The record-union., 1897-07-29
STREET LIGHTING DEMANDS.
JUDGE HUGHES DECIDES THE
THE CITY MUST PAY.
He Holds That the Charter Clause
Relied on Is Not Consti-
tutional.

In the Superior Court of this county
yesterday Judge Hughes disposed OF
the case of the Sacramento Electric,
Gas and Railway Company against the
City Of Sacramento, by giving judg-
ment in favor of the Electric Company
against the city for the amount sued
for. The controversy in this case grew
out of the construction placed by Mayor
Hubbard and City Auditor Young upon
Section % Of the City Charter That
section is as follows:
Section %. No contract for supplies,
printing, advertising, stationery, main
tenance of prisoners, fuel, street sprink-
ling, street repairs or lighting streets,
public buildings, places or offices, shall
be made for a longer period than one
year; nor shall any contract be made
to pay for fuel, gas, electric lights, or
any other Illuminating material at a
higher rate than is charged to any
other consumer"
The last clause of the section was
the one under consideration. Mayor
Hubbard refused to sign the contract
originally for the reason given by him
self in a message that it was contrary
to the provisions of that clause of the
charter But the Board of Trustees
passed the contract over the Mayors
veto by a vote of seven to two, and
the company rendered the service for
the month of May, presented its bill
for the same, and it was unanimously
allowed by the Board of Trustees, but
was rejected by the Auditor for the
reasons given by the Mayor
After the bill was passed over the
Auditors veto by the necessary num-
Der of votes, it went TO the Mayor, who
vetoed the bill, and his action in that
particular was. final. Thereupon the
Electric Company instituted the suit
Just disposed of to recover payment for
Its services in the month of May.
The position of the Electric Company
was that the particular clause of the
charter referred to is unconstitutional
and void, for the reason that it puts a
limitation upon two classes of material
fuel and Illuminating material-and
does not similarly limit any other class
OF material, and for the further reason
the provision in controversy is indefi-
mite in IT'S terms and that it means that
the dealer shall not charge the city a
higher rate than it does any other per-
son for the same service, and the con-
tention of the Electric Company was
that it does not render any other per-
son any similar service.
There was no question as to the price
being reasonable, the price under the
contract in controversy being so 81
per lamp per month on a mixed moon
light schedule, meaning a schedule that
between the 1st of March and the 1st
of NnUpIY1 hnr q TonOnlicrbf Scha7111a q
shall be maintained, and between the
1st of November and the 1st of March
the company shall furnish light every
night and all night. Under the contract,
the price now charged is at the rate
Of SO IS on the moonlight schedule, and
S11 80 on the all night and every
night schedule. Before the Folsom
Company came into the business the
city paid $14 IS per lamp per month,
all moonlight schedule. When bids We're
asked for the Electric Companys bid
was the lowest on the prices named,
and the contract was fixed on the av-
erage.
In his decision, published below,
Judge Hughes remarks on the consti-
tutionality Of the charter provision
have reference TO the point made by L.
1. hdlu6Iu, attorney IOF the EleCtr1C
Company, to the effect that as the
charter prohibition applied only to deal
ers in fuel and Illuminating material,
and was therefore class legislation and
void. Judge Hughes says:
THE DECISION.
There is no question but that the
section under consideration is absolute
~ meaningless, unless the same is con-
strued in the manner heretofore sug-
gested by the court, namely: That ii
means that the city shall not pay for
any given article any more than is paid
therefor by the general public. For ex-
ample, if the section be construed as
contended for by counsel for the de-
fendant, the city would be inhibited
from paying 500 for a horse worth
500, because somebody else sold S2O
horse for $50. To hold that this was the
intent of the lawmaldng power which
drafted the charter would be nonsensi-
cal in the extreme.
So far as the testimony in the case
goes, am unable to find from the tes-
timony which has been given here, that
the company has charged a greater rate
for the same service to the city than it
has charged to private individuals. In
other words. the testimony is that ex-
actly the same service, or reasonably
the same service. is not being rendered