The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1892-12-31
THE PRESS.
SATURDAY, DECEMBER 81.
THE CITY AND THE WATER COM
PANY.


An editorial in yesterdays Argus,
which, if not written by Mayor Ingra-
ham, was evidently inspired by him,
comedies that the question at issue be-
tween the city council and the water
company is the legality of the contract
of 1870, by which the city agreed to pay
the company $4,000 year for an addi-
tional supply of water. Now this was
not the issue at all which Mayor Ingra-
ham raised in his communication to the
city council on the fifth of December
last. His point then was that the con-
tract of 1870 was terminable by
either party on reasonable no
tice. and his reliance was on
an opinion given by Judge Symonds in
1871 in which the legality of the con-
tract was not questioned, but on the 9th
er hand practically admitted inasmuch
as the Judge held that it could be ter
minated on reasonable notice, only after
the expiration of a year, whereas if it
had been illegal no such delay would
have been necessary. Nowhere in his
commune ton of December 5 does the
Mayor claim directly or indirectly that
this contract was illegal. Indeed he
distinctly admitted its validity by in
PRODUCING an order for annulling it at
the end of the calendar year, the word
annul which the Mayor used and which
means to make void, to abolish, clearly
implying that there was something to
make void whereas there would have
been nothing if the contract had never
had any legal existence. Furthermore
the order provided for the reasonable
notice suggested in Judge Symondss
opinion which would have been entirely
unnecessary if the contract had then
been regarded as void ob inatio. The
proof is conclusive that on Decem-
Der the Mayor believed the contract of
1870 was legal and had no idea that it
could be got rid of in any way but in the
way pointed out by Judge Symonds.
The Mayors communication was re-
ferred to committee of the city coun-
Gil and in the course of their investiga-
ton it appeared that the contract Of 1870
had been extended for 90 years by new
contract in 1887. Judge Symonds' S
opinion that it could be terminated on
reasonable notice inasmuch as it had no
definite time to run became inapplicable
because after that opinion was given a
no hxrf he r.
ties to the contract The original plan of
the Mayor for avoiding the contract was
therefore not sufficient. Curiously
enough he had entirely overlooked the
new contract of 1887.
The next public communication of the
Mayor on the subject was made through
the columns of the Eastern Argus on last
Wednesday morning and began in this
way:
In spite of the provision obligating the Water
Company to furnish the city water Tree !
charge for all strictly municipal purposes, :,
the city government on September 24tn 1870
without authority OF law and against the pro
tests and votes OF an influential minority. en-
tered into contract with the water company
for the supply of water for certain purposes
therein named which cannot be reasonably con.
purposes"
The contract whose legality the Mayor
had admitted on December had on De-
cember 81 become contract made with
out authority of law, that is an illegal
contract and therefore of no binding
force. That is to say within less
than month the Mayor has expressed
two opinions of this contract diametri-
cally opposite, one that it is legal and
the other that it is illegal. 1t is quite
evident that gentleman who wobbles
as much as that in SO short a time can
hardly be trusted as a legal guide, and ii
is quite natural that some Of
the members of the city council
which the Mayor is asking to take i'm
portant action in regard to these con
tracts-action that may plunge the city
into an expensive law suit-should wan