The Portland daily press., 1892-12-29

made no better because it is committed
by Cleveland instead of Hill.
THE CITY AND THE WATER COM
PANY.
The controversy between the Mayor
and the water company seems to turn en-
tirely upon the character of the contract
of 1870 by which the city council agreed
to pay the company $4,000 year for an
additional supply of water for certain
purposes specified in the contract. If
that contract was legal and within the
scope of the authority Of the city coun-
Gil that made it, it cannot be terminated
fora number of years to come inasmuch
as subsequent city council extended it
for period of twenty years. Ii on the
other, hand the contract was illegal and
beyond the scope of the city council then
of course it never had any legal force,
and the extension of it by a subsequent
council was of no effect. The Mayors
ground now is 1--WE say now because in
his original communication to the coun-
Gil he did not very clearly make this
point but was relying upon Judge Sy-
monds's opinion that the contract was
terminable on reasonable notice. that
this contract was illegal because under a
previous contract the water company
had agreed to furnish all the water
needed for strictly municipal purposes"
free of charge, and that therefore this
appropriation Of $4,000 a year to pay for
more water for strictly municipal pur-
poses was practically gift to the COM
pany which the council had no right to
make. A correspondent of the Argus
proposes to settle this question and all
others pending between the company
and the city by making our coming NUM-
cipal nominations with the special OBJ
ject in view of bringing this water COM
pany to a thorough sense of their respon-
sibilities and obligations" 1t can hardly
be settledin that way. If the contract
of 1870 was legal the attitude of the next
city government toward the water COM
pany cannot change it's character. The
proper mode of procedure, it seems to
us, is to place in the hands Of
the law officer of the city, the
city solicitor, the contract of 1870
and all previous and subsequent con-
tracts between the city and the company
and get his opinion of the legal status of
the contract in dispute.
As the PRESS said at the beginning
of the controversy, the Water Com
is no longer a fit subject for char
ity. 1t is now in receipt of
sufficient income to pay its accruing
obligations and return a fair profit
to its stockholders. If, as the Mayor be-
lieves, this 81, 200 was voted in spirit of
charity and implies no legal obligation,
its payment ought to be stopped. If, on
the other hand, it is being paid by rea-
son of a contract legally binding on the
city, to stop it without the consent of the
water company may, and probably will.
involve the city in a suit for damages, in
which it is sure to be beaten and have
added to the $4,000 the expense of costly
litigation. Before any action is taken
looking to the amendment of the con-
tract we ought to have the opinion of the
city solicitor at least that the contract
was illegal. When that is had there
will be reasonable ground for taking
such action as the Mayor suggests.
Judge Symonds's opinion in 1870 did not
cover this point at all. He simply de-
cided that the contract was terminable
on reasonable notice. The question of
its legality or illegality he did not touch.
The contract with the water company
cannot be got rid of by shouting or
writing anonymous communications to
the newspapers, or by electing men
to the city council pledged to bring
1.-THE water company to thorough sense
of their responsibilities and obi
cations" It can only be avoided by
showing that it was illegal when it was
made and is still illegal. And the proper
person to show that, if it can be done, is
the City Solicitor.