Coeur d'Alene evening press. (Coeur d'Alene, Idaho) 1907-1929, 1910-03-16

large sums Of money. Show us
where they have spent It ana what
for. They have certainly not spent
one cent In this city, and 1t looks as
though they did not intend to IL they
can get In for nothing"
Mr.. knight replied to Alderman
stonestreet's remarks and said that
to him It did look peculiar and he
did consider II very sudden, and also
that more than $4,000 had been
expended by the railroad company In
good faith since they had been
granted a franchise to come into
Occur d'Alene. He said that the
council had had plenty OF time to
look into the matter before they had
passed the ordinance as It was be-
fore that body for six weeks prior to
its passage, and that now 1t had been
granted and accepted by his com
pany. they considered 1t a binding
contract. and could look at It in no
other way.
Other members Of the council
spoke both for and against the re-
pealing Of the ordinance. Alderman
Shepherd addressed the assembly at
length in which he showed that he
as member Of the ordinance COM
mittee had gone over the ordinance
before its passage, In company with
other members OF the committee and
dlsseeted the same. They changed
the Objectionable features and made
It to read satisfactorily to the COM
mittee and to the council, and he for
one could not see now why 1t would
be wise or consistent to repeal the or
dinance, and doubted If 1t would
stand at law II 1t was repealed.
Alderman Daughters addressed the
council in few words. and stated
that the matter OF repeating the or
dlnance did come up suddenly as he
had not been consulted on the matter
until Monday, himself, and as the
ordinance had been prepared by
some other attorney than city At
torney Black, he did not deem that
Il was other than sudden. He stated
also that he believed that Alderman
Stonestreet was sincere In his opin-
Ion and action. and that he had been
sincere from the first. That Mr..
Stonestreet had been opposed to the
granting OF the ordinance from the
first, but that three Of the council
men including himself had been
forced to vote for its passage In or
der TO get the Milwaukee franchise
through.
Alderman MeClear said that he
did not believe that a single member
of the council desired to shut out the
Wallace road from coming into the
city. but their action in repeating the
ordinance was for the reason that
they believed the railway company
should come In and pay for their
right OF way and not ask for the
privilege Of running their tracks
over public street.
Attorney r. II. Mcfarland APP
peared In behalf OF the citizens at
large aud was called upon for an
expression. He said that 1t was a
recorded fact that when a railroad
company came into a town they did
not come for the express benefit Of
the citizens who resided therein. but
for their own benefits. and that he
believed that they should pay for
their right OF way. He expressed
himself that Il the Wallace road de-
sired to come into Occur d'Alena
they would come anyway. and the
repeating Of the ordinance would
have little bearing upon the matter.
He stated that he had examined the
ordinance granting the franchise
carefully and he found therein moth
Ing which would. at the present time.
keep the council from repeating Il Il
they desired to DO so.
After the matter had been aired to
an extensive degree and the repeal
Ing ordinance had received its sec
ond reading. the council adjourned
to meet on next Monday evening,