The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1904-07-24

Of the ordinance means much TO the
company.
Mr. Michael contends that the COM
pany no longer has any rights under
this ordinance. He says the ordinance
Is iayalidated on the ground OF a non
user, the company having failed TO
operate under its provisions for peri
cd OF more than five years. 1t has been
thirteen years since the company OPP
Grated horse cars. The city's suit is
for the purpose OF having this orCii-
nance declare invalid. If this is done.
Mr.. Michael says there will be nothing
left Tor the street car company but TO
pay the per cent gross earnings tax,
which will become applicable as soon
as any line Is extended or any new
line built
Should Corpora ton Attorney Micha el
win in this suit, and the decision be
upheld, II would be up to the company
TO either pay the tax or TO abandon all
proposed improvements.
That the company realizes the i'm
portanee OF this litigation is evidenced
by its efforts TO head il of Just before
the city filed its suit in the district
court the company filed one in the fed
eral court with view OF preventing
the city from interfering with the
rights OF the company. Last week an
amendment to the complaint in this
suit was filed, in which the company
asked the federal court 10 restrain the
city from prosecuting its case in the
district court
Corporation Attorney Michael de-
INJURED TO this amendment yesterday
and Judge Lochren viii hear the argu-
ments on this demurrer tomorrow.
Should the demurrer be sustained 1t
would mean that the company's suit in
the federal court will be thrown out Of
court. and the company will then have
TO fight ii out with the city in the state
courts For this reason much impor-
lance is attached TO the arguments 10
be made in the United States court to-
morrow.
Federal Courts Have No Authority
Mr.. Michael sets up in his demurrer
that the federal courts have no au-
thority to interfere in the litigation
pending in the state courts He con-
tends that both the city and the ST.
Paul CityARailway company are Min
nesota corporations. and that the fed
eral court has no Jurisdiction in the
matter. Mr.. Michael gives three rea-
sons why the United States courIhas
no jurisdiction, as follows.
First. because the pretended cause OF
action set forth and alleged by the bill
OF complaint does not arise under or de-
pend upon the constitution or any law or
treaty OF the United States
Second, because the bill OF complaint
does not set forth or allege the enact
ment of any law by the state of Mime
sofa. or the adoption or enactment OF any
charter provision law, ordinance, resolu-
ton or bylaw by the defendant which
impairs or tends to impair the obligation
OF any contract between the complainant
and defendant. or any vested right OF the
complainant in violation OF article 1. sec
ton 10. of the constitution OF the United
States.
Third because the bill of complaint
does not set forth or allege any facts
law. charter provision. ordinance, bylaw
or resolution OF any act of the defendant
which depriyes or tends 10 deprive the
complainant Of its property without due
process OF law. in violation OF article Il
OF the constitution OF the United States.
Attorney NJ. D Mum, representing
the street car company, contends that
the action commenced in the district
court by the city for the forfeiture of
the company's rights under the horse
car ordinance is such~aS to affect the
vested rights Of the company. and for
this reason, Mr.. Mum contends. the
question is brought squarely before the
United States court.