Omaha daily bee., 1893-11-23
STATUS or the GAS FRANCHISE.

Inc various proceedings on tne patb
of the taxpayers and the city council in
relation to the proposed tifty-year gas
franchise ordinance have given rise to
much unnecessary confusion as to the
present status of that ordinance. A Pc
tition asking for an order restraining
the mayor from approving it and the
city council from overriding any veto of
the mayor was temporarily granted by
Judge Ferguson and served upon the
mayor and members of the city council.
This left the mayor free to veto the or
dinance and the council free to sustain
such veto. 1t had no effect whatever
upon the work of the city council as re-
CARDS other subjects than that included
in the restraining order.
The adjournment of the city council
then without transacting any business
whatever was simply a move on the part
of the gas company's henchmen to avoid
killing the ordinance before the ques-
ton of a permanent injunction had been
passed upon by the court. The city
charter provides that in case the mayor
~disapprove any resolution, contract or
ordinance he shall return the same with
his objections to the city council at its
next regular meeting, %whereupon the
council is required to pass upon the
question of sustaining or overriding the
veto. Only in case the mayor fails,
neglects or refuses to approve any ordi-
nance, contract or resolution, or return
the same with his objections in
writing within the time herein
limited" shall the same take effect
without his assent. Mayor Bemis has
neither failed, neglected nor refused to
return the ordinance with his objections.
He vetoed the gas franchise ordinance
and sent his veto to the city council by
his secretary, who was present at the
time the council convened. The refusal
of the council to receive it does not
make the ordinance law. If it did it
would be in the power of a majority of
the city council to override any veto of
the mayor by simply a~diourning before
the communication had been received,
thereby practically multiplying that ex-
press provision of the city charter which
requires a two-thirds vote to pass a
measure in the face of the mayors OBJ
j%ections.
The contention then that the gas
franchise ordinance has already secured
the force of law is utterly without any
legal foundation.
AS to the glib assertions of certain
councilmen who can scarcely restrain
their eagerness to do tho bidding of the
franchised corporations that a court of
equity has no jurisdiction over the
wrongful acts of a city council it is suf-
ficient to note that Judge Dillon, whose
authority will scarcely be questioned,
lays it down as a general rule that
the taxpayer may seek equitable
relief against any action of a mu-
nicipal corporation which assumes
to exercise a power over corporate prop
erty or funds which the law does not
allow and where such acts affect in
juriously the property owner or taxable
inhabitant. If an injunction would lie
to prevent a municipal corporation from
giving away corporate funds without
consideration, there is certainly room
for the contention that it will lie to pre-
vent the free grant of other corporate
property rights without return to the
city, especially where sue grant oper-
ates to keep taxes higher than they
otherwise would be. On this point,
however, it is for the court to decide
when the petition comes up for final
argument.