The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1899-01-19
STREET RAILWAY WINS
THE BROADWAY LOOP ORDINANCE
PASSED BY THE COUNCIL IS
DECLARED INVALID
so HELD BY JUDGE BUM


pany Be Compelled to Run Inter-
urban and Como Cars Around the
Loop, Is Denied.
Judge Bum, in district court yester-
day, filed decision declaring invalid
the ordinance passed by the council
requiring the st. Paul street railway
company to run it's interurban and
Como avenue cars on the Broadway
loop. The mandamus proceedings
brought by the state with the city as
relator are dismissed and the prayer
of the relator-denied. The matter came
up at the November term of court on
petition of the relator for an alterua-
tive writ of mandamus.
Shortly after the establishment of
the Como line the council passed an
ordinance directing the building of a
loop commencing at Robert street and
Fifth street. thence to Broadway,
thence to Seventh street and on Sew
enth to Wabasha, and requiring It's
use by the interurban and Como cars.
The council claimed the right to take
such action under a reservation in the
original. general franchise granted in
1889.
The railway company denied the
power of the council to enforce the Or
dinance, and mandamus proceedings
were instituted to compel it's compli-
ance. In clause in the general fran
chise the city reserves the right to di
rect the City Railway company to
build any new lines or extend any old
lines that the council may see fit. The
company contended that the reserva
ton did not apply to streets where
tracks were already laid. This position
is sustained by the court.
The court finds as conclusions Of
law:
1t was not the intention of the common
council of the city Of St. Paul. in and by
section IS. of Ordinance 1927, or otherwise, to
reserve the right to compel respondent to
operate or extend any of its lines of street
railway upon or along streets upon which
respondent was operating other lines of street
railway. The intention of said common coun-
ell. as expressed in section Is. was to reserve
the right to order and compel respondent to
construct new lines of street railway, or to
construct extensions of present or future
lines of street railway, on or along streets or
portions or streets upon which no lines of
street railway were at the time being OPP
Grated.
Ordinance No. 1927 and the other ordinances
mentioned in the findings were and are con-
tracts between the city of St. Paul and the
St. Paul City Railway company. The city
OF st. Paul. or the common council of said
city, has not reserved and does not possess
the right to compel respondent to operate the
1nterurban or Como avenue lines of street
railway as provided in said ordinance 1905.
Said ordinance 1905 is illegal and Invalid
Respondent is entitled to Judgment that the
relief prayed for In the petition of the re-
lator be denied and said alternative writ of
mandamus be dissolved and dismissed
A stay Of thirty days is granted relator
Accompanying the decision which is
very voluminous, covering nearly forty
typewriter pages, is a memorandum,
In which Judge Bum says:
The sole question involved in this case, is
whether Sec IS of ordinance No. 1927 received
to the council the right to compel the city
railway company to extend the operation of
all or any of its lines of street railway oyer
or along streets or portions of streets upon
which other lines were being operated, Or
whether it is only a reservation Of the right
to compel the construction Of new lines or the
extension of present or future lines upon or
along streets or portions Of streets not already
provided with street car service.
While the question is not entirely free
from doubt, l am satisfied that the language
OF Sec Is read in the light of the other pro-
visions of ordinance No. 1927 and the circum-
stances as they existed at the time it was
passed, indicates that the common council
intended to reserve the right only to compel
the construction of new lines of railway or
the extension of present or future lines upon
streets or portions of streets not already pro-
viGed with street car service. This seems to
ME to be the reasonable and natural con-
struction Of the language of this section. The
council had provided for and authorized an
elaborate system Of street railway lines 1t
was desired to provide for the growth of the
system in the future to correspond with the
growth Of the city and the changing needs
OF the travelling public. The natural way to
do this was to reserve the right to the city
to at any time compel the city railway COM
pany to furnish street car service on streets
not already provided Herewith 1t is not
reasonable to suppose that the council should
think it necessary to reserve the right to
compel the city railway company to operate
any of its lines over the tracks of any of its
other lines; and yet this is certainly what
! the right reserved amounts to if REALTORS con-
struction of Sec. Is is correct; the council
might at any time order all or any of the
lines of street railway to be operated over
the tracks of any single line or over the
tracks of all lines. do not think that the
enable power. The. provision for a complete
transfer system and the provision reserving
the right to the city to compel the operation
of cars upon any line with such frequency as
to accommodate the travelling public and the
other provisions Of ordinance 1927, including
Sec. Is as herein construed would seem to
be "a reservation Of rights to the city entirely
+ sufficient and ample for the protection Of
the public. Had the council intended to re-
serve the right claimed by relator it would
t have been easy to have expressed that in
tention in clear and positive terms. The word
extension" would seem naturally to refer
to something different from a mere change
In operation; the work Constructed would
seem to imply that something was to be done
besides switching the cars of one line to
another line, and the grant of a years time
Ior the construction of an extension"
|
If the words mean a change in the operation
of one line to another, as well as the extern
sion of tracks. The limitation of the right
to construct new lines or extensions to those
| streets only aleng which sewers had been
laid would seem to imply that construction
of tracks and roadbed was in contemplation
The same language used in ordinance 1886
| would seem there clearly to refer to a con-
| struction of tracks.
WHAT ALBRIGHT SAYS.
Assemblyman Armand Albrecht, who
has taken a great deal of interest in
the legislation affecting street railways.
said last evening in reference to Judge
Bunn's Broadway loop decision: ST
don't know that it is final. 1T seems
to me that the matter is of such i'm
portance that 1t ought to be carried
to a court of last resort so that we
may have a final determination of the
| question, If I understand the decision
| OF Judge Bum correctly, 1t seems to
me 1T would in effect prevent the coun-
Gil from ordering any changes in the
| operation of any existing lines, unless
| such changes consist of an extension
of an existing line or the construction
| or an entirely new line of railway
The rights Of the council are limited
to that extent. We should find out
| where we stand as soon as possible
by appealing the case to the supreme
! court. Judge Bum seems to hold that
the charter constitutes a contract be-
tween the city and the street railway
| of such character that the operators
of lines of street railway are placed
| entirely beyond the control Of the coun-
| Gil and the police power of the munich
| patty"