Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1892-01-14

. IS
,..-rfcht, to further consider its report
=, ,rs FUN body in the matter Of the
.,~.r5versy between the city and the
y,.rral Gas Company OF West Virginia.
Al. George Heard, General Manager of
81, Company, and Col. Geo. B. Caldwell,
~ counsel for the Company. were pres
.-- OF the subcommittee, MeSsrS.
r,--s,. Caddle, Hall and Jefferson were
essen. as was also Mr.. Riley, City
,r--or. Mr. Heard was called upon
-s~rw II the Company had any fur
.s- communication to make, and an
--araf that he knew OF nothing more,
..-ra.r case had been fully presented
.,--aTf0uS sessions.
m. Riley, the City Solicitor, had his
r-.-ra opinion in readiness, and DR..
rffr moved that IL be read, while MIR.
r..-E and Col. Caldwell were present,
Ell This was done, although the mem-
I-rr the Committee from the Fourth
r--E preferred a secret session, with
.-s press excluded.
N-.B Hey'S opinion, In the compilation
(which Judge Melvin assisted, simply
.s17ratsd and reiterated the position
.-rsa. for the city had previously
..-a-. as was TO have been expected.
rs racited the provisions OF the
sTr.afse, and the acceptance OF the
..~a 1v he Company, and said the or
s-rrca was q valid contract, nOtWith-
..srE.rg the city had no right 20 make
.-aye.gslye grant. The fact that the
..-aa-s. alleys and public grounds Of the
r-v were used by the Company would
-su. the idea advanced by the Com
-rv that there was no consideration on
-a r.r- OF the city, and he thought the
..--s would hold the contract valid 10
rs. extent. Upon this point the opin-
.- v-s:
.y- seems clear that this ordinance
md It's acceptance by the Company con-
.--.as valid contract between 10 and
,a city; aud this, Notwithstanding the
-.-as,.on that the latter possessed no
minority 90 make the grant exclusive.
Whatever may nave been the extent OF
.-s authority of Council in this respect,
,.s grant was effective 20 such extent.
ter-ht to use the streets and alleys
b the manner indicated, certainly is
entered; and this alone would bar
-a claim the agreement was without
.-s.EeratiOn, and therefore void. Be
SIDES. assuming want Of power, this was
known 20 the Company at the time it
a---5ad for and received the grant and
-s5e the StipUlatiOps. At all events, such
1v.sLge is TO be presumed; and the
Company would hardly be permitted by
.s Courts 90 avail itself Of any miSun-
--sluding Of the law.
cit seems some claim is made by the
Company based on q subsequent Ordl-
nance c0nfering on the Manufacturers
Gas Company the right 70 use the
streets and alleys In similar manner.
--.s action Of the Council, we should
47, IS warranted by the SeveRth Sec
..- Of the ordinance Of April Il, lSs5,
vl.ca reserves the right TO confer such
--.v age on any association Of persons,
--rs or corporations engaged In manu-
t..u-iug and desiring 20 lay and main
.l pipes for conducting gas 20 and
t- the use Of their manufactures.
">tf.l later, in 1SSS, there was sim
grant % the Citizens Gas Company.
Ua have not been able to find the GER
.5.a.eof Incorporation OF this Company,
an. 90 not know whether il was made
.rut manufacturers The contrary is,
perhaps, 10 be inferred; and 1t would
seem that sales 70 manufacturers were
---emD.ated. IL is not thought that
,-s ordinance was warranted by the
,sary.t.Jn alluded TO; but as nothing,
80 Far as we are advised, has ever been
cone OF attempted by this Company IN
q. way of using any street or alley, 1t
-u-a5.y does not figure largely, or at
- 10 the present controversy.
As % the assize of gas, il is not seen
l4- To- any aspect the action OF the
Council prescribing regulations as 10
price OF gas TO be supplied 70 conSum-
as generally, would or could affect the
,sl.s OF obligations Of the parties I'M
.rt the contract. There is nothing in
&s ordinance Of April II, 1855, that
slgr-ssly or by implication, makes the
-,.ga-IOns assumed by the Company de-
PENDENT on the failure OF the Council 70
Interfere In this behalf. But 1t Is
further 90 be said that the last mentioned
riuauce was shOrt-Iived. It's repeal,
before any OF its provisions were carried
-u effect placed the contracting par
Pes 10 their former position towards
s.B other, and relieved against any
4 possible disadvantage that otherwise
night have resulted.
"ii. we're % be conceded that by rea-
sc o.. supposed unfriendly action OF the
Council the Company has some claim or
grievance against the city, the remedy
r.. d. .Hr.-fEN In nnpIAF-
-g the contract imperative ana
'.-S.ag 20 comply with supu-
a.lls therein contained. A par
.a failure OF the considerations
.-v1.ch the Company agreed 70 FUR
-S- gas would not abrOgate Such
lg-aauaut. IL would still be the duty
.la Company, as we think, 10 com
EE with It's provisions, aud 70 look Tor
i'=. o. the Council OF the Courts. 80
Ing. especially, rs it uses and occupies
.'..s own profit the streets and alleys
- ,-e city, 10 is hardly in position 70
Al that 10 is no longer bound by the
.,ls under which il acquired the right
.s.-l uses and occupations.
ST. y. RILY,
sTHAYEE MELVIN"
l-etscussion on the opinion was
..-e5 by Mr.. Heard, who stated AZ
N-a length that he had not gone into
as legal aspect Of the case-drst' be-
.--,s boz was not q lawyer, and second
...llse the law would not remedy the
Batter All the DEGREES Of all the Courts
I elr,tend0m would not give THIS
-lDaay any more gas. 1t was ply
'.l. .mpossibility 70 longer furnish the
.7w.th the free gas, and in that SIT
,-...9l the Company came to the city
q. hoped the matter woald be liked up