San Antonio daily light. [volume] (San Antonio, Tex.) 1886-1907, 1886-01-05

zion. there wuuId 30. no. question gt- 10 the iI-
validity ui the cont ,Hr'. Iiui 1t BE- 'tihcur for
Iu' tu 80 how this provision cam Doe h"In q"
ruuhuo tine Clly tu such uCINUd~ ~ HrluIiluE
water for public or duIUu~t Iu use ~ to require
th" city To- own or nprIu" tHr wat"r-"orE~ lu
whole or 300 part.
In conjunction with tho power E" pro-, Id"
the city with water. etc thee ~ of sam Auiu-
MO J, given ia" power by IT, charter. Z" ~'l"
and h. sued, Hud To make all o., "r~-arN con
tracts. etc.
Twin thus be- seen that the city is given the
puwrr to contract and b" contracted win: ana
this mu~i extend 10 IN" purposes OF H. ln"ur-
. pUruttOn. Among suCn purposes az, tn"
ones above enumerated.
How are these various objects 10 b" ucrum-
pushed except through IN" means Of II com
tract: The mere UTuiUinlng with respect to
/ them will not secure hem When The "ity iaN
. one" determined upon tn" execution ~ any
Of these provisions. then Contruc' becomes
. necessary to carry INTO effect the determine
! tiuu. ~, for tine erecting Of building and The
. obtaining at the supply Of wHtcror street hight
After having acted under the power to
. provide the city with water, il II for tho city
To determine how II shall proved" water
/ whether Toy th""r 81 ono IT. own wdt"r-W"rE~
. or contracting with others Tor lis supp y
/ y municipal curVulHiiun. like a trad .uw ore.
+ may. unless 10 SOM. way RESTRAINED ~ Guar
| ter. enter into any contract necessary To- IN
| able IL To- carry Uuf the p"w"r- conferred
City Of Galcna ~. Corwtth. IS Ill., ~; K,tch-
INN y, Buha". II \. ! -; Douglas -. lir-
~ Iowa Is: =! American Rep, 10; Wait"'s
Actions and Drfcnscs, Vol I. y ar.
Unless the charter provides that tn" powers
! therein conferred shall he exercised IN a par
| riculHr manner. IL rests with the governing
| body of the city to determine the manner OF
the exercise, enjoyment and discharge Of it,
! powers.
| II will hardly he questioned but what the
| provision OF the charter referred to fully
| authorized the Mayor and City Council to
| provide the city with water" and it must he
| admitted thCr, is =" provision of the charter
! requiring this pOwJr to bC executed IN any
particular manner; this was left to the iii ere
| ton OF the Mayor and city Council. They de
| tcrInined and entered into II contract with
| private corporation tOrlt supply; their deter
| minatOn Il irrCYOCHblC. unless there j. some
! provision or the cOntrsC; that invalidatcs 1t.
serious question arises in this connection
MS to the power OF the city council to make
what Is termed II time contract, or ON" running
for Il series Of years.
Under the terms Of section of the original
contract, ~ mUdIfcd by section of thcHmrnd-
ed contract, the contract Is to run Tor II term
Of - ears, at the end Of which time the right
i reserved to the city to buy the works; and
ON failure to agree a. to the price, their value
is to be a~certained by arbitration
This question has been before tn" courts of
the Older States and has been the suhic of
much diversity OF upIn on. and in order to ne
quaint myself with the ta>Ons given 10y them,
! have examined all the authorities on the
subject at my command.
Those that have decided adversely To the
validity OF such contracts have assigned VarI-
Gus reasons why they should not stand. Some
to make them, ON the ground Of public policy;
others that II is an infringement of the egis-
latIVU or governmental powers of the Cny in
that IL barriers away the power of the lcgiS-
latiYc body of the city to lCgslatC on the sub
icCt for u series of years, and that one set of
officials should not make contract that would
tie the hands of their successors, ana prevent
them from inquiring into the adv Visibility or
necessity Of continuing the contract.
1t first blush this may sCcmtO be- the CORE ct
view Of the law, and the reason therefor,
though some excuse may be found for such
contracts in the presumed difficulty of SeCur-
ing IL contract for the construction of such cN-
pCnSiNC works, without the assurance of
patronage tor som" considerable length Of
time.
