The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1890-12-11
READS THE RIOT ACT.
Judge Miner on the Citizens
Electric Light Company.
TEMPORARY INJUNCTION GRANTED
Points Which Our Own and Only City Solons
Will Do Well to Ponder 0n-The
Law in the Case.
Judge Miner has granted temporary in


Judge Miner has granted a temporary in
junction in the case of the Ogden Electric
Light company VS.. the Citizens Electric
Light company. There are bad, bold and
lrreverent men who are mean enough to
insinuate that the defendant in the case
should be called the City Council Electric
Light company, it being alleged that it is
composed of members of that august body:
"This action is brought against the de-
PENDANT among other things stated in the
bill, to enioin and restrain the defendant
temporarily and by the decree perpetually
from recognizing the validity of a contract
entered into between the city corporation
and the Citizens Electric Light company,
and from making any payments out OF
funds belonging to said city, or any
amounts, or any portion thereof, provided
in said contract to be paid, and from
stretching wires or from conveying currents
along the streets, or any streets of Ogden
city, under said pretended franchise, or
otherwise.
"On examination of the pleadings and
evidence, the court cannot find that the
plaintiff is not instigated by personal and
selfish motives in instituting these pro-
ceedings against rival.
| w ulle inc puDllc SOOu Is llmeu IOr ltS
action, yet, it is plainly discernible from
the case presented that it is DESTROYS of
Kidding itself from the competition of an
Objectionable rival opponent. The COM
pany evidently organized for the good of
| the public, in one respect at least, that is to
afford cheaper and more continuous and
stable light for the city, and while it is
claimed that the Citizens company (the
defendant), was organized in fraud of the
| m ba cit hr of N
lawful conspiracy and combination on the
part of its projectors, in conjunction with
some city officers, for its own gain, yet the
| court cannot look upon this defendant as
organized for any such purpose as is
claimed. The character of the citizens con-
nected with the defendant, in connection
with the pressing need for more light and
the apparent good faith with which all en-
tered into the enterprise tor public good,
seems to cast the shadow against the good
faith Of the pretension of the plaintiff in in
shutting this action for the public good
1.-The plaintiff, however, as a tax payer,
has right to institute these proceedings,
and Notwithstanding these facts before
stated, the court can not overlook the plain
requirements of the statute and the law
bearing upon the question, which abso-
lutely prohibits any officer of the city gov
eminent from entering into any contract
with the city corporation, whereby such
officer can receive any emoluments OF
benefits, real or imaginary, arising from q
contract in which said officer is or may be
beneficial recipient on the one part and 6
giver of public corporate interests upon the
other part.
"Nor does it make any difference that
such officer did not or could not vote upon
the question; the public has a right to ex
pect the exercise of the best judgment of
its officers, in the interests of the city tol
whom he is employed, and that all his ener
gies and influence shall be eXerted in the
interests and for the welfare of such cor.
, poration, as long as he is public servant
and his failure to act or vote for measure
which may be to his personal interest does
not excuse him. He has no right to si
passively by and see public interests sacri-
ticed-pasSive inaction would be as censur
able as active participation is securing the
passage of an illegal measure. So careful
is the law in guarding against the abuse
OF fiduciary relations that it viii
, not permit an agent to act for himself anC
his principal in the same transaction, as II
buy of himself, as agent, the property Of
his principal, or sell to his principal his
own property. Actual injury is not the
principle the law proceeds on in holding
such transactions void. Fidelity in the
agent is what is aimed at, and as a means
Of securing it, the law will not permit the
agent to place himself in situation il
; ; which he may be tempted by his own PR
vate interest to disregard that of his prin
cipal.
| They are trusted with public function:
for the good Of the public, to protect, ad
: vance and promote its interests agans
, their own. A judge cannot hear and de
eide his own case, or one in which he i.
personally interested, either as counsel o.
otherwise. He may decide it conscien
iac1t md nrlit 70 la
is not enough; the law will not permi
personal advantage from an of
fficial act performed in favor OF himself
however remote such acts may be-
I'm entering into this contract the pric
alone is but one element embraced in tn
question and even this might be affected
by their influence, by fixing the time AM
place of the letting by their right to decid
upon the responsibility Of the bidders ant
many other circumstances over which a
members of the board they might exercis,
an influence, but the plan of the work. tn
materials to be used, and the mode an
time of completion might all be influence,
by the Individual interests of these mem
bers and determined in way which woul
efectually exclude fair competition i
bidding. And they would of course hav
voice in determining upon the mode i
which the work was afterwards don
under the contract and in its acceptance
In all these matters, the influence of thes
contracts would not only be given by thei
own votes, but, as all the members must b
supposed to be more or less Influenced b
them, though but minority they nav dc
termine the majority, and it is manifesto
II impossible from the nature of the case. {
- ascertain or measure the amount of thei
influence upon the board. or in what mar
] ner it may have affected the action of tn
m other members. or what would have bee
the determination of the majority withor
that influence. The members themselyt
could neither state nor know it.
"And while the court cannot discoye
any intended wrong on the part of any of
=, Ger, yet, to tolerate such illegal practice
III although honestly done might be coudu
i've dn the hands of less honorable officers
O. to disastrous results to those interests or
I'd trusted to the hands of the public servant
And while the court does not now ma,
upon the main question in issue in the cas-
yet, it has reached the conclusion that q
injunction should be issued as PRAYED
" prevent the payment Of any public none
by this city to the defendant upon the cor
ee tract entered into between them. bearir
date Of November ID, 1880, and from fin
nishing or receiving any light under SUI
contract.
"The other questions may stand until Il
hearing"
WISDOM'S FAMOUS RORERT;NE