The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1898-10-07
RANDOLPH STREET ROUTE
HORSE CARS TIE BEST THE CITY
MAY ORDER RUN THERE
Corporation Attorney Handed
to Aldermen Yesterday

Corporation Attorney Handed
to Aldermen Yesterday
The city council may send the city
railway company back TO the use OF
the horse car on the Randolph street
extension, If it pleaseS; otherwise there
Is no redress through the city fer the
people who put up the bonus to main
tain street car facilities on that street.
mat Is the conclusion that is drawn by
ASSISTANT Corporation Attorney Taylor
IL an opinion submitted to the board
or aldermen, says, among other things:
IN August 1889, the common council passed
Ordinance No. 1902, granting permission 10
John Ireland and Thomas Cochran Jr to con-
struct, equip, maintain and operate certain
experimental electric street railway lines one
to be built upon randolph street from Sew
enth street TO the Mississippi, and another on
Grand avenue, from Victoria street TO the NJ s.
sissippi river.
About the time of the passage of this or
dlnance two other ordinances were passed
granting the right to operate experimental
electric lines in st. Pau-one to William Lin
deke and others, and another to the Thomp-
son-Houston company. I'D to this time how
ever, no ordinance had been passed granting
to the st. Paul City Railway company the
right to construct and operate electric lines
and there was at this time apparently some
opposition on the part of the common council
to granting to the city railway company such
a franchise For the purpose of forcing action
on the part Of the council the st. Paul City
Railway company took possession of Sixth
street, claiming the right to do so under their
old horse car ordinance, and commenced to
tear up the street, with view to establishing
a horse line thereon The result OF this
action was to cause the common council to
pass the general electric railway company or
dinance, known as Ordinance No. 1921 under
which most of the electric lines operated by
the city railway company have since been
built.
Early in 1891 Messrs: Cochran and Ireland
opened up negotiations with the city railway
company for the construction of the Rando ph
street line by that company. Two separate
proposals in writing were made by Mr.. Lowry
for the construction of the Randolph street
line, neither Of which proposals. however
was accepted. After this an agreement or
understanding was reached, by which the city
railway company agreed with Messrs. Cochran
and Ireland to build the Randolph street line
in consideration of Cochran and Ireland pay
ing them a bonus of $50, 600 in cash. About
that Mr.. Cochran and Mr.. Mum state that
there is no written evidence Ct any kind of
this agreement, and that 1t w6s~only an oral
understanding. According to this understand
ing the railway company was to build and op-
crate the Randolph street line, but it does not
appear that they were to operate it for any
definite length of time After this under
standing was reached, Messrs.. Cochran and
Ireland turned over to the st. Paul City Rail-
way company about $4,000 cash on account Of
the 100000 agreed to be paid; all of which
was paid by property owners along the line
agreed to be constructed and who were repre-
scented by Mr.. Howells
There was a slight difference in the figuring
between Mr.. Mum and Mr.. Coch an, blu. i
appears beyond question thet the city rail-
way company received between $4,000 and
$97 COO. In addition, certain lots were deed
ed by one Of the property owners, e ther di-
rectly to the st. Paul City Railway company,
or first to Messrs Cochran and Ireland, and
by them to the city railway company, en-
account of his subscription to the bonus. Mr..
subscription amounted to $1,000 and that
the property in question was acccep ed in
full payment of the subscription, while it
was stated by Mr.. Mum that Messs. Coch
ran and ireland were credited on account Of
the value of this propel9 with about SGOJ
on their account with the railway company.
Thus it appears that in all the st. Paul City
Railway company has received from the pop
erty owners through MeEsrs. Cochran and
Ireland from $3.50 to ,0GO, and the prop
erty aforesaid, ard nothing more. 1t Is
claimed by the counsel for the property own
ers who paid the bonus that the prop e-ty
owners were really dealing with the St Paul
City Railway company but that t1e c2m-
pany, for various reasonS, wi shed the trars-
action to have the appearance OF being made
between Messrs. Cochran and ireland and
the property owners, ard that the city rail-
way company dealt directly with Cochran AMI
Ireland In a contract made between pr p
erty owner and the st. Paul City RAILWAY
company the city railway company ttse-f
agrees to build equip and operate the Ran
dolph street line in consideration Of the
bonus which is to be paid by the property
owner. This latter contract Mr.. Howe Is par
ticularlv relied up as showing that the prop
erty owners really dealt directly with the St
Paul City Railway company in spite OF the
apparent intervention of Cochran and Ire
land. However, In regard to this point, 1t
is admitted by all parties that this last con-
tract was never acceped by the city railway
company, but was Immediately returned by
Mr.. Lowry to Cochran and ireland, with
statement that he would not accept the cen
tract Thereupon another contract was eX5-
cuted between the same property owners and
the Reserve, Loan, Investment and Improve
ment company the said company being q
corporation formed and controlled By Coch-
ran and Ireland.
The question now is, what steps can the
common council take If 1T deems 1t best to act
in the matter to compel the continued opera
ton of the Randolph street line, or in adj
justment of the respective claims of the prop
erty owners and Cochran and Ireland and the
st. Paul City Railway company? Whatever
the nature of the agreement between Cochran
and Ireland and the property owners as to the
payment of this bonus may have been, or
whether the property owners were dealing d.
rectly with Cochran and Ireland or with the
City Railway company, and whether Cochran
and Ireland and the City Railway company
have dealt fairly with the property owners
or not are not questions which effect in any
degree the control of the common council
over the grantees Of the Randolph street line
franchise or their assigns or successors. The
common council has the power to require
Cochran and Ireland to operate the Randolph
street line or surrender their franchise. By
their acceptance of the franchise, 1t does not
appear that Cochran and Ireland had agreed
to operate the line for any particular length
of time, and so 1 do not think the court could
compel them to operate the line If when
commanded to do so, they should agree to
surrender their rights sunder the ordinance.
The common council could not proceed d.
rectly against the City Railway company to
compel It to operate the Randolph street line,
and it does not appear that the railway COM
pany is the assignee OF Cochran and Ireland
or their rights under the franchise, or sub
ject to any of the obligations imposed by the
ordinance in question. / realize that in this
case the power of the council, which I have
referred to, cannot be exercised to solve the
difficulty, and Cochran and Ireland undoubted-
ly have no interest whatever in retaining
their right to operate cars upon Randolph
street.
1t is unnecessary for me to pass upon the
question whether or not there was a contract
made between Cochran and Ireland and the