The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1899-12-16

10 Require Reasonable Extensions
The supreme court, in a decision handed
down yesterday, holds that the street
railway company must obey the order of
the council and operate its interurhan
and Como avenue ears around the Broad
way loop. In May, 1897, the council
passed an ordinance directing the COM
pany to run its cars on the two mer-
toned lines around the so-called Bread
way loop. That is, Gown Fifth street
10 Broadway. on Broadway TO Seventh
street, and on Seventh street to Wabasha
street The company refused to obey the
order of the council and proceedings were
brought tc. obtain a peremptory writ of
mandamus compelling the company to
comply with the ordinance. The company
cCEtended that the ordinance N@2ol was
VOID because It required it to do what was
not required under the provisions of Or
dinance 1927, and not within power re-
served to the city council under section
Is of the last mentioned ordinance. me
district court, Judge Bum sitting, sus-
tanned the Intention of the company aad
dismissed the application of the city fer
a writ The case was appealed and the
supreme court reVerses this ruling and
or6ers the case back for n new trial.
Section Is. of ordnance 1927, on which the
company based its contention that the
council had no authority to order the
operation of the Broadway loop, reads
as follows:
The common council reserves and shall
have the right, at any time, and from
time to time after Jan. /, 1892, to order
the construction and completion by said
st. Paul City Railway company OF any
new lines of street railway upon any and
all streets in the city of st. Paul upon
which sewers shall have been constructed,
and all lines extensions so ordered
shall be constructed and in operation
within one year after such orders are
made. Provided that when new lines or
extensions are constructed all the pro-
visions of the ordinance shall apply
thereto.
The decision, which is written by Judge
Mitchell, disposes of the contentious Of
the street car company in the following
language:
We shall assume, without discussion,
that ordinance No. 1,227 contains valid
contract between the city and the street
railway company, the obligation of which
the former cannot impair. But this prop
Osttion is subject 10 the following Qualiti-
cation, Among the governmental! powers
vested by the city charter in its COM
mon council is the care, supervision
and control of all public highways,
bridges, streets, etc Without attempt
ing to define the extent or limits of the
power thus granted, it =unquestionably
gives the common council authority to en-
act such police regulations regarding the
use OF the streets as are necessary for
the safe and convenient enjoyment of
them by the public for the purposes for
which they are designed. II is funda-
mental that municipality cannot, at
least without express legislative author
fly, deprive itself by contract of any gov
elnmental powers conferred upon it for
pubic purposes.
Flynn vs. Little Falls, E and w, II n
w. So Hence any authority to use the
streets granted TO the defendant must be
construed as being subject to the police
power of the city over the streets, what
eVeV may be the language of the grant.
For example, If by reason of increased
traffic on the streets prescribed for the
construction and operation of the loop
or for any other reason, the use of those
streets Tor that purpose became inCOnS:St-
ent with the convenient use of the streets
py the public or menace to the safety
OF the public, 1t would. in our opinion
De unquestionably within the police power
OF the city to enact an ordinance reullir-
ing the loop 20 be changed to some other
reasonable location. In short while a
municipality cannot impair the obligation
OF It's contract under the guise of exercis-
ing It's ponce power, yet it cannot sur
render or barter away its police powers
under the guise of making a contract
Whether Ordinance No. 1925 was en-
acted in the exercise of the police power
strictly or socalled,. or to secure more and
better service for the travelling public
by the extension of-interurban and Como
avenue lines, and, If the former, whether
II was or was not q reasonable exercise
of the police power does not appear Of
course II the ordinance was enacted in
the exercise Of the police power Ii will
be presumed to be reasonable and valid
until the contrary is made to appear
Both OF the counsel seem to have tried
the case upon the assumption that the
" QS 70 1yfl he
service on the interurban and Como ave
nue. lines under the authority reserved 10
The city council by section IS of ordinance
4tZt. The court also decided the case upon
this theory. But even on this assump-
ton, In our Judgment, the facts did not
justify the conclusion which the court
arrived. The position taken by the court
below and by the counsel for the defend
ant in this court was that the power re-
served to the common council in section
10 was only the right to compel the con-
Struction of new lines or the extension Of
present or future lines on streets or por-
tons or streets not already provided with
10 compel the extension of the
service OF the cars of one line
over or along streets or portions of
streets upon which other lines are already
operated. In support of this view espe-
claI stress Is laid upon the particular
words and expressions used in the sec
unH, Such as the construction and COM
pieuon. and shall be constructed and in
operation; also upon the fact that the
ordinance provides for a complete system
OF transfers from one line to another
without additional cost and requires the
ears on all lines to be operated with suf-
hclent frequency to accommodate the
travelling public. With all due defer
ence to the learned court and counsel we
think they attach altogether too much
weight to these facts
The right Of transfer from one line to
another without extra charge is as
every one knows, not the equivalent of a
continuous ride on the same car to the
place of destination. Again, while it is
probably true that what was more par
ticularly in mind in framing this section
was cases where public convenience
would require car service on streets or
parts of streets not already provided with
any car service at all, and hence. where
the extension of the service would in
NolVe the construction of a track yet
there Is nothing in the section which linn
Its its operation to such cases A rail
way track Is only a means to an end
What is needed is not merely the track.
but the service. That is what the section
was designed to secure. There is nothing
In 1t limiting the right to require an ex-
tension to the outer end of an existing
line. Public needs may require it at
either end.
The plan or scheme of street railway
systems is generally to furnish the means
OF communication between outlying por-
tions of city and It's business or cen
trail portion. This was evidently the
scheme of the system of lines provided
for in ordinance 1927. AS the business
portion Of a city increases in area or its
business center shifts, as is often the
case, there arises a necessity for extend
ing the street car lines inwardly, so as
to reach or penetrate it, If there had
been no existing line operated on Fifth
street, between Robert street and Broad
way street, or upon Broadway between
Fifth street and Seventh street, or on
Seventh from Broadway to Wabasha
street we do not see how 1t could be sue