The St. Louis Republic. [volume] (St. Louis, Mo.) 1888-1919, 1900-12-22
Property Owners on Forest Park
Boulevard and Spruce Street
demonstrate at Hearing.
COMPANY'S SIDE ALSO HEARD.
It's Representatives Declare That
The city Needs Rapid Iranspor-
la'i"n 'nmprtilinn - Matter
Taken lnicr Amusement.

The Suburban Railway bill was H. suit
.''i z a public hearing. ,pHiUet"i y"~t'r-
'.'y 10y tn" Railroad Committee of Jh.. city
council Tn" corumitra.-roa M was Jhrprsei
with olii'.a'S ana attorney of the railway.
attorneys and citizens olIos-d T., tie meas
are. ami lfoi'rt "wusrs who We're either
taForahIy e. :'tr.-.ly Interested.
Jr..s" Iari,l Dillon to.k he floor in be
E'if - properly uv .ei~ along Forest Park
D.. l.ya-,. I.. rc.li'-,i TN. statute requiring
.-.. ....-... q. .alari.s 05ttin the cnns' Mt
rf lu,ir' .,l, along tho prospective
loui.. r,.,i' d., Municipal As-emDly misht
Legal; grant a ii2a,-..f-v,N TIE law. lie
eta. lard. - prrtninr. = ....l th. "-tl ques-
tI"E involved j. W..t:."I ur rs. '..- state
lw shan U-a,ai!. The stat 1a;sols all
ItiIic f.- -anas~. even in cli"-. and the
power DE-. saj'G {" the municipal assem-
bllcs i us' r'll IL {, negative or 'rtu nature.
v hcncvrr =. 'IrH:r,-al law conflicts with
stat" law. .I, Latter uhtd!r-- a-u ...r
state !a~ il ,.ld..i:.y cons ttUt!Dual. - il -
Operative Ia u'G-r State. and 10 "A .n"ine
public -afr-r;.g.r.
The City cui.4..,',r he said hai DECIDED
that the p-titi Igw is appl..,bi. in rn.s
rise. No other reason, he thought, nc. It
l." advanced tu iNt!u"n the comrI.ttee to ris-
approve the bill than the law comI.!llni; fe
consent Of property owners by petition As
tory petition. he said. il is apparent hr
committee cannot legally grant the .!5ht-
of-W.y.
Want boulevard Preserved.
Clinton Rowell argued that the franchise
would be In direct violation ot the State law
lie said he had been instrumental In having
The act passed, and desired TO GaNe II prJC-
ucally sustained.
f. {. Robbins declared he was opposed TO
street railway being operated on any pa.t
Of Forest Park boulevard. as the result
would be ti. rT;InTuf,tl IlDpsrtV. lie Oh
Jected not only for thu residents along the
boulevard. but FOR all citizens, maintaining
that the roadway should be preserved as IA
boulevard to augment the citys appearance.
He stated that he is not opposed TO the bill
in toto. but only In 90 far as Forest Park
boulevard is concerned.
w. s. Chaplain. for Washington Cniver-
sity. and George Tansey, for the st. Louis
Transfer Company. spoke against the right
of way on Spruce street between Fourth
and Twelfth streets. saying the street Is too
narrow for wagons and tracks.
$. VI. kennard. for the Suburban, asserted
that the law mentioned by Judge Dillon has
been declared unconstitutional by many at
torneys who believe the Municipal Assembly
OF the local government has control of the
thorOUghfares in each city and that the
State Is usurping It's authority In attempting
to divert this power from the city. He said
his company asks only what 1t is entitled to.
He said the time will come when il will be
deemed necessary to c9nStruct heavy road
III Central Park. New York.
Company Side of the Case.
The company. he declared. only asks for
the right To use that roadway hen II shall
have been opened. If ever. and not before.
President TURNER read a list of property
owners who had signed the petition and
stated that his company wants privileges
that are just. In order tn render better
comnodatioirs to the public John G Hapttt.
Fred Zeibig and property owners living
along Fiorissant avenue spoke for the COM
pany. Former Postmaster Carlyle, In beh@if
Of suburban residents. also advocated the
bill
Judge MacKeighan insisted that st. Louis
needs rapid transit competition. So far as
the law is concerned. he believes II unconsti
tutional The committee took the matter
under advisement.