The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

"n" £6 may cross any street F The city held, he said, that no i mmegl'!clty. and may operate legisla g'uwl v ~until . 18] 3 such crouirgs, provided, -- however, | t l reached betweeh that all works ugen any such streets e city andbetln vn'. the "-R," shall be done under the direction ard should not renewed ond the To-- subject to the control and satisfactionr ronto Railway franchise. He pointed ' of the engineer of the said city." This out that on previous occasions the To-- clause was strongly condemned by ronto Railway had opposed the applica-- Mayor Howland, Corporation Counsel tionof 't}m Metropolitan. _ , Fullerton, MessrS. Foy, Hill, Craw--| | Hon. Mr. Davis t:vored.thg sugges-- ford and others. They pointed to the tion that six months be given for an immense powers it would give to the| agreement, failing which, arbitration railway, and the consequent helpless should be resorted; to.. "Mr. Conmee| position in which the city would he| said that the city. was 'simply. desirous placed. _ | of over--riding the powers of the Legis--. When the committee met Mr. Walter| lature. If Toronto's demands. were fol-- Barwick, K.C., for the Metropolitan, lowed out to their Jogical conclusion, it L was the first heard. He said that would mean that the city could erect the company had tried to reach an 'EflteI' at every avenue of entrance to, agreement with the city, but had been the city and charge people $10 a head, me}l with a rg'ulal. The company was to pass through. ' ' willing that they should have no rights on the streets of Toronto south of the ' Strong Support For City., . ; -- present terminus. These rights should I Mr.. Whitney, M.P.P., said that the 1 belong to the Toronto Railway Com-- question was whether the City of To-- ' pany, subject to agreement between \ronto was to be compelled by a third the railways and the city, three arbi-- | party to enter into an agreement. to trators appointed under the municipal | which it was adverse. Mr. Wardell, M. + act to decide points in dispute. The | P.P., favored arbitration. Mr. Foy, M. chief point now in dispute, he continu-- | P.P., said the arrangement -- referring ed, was that regarding renewals. In the question to arbitration was -- one-- respect to this the company asked that sided. It imposed no obligation on the the. city might, by by--law, grant a re-- company, who, if dissatisfied with the newal or extension for twenty years, fnding of the arbitrators, might re-- but in any event the city or any rail-- lfuse to enter into an agreement. On --way company operating the street carsl the other hand, the city would be com-- at the end of twenty years should not pelled to accept the finding. I vunreasongbly refuse renewal, or give Mr. Pattullo, M.P.P., said he would| privileges to any other company which never support any provision giving the --were denied to the Metropolitan. The Metropolitan any rights over the streets Council hed refused these proposals, of Toronto without the consent of the @nd had practically invited war on the city; nor was he in favor of giving any company. | rights over which there might be liti-- _ _ 'The Bill Discussed. ; gation 20 years hence. , Mr. Hill, M.P.P., thought if the people , The City Scores. rould be .trusted to--day they could be The Chairman agked. the committee Lrune%wepty years hence. to vote on the clause referring the Mr. awford, M.P.P., in a brief but question of the terms of the agreement vigorous address, contended that any to arbitrators in case of dispute. The rights given to the Metropoi}tan should clause was lost on the following di-- ' expire with the Toronto Rallway fran-- vision:-- is : 8 ~ c chise. Yeas--Aylesworth, Barr, -- Barber, Hon, Mr. Dryden, Chairman of the'l Beatty (Parry Sound), Bowman, Car-- committee, thought that the bill should penter, .Charlton, Coloquhoun, Canmee, be taken up clause by clause, and after Davis, Farwell, Guibord, Holmes, Leys, a little argument this was done. Loughrin, McDonald, McKee, -- War-- Clause one, embodying the authoriza-- dell.--~18,.____ tion for connection with the Toronto and | Nays--Allan, Beatty (Leeds), Bridg-- Metropolitan, was passed. land, Brown, Carnegie, Crawford, Duff, On the second and third clauses, pro-- Filber, Foy, Gallagher, Graham, Hill, posing that in case of dls?roement the Hislop, Joynt, Marter, Malcolm, Mon-- question should bedrerer("re :g three ia!"- }:'ltg. zicKay!.l Pattullo, Powell, Pyne, bitrators appointed .under the munici-- wichardson, Rusgsell, Taylor, Whit y pal act, Mr. durter.iu.iz.r..t x:gdres'm;% --20,° i ¥I hitney the committee, arguing tha e rig P should remain to the city. The com-- Bomeohe Blundered. pany had not come fairly to the city| |__A long discussion then took place on asking to make an agreement, but had the clauses giving the city power by come to the Legislature,seeking to over-- by--law to renew the rights granted to ride the city's control of its own sv.-eeta.' the Metropolitan for a further period of )n behalf of the city he moved that: twenty years. Mr, Conmee moved that "This act, so far as it confers any pow-- an amendment which appeared among er, right or privilege to be exercised others on a printed slip presented to within the City of Toronto, shall not members of the committee, anil take effect until an agreement has been was, he understood, proposed exeouted by the City of Toronto, the by the city, be _ substituted Foronto Railway Company and the com-- for the disputed clauses. Several Al-- pany,.and then only upon the terms set dermen protested that the amendment. forth in such agreement." had not come before the Council. Cor-- Alderman Sheppard spoke in the same poration Counsel Fullerton was ap-- pealed to, and he said that the amend-- ment had originally been drafted as a compromise, and had not been sanction-- ed by the Council. 'The amendment was, however, put, and a tie vote re--