, 1877-07-03
GAS.
Judge Drummond Delivers His De-
oision in the West.side Case.
Tho City Had No Power TO Make the
TenAYear Contract with the
Company.
Equities on the Side Of the Lattsr-A
Compromise Suggested.
What Aldermen Have to Say On the
Hubjeot--.P1ices Talked OF.


judge Deuuuond has At last decided. 50 far a.
he Is concerned tho validity OF the len years con-
tract nadc BY tho city With the West Side Gas
Conrany, The question arose on L bill for m In
Junction, 6led last October, BY Z. z. Garrison,
OF Now Fork, sioekholes In Tho Peoples Cas-
Light 4 Coke Company, to prevent the city from
disconnecting Ene.amps On West Madison street
from tho Mslna Of the uas Company and ssng them
for oil lamps. Tho matter Was argued soon after
wards by Ju0ge Deckw'th on ths ono side ard
Corporation Cbunsc! Anthony on tho other,
but tho decision has been withheld mill
the present time, owing 10 the expressed deslrs
on the part Ut Judge Drummond that tho two par
Ties To tho proceeding should ccmu 10 4 friendly
understanding. This could not be lad. however,
they not being ahlc to ssrcc upon tho proper price
for gns, consequently the Judge Was compelled to
give hLs decision, refusing the injunction aud do.
casug sbe contract invalid, bat atatins that shere
arc equities on tho side Of ths plaintiff. and 70.
itcra.'ns bis hope thst compromise may bo asresd
t.lIov{ng y tas ,s1t # .he decision. which !"
Tin lily. iSiio, tho cry of Chicago eaterea IN:
to a cpntsact With the Chicago Gas.1.eht coks
e. tnrD hs s &; III se
facd, and VIII anthor,zcd to ,nsnutae shd se!l
liz sS us.snt q tno s' et1. IL chicago
sst q ssu ~ 10 the we,t Dssion oi tic ey
70 Tug Peoples On, Light q Coke Company, IN ana
from ths time ts !, ;ttsE until Msy lsS ~
Company un,ler that contract. In leUo. then, tho
gas, and was solnR II to THO city Is tho Asstgnse
81 ths Ch!caso Compsny " tn smsndmeas made
Va. % Authorized. With ths eonsent q he eiy iay
dern AZ aong shs 'sss1 Ssxt sna
nt 1, IN tn
and until the eontForsf'y which hss given rise to
th!. g.so; r. sno,..r tho eli, ha authority to aht
tn. phi .tssst-ssS. I i II to te inferred. tse
public buildings and oflcos, and 10 levy and a9!.
ss .1 s @ pP ha III e pss ss
gaa mandatory or b. contract, would tee1a to
suu,od IN tho abscuco Of any restrictive Legislation
on tho subject, that It Was intended to tondnt tho
Sy sh s c'ssK e H. rsop esSpa se g. a
ca,,o Company. These rueans wcso furnished, but
Mu sxss,ss tso civ contained nro
vlsoa tapt no contract should il made BY tts Ely
involving any rxpensa, unless an appropriation
Xna I ths ! Comptroller % wa roqa!sea il May of each
year to submit an etti1aate 81 tho aknoant neces'
70 defray tho expenses Of shs city for The cur
"This provision Of Tho charter does not seem 70
have been constFucd ~ prohibition to tho execu.
@ q ss aa
penss OF tho contracts, and + would bc dlfeult to
Language mnat ob1iodaly bo applied % the subject
matter OF tho contract - understood By the Lsgs.
to nd s
practically within the reach OF an appropriation
s TSo Construction Of tunnels, Of waser. work.,
ofpube buildings, including Eas-wo.ts, OF deep
cning summit levcis. and .many other matters
NAY rseuite a mo;e ssn yea1 10 Complete, md us.
And yot il View Of Tho n,anircst intention Of tho
Would os authotlscd to cxecntc anJ of thoss gen.
oral powers without an eatttnato trht mhde Of the
iiut Il il b admitted thts /, tho trrc meaning Of
ths proh!bsion I Il SIear tse putpGso Of ths Lena
e ths G ssans as
10 10 determined 4. whether thera " was fcssoa-
ahls necessity on the part oi tho City founa'l ta
which will now b. mentioned. for ton Jcars frou
its daio, thetc being 70 appropriation made COM
w re sss s ss seysSss e
right Of tho painti9 stoekAolaer 81 the People. M
ss Eht Goke 70 s9s on otSs; tnse s6.
t!ou, whether there il rot complete .rsmsd} Al
jps for breach Of the contract, It WILD, aRalns
CONS o waat i shs principal controversy bsswesr
ths patties, tho contract between tho city and sas
rss's tSsS6,s1 .ss sts T October: 1902 a
ths Mayor ans; Conptfollst entered into eea.sae
Win tuo FCupto "a" A'khs o. NEAs Npsup1HJ ~
which tho Gest company agteea 70 saRply IN
stts.ia sd Eae!!e nsnxs ~ nv @ 9ses % o. ~ tns w. =.
tho city aErGsd TO take aaa nsa mo M sams iof ~
btseet,' b1'dinssl ana omfos snn pay tha pftG'
fht o. APr's. 1s1O.
'The contract contains OTHER st!puiations no
material to ibis eontsasetny. n1~tt mpst bd seatca
that ths conts1rt ssfah1s9 th3t tho o. Company 9t
ts mssns Of g Gsonplytlas w1h r. L. nohgas9ins 1 y,
eempsny .aSa -, = .,. consideration "a fof asksa!
1natnta'n gss works where there ws.o hone befoso
Gn<tss eoHssssf, ~ 70 90 Itn'} m ~ iaiss.sa saai II
ahd IL amendment & of 1s.ts; eonsttactsa Eas wotk
bsforo octobtr, la6o. sna haa mo necessary ~
pliancet 70 e1ccutn tho contract on ~ part. Il
true. the bill alleges. snd We may presume: tna
10 consequences OF the making .! tue contract u
Company enlarged IL WORKS anu made con
sdelsole expend!turcs; but .,. nowheIe n, ,aP
peats that this Waa tundltlnn pfeccuen& +
Tho execution Of tho contract. ~ that thu city dc
c1afed II This shall 10 doae tho e1ntr.ct shall b
thea = wiz not DO party p the contact
Hf th0 e0ntr6ct. had tbe CITY til