The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1895-07-07
THE CONTRACT VALID
JUDGE HARVEY RULES ON THE sun
vAP0R LIGHT COMPANY CASE.
Contracts for n Term of Years Should
BE Held Valid Unless Absolute
Iy Prohibited.


demurrer OF the city IN the litigation with
the Sun vapor Light Company. relating to
the contract to supply vapor lights for a
period OF three years. The effect Is TO de-
clare the contract with the city valid and to
require the city to pay for the lights fur
nished during the term of the contract
The case will be appealed. The court in the
ruling declares that legislative action by the
Council is undoubtedly necessary before a
contract becomes valid, because the Board
of Works has no power to make a contract
for anything except the Council first ap-
propriate the money. The court held hat
the Board of Works has the power to make
the contract without its action constituting
a surrender of legislative power on the part
of the Council. The ruling concludes as fol-
lows:
Sc far as our Supreme Court has passed
upon the question, IL has adopted the con-
struction That the contract creates no pres
emit oeDt or obligation OF the prohibited
kind. II our supreme Court has not square
~ ueclded the question, 1t Is because the
city charter by reason of it's wording has
an effect radically different from the pEovf-
sion in the Constitution upon the same SUBJ
Ject. and adopted for the same purpose. 1t
II claimed that this difference lies, first, in
the fact that the constitutional limitation is
upon the corporation itself, hence upon the
people, and has no reference TO specific
officers, while the charter prohibition is
upon executive officers and not upon the
corporation itself. 1t g TO be hoped, how
ever. that the provisions in the cnarter re-
lat1ng TO contracts and appropriations are
necessarily a limitation upon the corpora
tion, because the contract depends upon the
Appropriation, and the appropriation is linn
lied to one year. The result is that the
corporation can no more make the contract
creating an obligation beyond one year than
can 1t contract a debt exceeding the consti-
tutional limit of 2 per cent. Under the char
ter in the one case as well as under the
fn y rh0 h limit &c I1nnn
the corporation itself. So far as the time
covered is concerned the contract Is, in the
opinion of the court, valid.
These contracts FOR various lights can be
made any time during the year, provided
the aggregate outlay hereunder does not
purpose. If during the last month of the
year enough of the appropriation remained
TO pay for that month on all existing con-
tracts and fer the first month or remainder
of a month on a new and additional con-
tract, then the amount appropriated would
be sufficient to sustain the new contract for
the remainder Of the fiscal year, !. e., the
balance of that month. SO if a person could
be found willing to contract for so short a
time and for no longer, the contract would
be valid 50 far as the appropriation was
80 under the facts alleged in the COM
plant that an unexpended balance existed
under this and all other contracts for pub
lie light for a period OF two months, 1T
would seem that the contract was based
uPOA III app otioii oAa q FohN "
that period at least. The validity of the
contract for a longer period depends on the
power to make a contract for more than a
year under which a debt may accrue as
value is received. The language of 1.-The
statute, in the opinion of the court, is not
strong enough to exclude the power to
make q contract for a term of years Which
does not create a present absolute debt for
the aggregate amount for which value may
be received. The charter makes It the duty
of city officers to furnish public light.
Economy and good business methods de-
mand that power exist to make contracts
for for light, water, etc; ;o Tor s q term rar, or years ears;
the assessments and taxation to meet such
expense be distributed throughout the term
of the contract.
1.-THE charter permits annual appropria-
tions only for such expenses, and clearly
recites that the amount of the annual APP
preparation shall be based on an estimate
of the amount necessary for the purpose
for one year only, and that an appropria.
ton cannot be made for the expense of
more than one year at a time.
without reference to. charters or ordi-
nances it has been held by our Supreme
Court that a contract like the one here
involved does not create a present debt or
obligation for the full amount that may
be earned under it during its entire time,
but for only so much as Is from time TO
time earned, 1. e., under the contract in
question from month to month. The check
placed upon the Board of Public Works
by making the validity of its contracts for
expenditure of public money depend upon
an appropriation first made by the Coun-
Gil is highly important, and the Limitation
on the power of the Council to make ap-
preparations for one year only is also val
liable, but neither is of such Importance as
to make 1t necessary or reasonable that the
city should make contracts for one year
only. Such limitation as TO time should, IL
intended, be expressed clearly and definitely.
Contracts for a term of years should be
held valid unless positively prohibited. In
the opinion of the court the city charter
does not prohibit such as is recited in this
complaint"
The application for an injunction against
paying for the lights was denied. An ap-
neal will be taken.