But | cannot favor the idea that there can
hc no general power to enter into such CON
tracts
! am OF the opinion, and believe am sus-
tuimrd bS the great we ght OF authority, and
more especially 10y the decisions of the courts
which have recently passed upon this question,
that il there is any INABILITY To make such CON
tracts. il must arise from some prov ~iUu of
the charter restraining tn" authorized budy Of
the c!tN from making them.
In the Ct~r OF Putnam vs.. the city Of Grand
Rupius, decided in November. lSSI, hv the
supreme court Of Michigan, a contract for five
years was held void because such contracts
were prohibited 10y the charter of the city of
Grand Rapids, and the court says, in render
ing its opinion: I'VE cannot favor the doe
trine that thCr" can he no general authority
to make such contracts. We base our drCis-
ion entirely on the restrictions of the charter
and not upon any general inCaUuCity had the
charter been silent I'm the face of the char
ter, the array of authorities allowing tim"
contracts hy cities does not apply
I'm Garrison Us. Chicago, Il time contract
was held void, h"CauS" no appropriation was
made in advance. a. required hy charter: :
Rcss ~.
In Stein v the city Of Mobile 70 Ala, 49,.
ca Am.. 80. the litN Of Mobile entered into a
contract with Albert Stoin to furnish said city
with water
said contract Wa 80 catcrCd into ON the 2Gth
day Of December, lS40, and the rights arising
under il were to confirm" for % years at least,
and thereafter until said city redeemed cor
tain watCr-wOrkS conveyed to stein which
had been formerly used by the city. The
supreme Court of Alabama held the contract
valid, and in rendering its opinion, said:
There is no prCtenSC that he (Strni has
failed to perform and comply with said stipu-
IdtiOmS, or that the said contract has expired,
or that any of the duties under il have ceased
to be required of him. In this contract the
city of Mobile. in its corporate and personal
capacity, is the contracting party on one side
and Stem on the other. The business To- he
performed or carried on is within the limits Of
the city.
at is a grant to stein by the city for this
purpOSe-that is, il is grant to him TO carry
on the business of his water-wOrks in the city
under his contract. A contract executed uS
well Is eXecutOry contains obligations bind.
ing on both parties. grant in its own nat
urc amounts to an establishment of the right
OF the grantOr, and implies contract not to
reuSScrt that right, party is therefore al
ways cstOpped by his own grant"
So in the case of Mahon VS.. the City of Co
lumbus, - Miss, $40 l:S Am. Rep, BID The
City of Columbus leased its water-wOrks TO
MahOn for the period of IL years. Objection
was made to the contract on the ground that
il was incompetent for the city to ahdicutc for
themselves and their successors in office that
control over the watcr-wOTks which was in
vested in them for the public good"
The supreme Court of Mississippi i'm rem
dering it, opinion, said: we are not disposed
to adopt this view. The Mayor and Aldermen
were 10y the city charter authorized to provide
the city with water 10y watcr-wOrkS within or
beyond the boundaries thereof. The author
ity being general, and there being no spccif-
cation as to the manner of operating the
works after their erection we see no reason
why II might not rs well be done by CON
tact as 10y hiring employees and electing man
n gCrs.'
\ careful study of the charter of the city
of san Antonio diSclOses no spcciticHt ,On as
TO the manner in which the Mayor and city
Council are to provide the city with water,
and no restriction on their powers To make
contracts for such length Of time they may
deem proper
Hence. conclude that the City of San An
tonic was authorized IN making Il time CON
tract
Under See | of the modified contract in con
sidcTatiOn Of the NateT-wOTks company re-
ducng the rent of the tre-hydrants from 500
to So each per annum. the city contracts
among other things, ito remit and rclinquish
to the Water-works company all city taxes
whatsoever which otherwise might he as
scsstd ana levied upon any OF lhe property IN
the Mster-wOrks company and owned or ne Il
10y said company for the purpose of operating
their works; such property, however, mot to
exceed in value the sum of s2JO,Ogt.
Secs. I and of Art. VIII of the COnstitu-
ton Of the state of Texas, and Sec. Isl of the
city charter provide:
section |. Taxation shall De equal and uni
form All property in this State, whether
owned 10y natural persons or corporations
other than municipal, shall be taxed in pro-
portion 10 its value, which shall be aScCrtaincd
turc may impose poll tax. It may also i'm
pose nccmnML Ion lnkcs both mpOn matmrnl