The Saint Paul globe., 1904-10-25

authority. whether as respects the right
to construct or maintain any railway
or operate the same, or the power to be
used in operating the same, or otherwise
as may be prescribed by such other
ordinance or authority, except as to the
streets hereinbefore mentioned in section
ID of this ordinance"
1t not only did not directly take away
any of the franchises or privileges granted
by any previous ordinance. but it spe-
cif1cally and carefully provided that moth
ing contained in it should be construed
as having that effect.
So that if the street railway company
had, under ordinance 81, the right to
construct and operate. street railways on
any streets and avenues which they might
select. that right continued under ordi-
nance. 1921 although 1927 only granted
streets that were named in it, and did
not grant the right to use electric power
upon streets generally In the city.
nance 1902 Wv was pas passed, which gran granted to
the company the right to construct, main
tain and operate underground condufts
and underground wires, and also poles and
needfui wires and apparatus connected
thereW1th so as to make and perfect
needful connections of said company with
any OF its electric power houses or sta
t1onS, and for the purpose of more fully
perfeeting its system upon and along
the streets, which are named, in the city
of St Paul, '.and upon any street or
streets upon which said company may now
or hereafter have it's rails or tracks of
street railway; provided, that the right
and privilege hereby granted shall be
limited in time to the period prescribed
by section % of ordinance No. 1927 of
said city"
Animal Power Superseded
1t seems to me that the effect of this
ordinance 1902 was to permit the use of
electricity as a motive power upon any
of the streets or avenues upon which the
street railway company had constructed
or should thereafter construct and opef-
ate any lines of railway; that what was
contemplated was that electricity should
all the lines of railway in the city, and 1T
confirmed the limitation to fifty years,
as provided in ordinance 1927.
An ordinance prior TO this tlme-the
number Of which I do not now recall
provided for a change in respect to the
rails to T rails, wherever electricity was
used In the city.
The complainant claims that under these
ordinances, the earlier ones, at least ordi-
nance No. 81, having been validated by
the acts of the legislature, 1t still has all
ordinance 81, and that those grants are in
the nature of contract rights for the con-
sideration which passed from the street
car company in building maintaining and
operating its road, or agreeing to do so,
and that it has all these rights still.
The several acts referred to, which pur-
port to confirm and validate ordinance 81,
are Of a class which are called curative
acts" the legislature having the right to
validate acts of a municipal corporation
which it might have authorized in the first
place. The effect of such curative acts is
ordinarily described to be the equivalent
Of a prior grant of authority; SO that if
the legislature might have granted the
authority before the act was done, it may
affirm and validate the act after it is done.
This is not diSsimilar to the ratification of
an act of an agent which he was not au
thorlzed to perform at the time it was per-
formed.
Deems Acts Were Valid
1t seems to me that these acts were
within the constitutional power of the leg
islature, and think should come to that
conclusion, even if there was not the de-
cision of the state supreme court (Which
I should feel bound to respect and fol-
low to the same effect.
The result is that it appears to me that
the rights claimed by the complainant to
build its road upon the streets as it may