The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1897-12-06
PAWTUCKET WATER.
Continued from page 4.

and that II the contract is entered into
manifest injury and damage consisting OF
confuskp, uncertainty ana future litiga-
tion will 10 done. TO, the city and to the
complainants and other taxpayers thereof
for which damage there can De no ade-
quate remedy at law.
The main points made by the com
plainants' counsel are that If the corporal
contract Is ultra wires this court shas
jurisdiction TO enjoin its execution
that the proposed contract is ultra wires
because IL provides that the city OF Paw
tucKet shall furnish water directiy TO the
inhabitants OF the Watchemoket Fire dis
triot, and because IL provides that the
city OF Pawtucket shall regulate the rates
TO be charged for water furnished To the
Inhabitants and also because il delegates
TO the city of Pawtucket the power To
establish the rules and rec ulations as TO
the mode Of using water, which power Is
expressly reserved 90 the district by Its
charter.
The third point of the complainants l.
that II the proposed contract Is valid tnen
the lO years contract entered into In 1851
and now In force is valid and the parties
to that contract have no power to annul
IL mr. 10 make new cor tract while III
romans in force.
In regard 10 this last point the COM
plalDants' brief states that 10 IL not TO be
presumed that the legislature intended by
It's general permission 10 contract to al
low each annually succeeding town and
district government TO enter into q new
contract, without regard To what had
been done by their predecessors. A reason
able construction Of the authority To con-
tract VIII limit its exercises 10 occasions
when contract IL necessary, that is TO oc-
caslons when there Is no contract exist
ing.
Considerations Of public policy demand
tnls construction, IL is claimed, because
when contract for term OF years has
been entered into, tho voters and tax
payers OF both corporations have n right
10 assume that the matter has been settl q
Tor the term OF the contract; and the con
tract should not te changed in the mid
dle OF the term by "a city or district gov
ernment chosen at a time when the cleo
torate had no reason TO suppose such q
change was in contemplation. The fur
ther claim ~ made In that neither the
city nor district has power 10 annul an
existing contract and that the demurrer
should be oyerruled and the injunction
made perpetual.
The respondents claim first that the
powers given by the charter or tae Watch
einoket Fire district and the amendments
thereto are very broad and that the dis
triot may receive water from the cities of
Providence or Pawtucket ana on such
terms as may bc agreed on and the district
and the cities are authorized 10 make such
agreements and thedistrict may distribute
waters or authorize the same 10 be done.
and regulate the use snd price OF water |:
that this means that the city may take
water from the cities and distribute it
itself or may authorize the cities To dis
tribute the water or the district NAV au-
thori2e some third party 10 distribu il,
teoAuse these powers are expressly given.
In light OF their statement IL is argued
that the bill OF complaint must show good
cause for equitable Interference which il
does not show. Nowhere in the bill is it
said Is there any charge OF fraud and that
the Durthen of The bill is that the action
OF the City Council OF the city ur Paw
tucket in matter of municipal business
Is disapDroved by three citizens
As To the new contract il il urged that
Ii only differs IRON the 1890 one IL that
it omits provisions that have become
obsolete and conta ms sli ght mod ifications )
and attention Is callei 10 the fact that IL
is incredible that Messrs. Tiusnghast
Barnfield and ArEold who signed con
tracts OH behalf of the city of Pawtucket
in 1880 and 1890 neglected their public
duties so far as to sanction an illegal con-
tract and in conclusion IL il submitted
that the legislative Iowers given are
ample TO justify the contracts made and
the contract proposed.
Thomst Il. Barnefield and Edwards A,
Apgell are cousel for the complainants
and Arnold Green, James L. ,Jenks and
Harmon ). Babcook counsel for the re-
spondents.