The Saint Paul globe., 1904-10-23

imposed on the municipal corporation.
If the street railway company couiu
be shown to be in unlawful possession
of the streets it was an obstructlonlst,
however useful the obstruction might
be proved to be. The city's police
power over the streets had been re-
posed in it by the people and could not
be surrendered or bartered away. Tne
city had the same right to resist an m
vasion of its streets as private lndi-
vidual had to resist encroachment on
his own private property.
The company, however, asserted
rights not only to the streets it now
occupies, but to other streets which II
claimed it could appropriate without
the consent of the city. To possess
such an unusual power the conferrlng
authority must be clear and explicit.
The city would not submit to such a
claim until all doubt and uncertainty
had been removed by the court OF last
resort. The claim of forfeiture, set up
by the company, was fictitious and for
the sake of bolstering jurisdiction IN
the circuit court.
Mr.. Michael went into an analysis of
the ordinances under which the street
railway company claims its unusual
privileges. With the passage of Ordi-
nance No. 1927, the first ordinance, NO.
81, was tossed aside as an old shoe.
00CllOH 10, III tIlC ldlSl 6oN 2
the city the right to order extensions of
the company's lines, provided the
streets were properly graded and pro-
viGed with sewers. The, ordinance IT.
self was more than a measure for the
change from animal to electric power;
it gave the company definite powers as
to certain streets, and not the rowing
license claimed for it by the company S
attorneys. Streets, parts of streets,
av, ofriO
right to order extensions was specifl-
cally reserved to the city. This in eff
feet was a new grant and succeeded
Ordinance No. 81, which the company
relied on as the source of all its rights
and privileges.
Absolute Right to Streets
But less than two years after the
passage of this ordinance, which es-
tablished the basis of the relations be-
tween company and city on more
equitable foundation, it was now claim
ed by the company's attorneys that the
council had passed an ordinance CIV
ing to the company absolute rights to
its streets Only by legal gymnastics
could such construction be put on
the new ordinance. The corporation
counsel cited authorities to prove his
contention of the theory that the nom
ed the privilege. The company had
| abandoned its horse car privileges in
accepting ordinance No. 1927, had built
lines under it. and had taken up lines
without the consent of the city. The
company selected all the streets it
wanted or intended to use under the
| horse car ordinance for fifteen years.
If it has lost its right, whether there
| is a declaration of forfeiture or not,
| they cannot regain it. Ordinance No.
| 1927 was not confirmatory of ordinance
| No. 81. The law of 1853 created the
| ST. Anthony & st. Paul railway. st.
Paul was then mere frontier village,
and the suggestion of a street car line
for st. Paul would be considered finan-
cial lunacy. The legislature had no
idea of creating a street railway COM
pany. 1t simply authorized a CONNER
cial road for freight and passengers.
| In 1868 the legislature amended the
| law and assumed to revive the grant by
creating the st. Paul Street Railway
| company, and giving it the power to
! construct and operate a street railway
| line in ST. Paul. This company had
no rights or power beyond those emu
merated in that law. Powers of a cor
| poration are confined to those express