The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1904-07-26

Mum garbled the city's complaint in
his explanation of it to the court. He
said Mr.. Mum had a tact for misrep-
resenting matters, and that many of
the decisions cited had only been par
tally covered.
Says Rights Were Never Surrendered
Mr.. Mum based his argument on the
ground that the company had never
surrendered it's rights to the franchise
privileges granted by the old horse car
ordinance. He claimed the company
had a right to extend its lines without
subjecting the earnings of the entire
system to the gross earnings tax, and
cited the fact that the presiding judge
had SO decided. Mr.. Mum contended
that it was expressly agreed in ordi-
nance 1927 that the company should
not lose its rights under ordinance 81,
He said it was for the federal court to
decide whether the charter changes or
takes away any of the rights of the
company.
Both Mr. Mum and Mr.. Michae,
quoted frequently from other cases
bearing upon the question before the
court. Mr.. Michael, at one time in
his argument, said that the action of
the council in giving the company au-
thority to change from animal to cleo
trio power was without authority Of
pressed.
Judge Lochren, in overruling the
demurrer, said the only question in
volved at this time was that of juris-
diction. In a few brief remarks justi-
flying his ruling, Judge Lochren said:
Federal jurisdiction in this case is
claimed on the ground that a federal
question is involved; that there was
contract between the city and the
street railway company; that this con-.
tract has been impaired by provisions
Of the city charter as they are con-
strued by the city and attempted to be
enforced, and that the construction
amounts to an impairment of the con-
tract.
Holds Horse Car Ordinance Good
at seems to me that there is suffi-s
Gent ground, from the allegations in
this complaint, for complainant claim
ing in good faith that a contract eX-
lists between itself and the city, based
first, on ordinance No. 81, which gave
the company the right to construct its
lines on any of the streets in the city,
and providing explicitly for animal
power. In September, 1889, the pas
sage of ordinance 1927 gave the COM
pany authority to use electricity on
certain streets, and under this same
ordinance the company relinquished
rights held under ordinance 81 to con-.
struct lines on certain specified streets.
I'm May, 1891, the passage of ordi-
nance 1902 permitted the company to
change from animal to electric power
on all of it's lines. The object of this
ordinance was. apparently, to permit
the company to use electric instead of
animal power, to which it had been
confined under ordinance 81.
Neither 1902 or 1927 took away any
of the franchise rights of the company,
but simply made change in the mo-
tive power"
The court referred to the construc-
ton of the Como line, which it held
was ordered by the city under it's
rights retained by reasons Of the pro-
visions of the old horse car ordinance.
In this instance it is held that the city
recognized the existence of TIE old
ordinance and exercised its rights un-
der those provisions. In conclusion,
Judge Lochren says:
1T appears to me that the allega-
lions of the company are made IN good
faith and the demurrer should be over
ruled"