The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1904-10-04
COMPANY DECLARES
Rsdfi5 TO STREETS
continued From First Page Z.

1T asserts thTnasSh its attorneys in
the answer: EfI
Claims TO have the right and au-
therity under said Jaws and ordinances
any or ALI of the streets in said city,
save only those Streets excepted In
said ordinances 81 and 127, and as to
such excepted streets, only upon the
terms and conditions imposed or re-
ferred to in said ordinances 81 and
1921
TO construct. maintain and operate
lines of street railway upon and along
In recognizing the ordinance 1927,
which is the measure giving the COM
pany the right TO change the system
from horse to electric power, the street
railway company joins the franchises
and attempts TO show that they are one
and the same in reality and therefore
inseperable, and that except in so far as
the company agreed to changes and
notifications when the motive power
was made electricity, the franchises
remain the same now as they were
formerly. This leads to the reasoning,
in the answer. that the former decision
of the supreme court viii be upheld
While it is admitted IN behalf of the
company that the legislature did pass
a law in 1889 giving cities the right to
home rule charters. it is agreed that in
granting the people of St Paul the
power to regulate the franchises here
tofere granted and being carried out
the legislature exceeded its authority
under the constitution of the state and
the United States. In that 1t gave them
the privilege to take the property of
the company without giving adequate
compensation.
This refers To the proposed right of
the city TO impose the 5 per cent gross
earnings tax, and to the power of the
council to regulate the amount OF fare
to be charged. And in defense Of the
contention that the provisions should
not be enforced II is contended that the
city officials and the citizens in 1889
brought great pressure te bear in favor
of substituting electricity for horse
power, asserting that it was at that
time agreed that the company would
sacrifice none of its rights or privileges
by accepting the change, and that it
should in fact possess all prerosatives
granted by the legislative acts and city
ordinances while horse power was used.
This refers to ordinance 1927, the
blanket electric franchise in which the
company declares that the horse car
ordinance was re enacted with the ex-
ception as to the life of the privilege,
which was made fifty years instead of
indefinite.
Cites Gridley Suit
Following The history of the company
down to the present, the company cites
that in 1891 Annette Gridley and others
brought an action in court to prevent
the company constructing a line on
Marshall avenue; that there was a
hearing in court. and that the decision
was in favor of the company. 1t is
held that previous to and after this
time the city repeatedly recognized
the right of the company to enter upon
and occupy the streets, and as one
instance of many that could be quoted,
calls attention to the resolution passed
May 6, 1904. in which the company was
required to operate its Merriam Park
cars on ten minute schedule. 1t is
recited that there are other and almost
innunferable instances in which the
city has conceded that the company
was. but exercising it's rights in occu-
plying the streets, and again sets up the
plea that to enforce the provisions of
the city charter imposing a gross in
come tax and regulating the fare to
be charged would be appropriating the
property of the company. without due
process of law. rs ss..s.s
As to the construction of the new
lines, concerning which the case was
started the company sets up defense
only concerning the proposed service.
to Phalen park.
1t is said that the company is and,
has at all times been willing to build
the line, and that all preparations had
been made to do so, when notice was
received from the board of park, COM.
missioners and the city council that the
route selected over Earl street was not
satisfactory. and that it should be
changed to Forest street.
When the company proceeded to con-
struct the line on Forest street, it is
asserted that the city protested and
would not allow the work TO continue,
but that if the city will drop proceed
ings it is ready and willing to proceed
with the work. prtting the line on
Earl street, aceordinsrto the original
order of the counciE The ordinance
ordering the construction on Earl
street was passed 4fi11f years ago.
AS final plea for the dismissal of
the case the, sire tsraiiway company
sets out thatIsuits involving the same
points that. are raised in the district
court case are pending in the United
States court and because of the show
ing made asks thatgtbe state cases be
dismissed and that the costs of the
suit be assessed against the city. In
eluded in the final pied that the courts
find for the company, is the objection
10 SuDJecIlng itSeH 70 tne pTo'lsiois
of the home rule charter. the objection
able provisions of which have been
cited. and the contention that the
rights of the company. having been
granted years previous TO the adoption
Of the charter, cannot be made subject
to its provisions; compelled to pay the
additional taxes and be subject to the
penalties that might be inflicted under
the charter.
This case is the last court case on
the October term district court calen-