Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1893-05-27

finite Il is not good pleadmg to allego
that an act has hcen or Is about TO be
franduiently done. hut the particular
means by which tho fraud Is TO be
accomplished must be alleged This rule
applies with peculiar force when the
court is asked L. Interfere With the eScre
else ot the legislative discretion given
the city council
The aVernent that all the prOceedines
subsequent 70 the report OF the engineer
We're 10 carry out the scheme suggest
ei by him with the report ns q basis
OF aodon and the making Of the report
q part Of the petition, + sufficient to
show that the object of the pleader was
TO allege that the work Recommended
by the engineer was the work which
the council was about 10 Perform. We
viii take this as a basis tleh 10 deter
mine whether there was an abuse Of
power by lne city council. This report
shows, we think. thar the engineer un-
derstood that Il was at lcas, the main
purpose OF the city TO construct dam
70 supply itself with water and light
Inc total estimated cost was $l,JoS, 400.
The estimated cost Of the dam alone
Is Siul ,32o The remainder Is estimated
as necessary for the machinery and the
operation Of the system ier supplying
the city with water and light Ii may
be Inferred from the report that a lower
and less expensive dam than that con-
tenplated would b. capable OF furnish
ing tue power necessary for the purpose
Indicated at least 50 far "a the present
wants of the city are concerned
When municipal body undertakes the
construction of public building they
must consider the present aud prospe,-
tive wants OF the municipality, Have
the courts the right 10 interpose, TO de-
termne these questions for them aud
restrain their action when IN their iudg.
ment the capacity Is greater than the
necessities of the immediate situation
may demandf As general rule, III?
courts have no such power. There may
be exceptions, but only when there Is
nm und0ubted excess of Authority and
abuse of the discretion h palpahle. The
petition before us does not make such
case. The engineers estimate is based
largely upon data of an uncertain ciar-
ncter. especially Is the How of the river
So and would not prudent managemeni
ulctate thut the construction be of sui
heient height to furnish the necessary
power under all circumstances aud 10
meet any probable contingency Again.
dam of the character Indicated Ia the
report is not a work for 0 few years,
but u Is one which may he expected to
stand as long us the city itself The city,
the capital Of the state wnl hardly re-
main stationary as time when all other
cities In the country are growing with
great rapidly. These questions We're for
the city council TO determine, II the
report Of the engineer had borue out the
allegations that the main purpose Of the
work was speculation we would have n
different case. but IL appears that the
principal object OF the work was To sup
ply water aud light and the use Of any
excess of power which might be develop
ed was merely probable und contingent
result Under such circumstances II
would seem, that the proposed construc.
tons must speak for themselves and that
amy INQUIRY from other sources US to the
hidden motives Of tho city council il
not to be permitted The drinurrcrs TO
this part Of the petition were properly
sustained
II Is further alleged that ~ the time
Of the election for the issuance OF bonds
the city had contiuct with company
for the supply Of water and lights which
1t was able and willing TO carry out,
and that the city had exhausted is pow
er 90 procure water aud lights. II seems
to us, the statement Of the proposition
comes with It's own refutation In this
state no city can grant un exclusive
right to furnish either water or lights
For the reasons given we are Of the
opinion that the Judgment OF the court
Of civil appeals should be reversed aud
that Of the district court Of Travis county
should be- affirmed. and II IN 80 ordered
Opinion by Gaines, A, u.