not be attacked or
| reopened again. PThe proposition of
| the company advised the dismissal of
| the suit pending between the civ and
| the company involving the levee be-
! tween the WestbSide of Waconta street
| and Sibley appeared to require that if
| be done before the ordinance was ac-
| cepted by the company. 1t would be
| unWiSe, imprudent and uncalled for to
| grant lease for term Of Is or even
| 5O years. No lease should extend for
| period Of more than Is, or at the
| most, 20 years.
The rights of the city In the leyee
| property involved something more than
| the interests Of a certain class of citi-
zens or business men. The Mississippi
was g. national highway, and large
sums had been appropriated to improve
| navigation The, levee rights concern
ed the interests Of the city and state
| at large. If q short lease could be
| granted under the following safeguards.
| It might be advisable. Mr.. Horns sug-
| geSt1OnS were:
| First-That judgment should be entered in
| favor Of the levee. case as well as in the
| suit covering the levee from the west side
| OF Wacouta street to Sibley street CONFIRM
| ing the right Of the city or public therein
| to the satisfaction of the law officers of the
| city.
SecOnd-The company to make the conces-
| sions proposed by it in the first and second
| sections Of the proposition in relation to the
| short line bridge over Summit avenue and
| the Broadway bridge approach, and confirm
| ing the occupation and use of the railway
| company in the premises, and the two freight
houses and railway tracks On the southern
| side of the same.
Third-permitting the city. If deemed adv,s-
| able at any time Notwithstanding the lease
| to construct public docks or wharves on the
| river side Of the premises, the same to be I'M
| der the control ofethe city.
Fourth-That the city be paid a moderate
| rental for the use rqf said premises.
A large lease, ME-. Horn, said in con-
| clusion, would surely result in htiga-
| ton that would Fbes more lengthy. per
picking and expensive than that which
had been underway for the past ten
years. H.,