The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1905-03-08

ment Of Judge Lochren will be the abso-
lutte law, behind which the city cannot 90
at any future time.
The purpose of the clause in the
compromise agreement giving the city
a right of appeal within three years
was to compel the street railway COM
pany to live up to its agreement in it's
entirety. The only penalty involved
upon the failure on the part of the
company TO live up to its promise was
that the city could reopen the case and
appeal from Judge Lochren's decision
But this penalty can only be required
within the next six months, after
which time the city can use nothing
but moral suasion on the company.
In the opinion of the same authority
the element of deception practiced on
the city council in regard TO the ex-
tended time in which an appeal could
be taken. which was one OF the princi-
pal considerations involved, would
vitiate the contract.
Other Points Questioned
The legality of the measure is ques-
TONED on several other points, chief
among which is whether the city coun-
a course of action which is to be ex-
tended over a period of thirty-four
years.
What the city should have insisted
on in the compromise" said the same
attorney, was that the street railway
company should have had the judg-
ment of Judge Lochren vacated. there
by restoring both to the city and the
company the same rights they had
prior to the beginning of the litigation
The compromise could then have been
made on the proposition that as long
as the street railway company kept it's
agreement with the city no suit would
be instituted along the same lines. This
would keep alive the penalty to be i'm
posed by the city upon the company
for nonenforcement Of contract.
Cases Are Cited
In support of the contention that the
city would lose its rights of appeal
after the expiration of the statutory
limit. Notwithstanding a stipulation ex-
tending 1t to three years, the same au-
thority cited the case of the state Of
Minnesota VS.. the Northern Securities
company. In that case IL was held by
the supreme court that no stipulation
regarding jurisdiction would hold. At
the beginning of that litigation a ques-
ton OF jurisdiction was raised. 1t was
Hndily SelllSQ Dy SllpuldllOn DelNeeb
the parties to the suit that the state
courts held jurisdiction. The case was
sent back by the supreme court on the
ground that the state court had no
jurisdiction.
CounciImen to Act
With a full understanding of the
rights Of the city. as expounded by I'M
doubted legal authority, several alder
men and members OF the assembly
have uncompromisingly announced that
they are willing to take any action
looking towards rescission of the
compromise resolution.
But eight aldermen were present at
the meeting last night. Nine members
are required before action could be
taken looking toward a reconsidera-
ton or a rescission of the compromise
resolution. If the required number had
been present a resolution would have
been introduced instructing the city
attorney to draw up a resolution re-
scinding the compromise. One alder
man had announced that he was pre-
pared to offer such a resolution, while
three other aldermen stood ready to
second it.
The assembly will meet next week
and Ii is expected that decisive action
will be taken toward resembling the
compromise resolution.
Several members OF the common
council who had expressed themselves
as dissatisfied with the terms of the
compromise have announced that IL
there is any legal chance of undoing
the hasty action of last Wednesday
night they are not only willing but
anxious to take advantage OF Ii.