The Saint Paul globe., 1904-06-10
PLEADS ITS HORSE
CAR ORDINANCE
Street Railway Company Files
Its Answer in First Friendly
Suit

The street railway company yester-
day filed its answer to the suit recently
brought in the federal court by How
ard d. Bailey, resident of Superior,
Wis, who sought to prevent the street
car company from extending its lines
on Rondo street, where the plaintiff
owns property.
1t is generally understood that the
suit brought by Mr.. Bailey was a
friendly one, brought at the instance
of the street car company for the pur-
pose of having the courts determine
the company's right to construct new
lines and extend old ones within the
city limits without subjecting itself to
the payment of the 5 per cent gross
earnings tax provided for by the city
charter.
Another suit, almost identical to the
Bailey suit was later commenced in
the district court, where the plaintiff
was a Chicago man, owning property
on the line of the proposed extension
to Phalen park. Later third suit was
brought in the district court by the
city against the street railway COM
pany, in which the validity of the old
horse car ordinance is attacked by the
city.
Three Suits Pending
These three suits, all of which have
a bearing upon the company's right
to extend its lines without paying the
gross earnings tax upon its entire Sys-
tenn, are now pending in the courts,
the first answer to be filed being that
in the Bailey suit, filed yesterday aft
ernoon.
Another suit, brought against the
city by the street railway company, an
action in which the company seeks to
enjoin the city from interfering with
it's plans for extension, is also pending
in the district court.
The company, in it's answer filed
yesterday, follows the lines of its COM
plaint in it's suit against the city, con-
tending that it has the right. under the
old horse car ordinance of 1872, and
under the state laws, to extend its
lines on any street that it may desire
to enter upon. This authority, 1t is
contended, is given it by the terms of
the horse car ordinance, which gave
the company a rowing franchise on any
of the streets in the city.
The company contends that 1t has
the right, under an ordinance passed
subsequent to the horse car ordinance,
to use electricity for motive power on
any Of it's lines, and denies that 1T is
subject to the payment of the gross
earnings tax upon the earnings of its
entire system, should it construct new
lines or extend old ones. No new
points are brought out in the answer,
the contentious being almost identi-
cally the same as are set forth in the
complaint filed by the company in its
suit brought against the city a few
weeks ago.
Cites Precedents
The company cites different in
stances where it has made extensions
in the past, among them its Pleasant
avenue and Marshall avenue extern
SionS, where suits were brought by
taxpayers, all of which were decided
favorably to the company by both the,
lower and the supreme courts, and 1t
is cOntended that the company still has
the same right to make extensions.
Wherein the company's contentious
differ with those of the city is in re-
gard to the validity of the old horse
car ordinance, passed in 1872, and un-
der the provisions of which the street
car company claims many of its pres
ent privileges. The company argues
that the franchise is still valid, while
Corporation Attorney Michael expects
to show that the old franchise is null
because of the fact that the company
than thirteen years. The city will ask
that this ordinance be declare void as
non-user.
Inasmuch as the Bailey suit is sup
posed to be friendly" one, it is
probable that Corporation Attorney
Michael, for the city, will intervene in
the action, in order that the street car
company might not gain any advan-
tage by having matters all its own
way.