The Telegraph-courier. [volume] (Kenosha, Wis.) 1888-1946, 1900-10-18
BRINGS Them HOPE,
Decision of Supreme Court in Linden
Land Case of Great Interest
in KenOsha.
CITIZENS MAY NOT ENJoIN
Entire Bench Concur With Justice winslow
in His interpretation of the Law in
Regard to Street Railways.

The decision of the Supreme Court
in the suit of the Linden Land Com
pany against the Milwaukee Street
Railway Company was handed down
Friday, and as the Railway Company
won a complete victory the friends OF
the Haynes-C1ausen franchise in ke-
nosha are rejoicing. The decision IN
the case settles every point at issue in
the long contest in Kenosha and it
will undoubtedly remove all fear of the
Kenosha company being stopped by
injunction should they attempt to re-
new their efforts to build the line in
Kenosha. The suit just decided was
brought to determine the rights of
citizens to contest the action of the
City Council of Milwaukee in passing
a street railway franchise and the
Councils and Railways victory was
complete. Citizens, the decision holds
in effect, cannot question the dis
erection of the Common Council even
though exercised wrongly. The dis
cretion lies with the Council.
Touches Kenosha Case.
Taking up thequestion as to whether
the suit is proper taxpayers action,
the court finds it is not. cit seems very
plain to u.s. says the court, after re-
ferring to an offer of 100000 to the
city for the franchise, which was re-
fused, "that this action of the common
council cannot be called in any proper
or reasonable sense a squandering Of
public funds or property. The question
before council was" says the court,
continuing, "what terms should be at
tached to the grant, whether it was
more beneficial to the public to secure
cash payment which would benefit
taxpayers only or to secure lower rates
of fare for the public generally, or tc
impose other conditions, and after ex'
ercising it's discretion in favor of a
general reduction of fare it cannot be
said that any city fund has been
squandered, lost or misused."
Council to Determine on Benefits.
"Whether the city, continues the
court, "shou1d receive any fund was a
question for the common council in its
discretion to decide. When it decided
that there should be no fund, but that
reduced fares or other limitations upon
the grant were more desirable for the
public, it may or may not have exer.
cised good discretion, bur it has dissi
pated no city fund or property"
Concerning the contention that the
granting of the franchise would put
property to great expense in repairing
widening and improving streets and
from e1ectrolysis, the court says that
the fact of injurious effects resulting
from the granting of franchise does
not impair the power to grant it, it be-
ing simply a question Of discretion
wholly within the province of the com
mon council, not to be controlled by
taxpayers. After a lengthy discussion
OF the rights of AUDITING property
owners, the court says The injunction
should have been vacated because the
acceptance of the franchise could not
affect the rights of the plaintiffs. AS d
general proposition, however, the
court says an abutter can sue to pre-.
vent the laying of track in front of his
property if it is being done without
authority. There is long discussion
but the court does not pass directly or
the point