The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1905-03-15
uNnER rHE sEARcHLleH1

railway company, have fully disclosed
the reasons why those in favor Of this
settlement observed silence and Sc
crecy 1t VIII not bear the light. An
examinations of its different parts, with
nothing but sthe public interest in view,
shoots it full OF holes. 1t has nothing
left to recommend it. In view of the
necessity of, speedy yet sober action,
let us review the case as it has been
established.
First, leaving legal questions out Of
sight, we will consider the facts. The
main fact, which the partisans of the
street railway company have been en-
deavoring to obscure by reiterating
long lists of details, is that the agree
ment accepted by the corporation
counsel differs from the agreement re-
jected by him a little earlier only in
two main particulars. The first of
these, the alleged abandonment of the
so-called rowing license is a myth.
reason for saving streets from occupa-
ton is that the possibility of COMPETE
ton might be held open. Under the
agreement competition is expressly ex-
cluded, by allowing the street railway
company to occupy beforehand any
streets to be used by any other con-
10, ,i.k, ia ,,.,l,+
franchise.
The other supposititiotls gain is the
payment of an amount equal to per
cent on gross earnings. AS we have
seen, this is not likely to exceed the
regular taxes to be paid in the future
by the company, and may fall below.
Therefore, on the ground of practical
benefit. this arrangement is on par
with that against which the whole city
tested. This was not understood at
first, but it is now. The council should
correct it's original mistake by the
light of better knowledge.
Second, as to the legal aspects of the
question. There is every reason to
suppose that the arrangement is alto
gether illegal and void. 1t seems to be
quite clear that the city council can
not set aside or rise superior to the
provisions of the charter 1t is bound
to observe them and can grant no
privileges which they deny. The char
ter declares that any company, before
obtaining certain privileges from the
city, must. consent to certain things,
among which are the payment of the
gross earnings tax and, in case of
street railway companies, the regula-
tieR-ef-faRes by the council. A resolu-
tion which nullifies these charter pro-
visions cannot be upheld by the courts.
The key of the whole position, how-
ever, is Judge Lochren's decree. That
is worth an untold sum of money to
the company. To keep it from being
oyerthrown, as every well informed
lawyer believes that it would be if car
ried to the supreme court, the COM
pany has directed it's successful efforts.
No agreement on any condition should
be made with the company that does
not involve as a prior condition the
yacating Of this decree. Were that
done, we could proceed to talk busi-
ness. With that decision confirmed, we
have no rights left worth speaking of.
1t now appears to be established that
this decision will stand without posi-
bility of attack, no matter what the
street railway company may please to
do or not to do, if the time within
Which an appeal can be taken is al
lowed to expire without action by the
city, The position of the courts on this
point is very plain. The rule is SO well
settled that it is not open to question.
The shifty and transparent device pro-
posed in the agreement, of vacating the
decree at any time within three years
and Immediately re-entering it for the
sole purpose OF extending the time for
appeal could not be recognized by the
courts. Even were the circuit court to
be prevailed on to do this thing, the
supreme court of the United States
could not for moment take jurisdic-
tionSuiider such a barefaced scheme for
eyading aysettled principle of law.
these three conclusions: Ist. We get
no material advantage whatever out OF
the last agreement over and above
those contained in the proposals re-
5ectad, and we get nothing for mo-
mept. to be compared with what we
give up. I'd. The council is empowered
TO act. and IL IL it's duty to act, be. Z.
causszft passed this resolution under
Disconcepti0a. and because the scosse
81 the resolution exceeds iss own legal