The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1897-08-24

for II would appear to us violation o' the
laws which are above quoted, ana wbch
were in full force when the amendment
was gotten.
The law certainly never intended that by
allowing an amendment 1t would relate
back and destroy the effect oi eyhtins
laws. Neither can 1t be claimed mat tie
amendment has more force than an orig
inal act Of Incorporation would have. IL
instead OF procuring the amendment tte
Houston Gas Light company had Oh the
same day procured a new charter under
the general law in the exact words OF the
old one. no one could be found who would
claim that 1t gave the company the right
to use the streets without the consent oil
tho city. What it would not do under tie
original charter 1t can not do under an
amendment which is practically Lew
charter 50 far as the city is concerned.
We think the company in either case
would have to procure the consent OF the
CITY to use the streets.
We have carefully and fully investigated
this question and are Of the opinion that
the consent of the city is nee e7sa-y icr the
, gas company to use the streets OF the city,
One thing we deem certain and that Is
this: Even II the court should hold that
the gas company has the right to use the
streets already occupied by them 1t can
not extend its plant or mains on any street
without vour consent. You have the fuli
power to prevent to permit and regulate
the laying of gas mains, and they can oei-
tainly be prevented from extending the
plant beyond what they have.
V.
AS to tho right of the city to regulate
charges for gas. we do not believe that
YOU have the right TO regulate charges for
gas generally. but you can do so only by
contract set out In the ordinance granting
the right to use the streets and which
must be agreed to by the gas company.
This case in Galveston involving these
requires an answer to be filed Tor the
city by the first Monday in September, and
we shall act under the city attorneys ad-
vice as to filing that answer, IL It Is con-
| cludod that the city will defend the case.
Very respectfully submitted,
John s. Stewart,
Fisher IL Sears,
o. Il. Holt.
No action was taken on the report and
bids for paving Main street beyond Mellow
an were then opened and read, with the
result as shown by the table accompany
ing this report,
The bids We're all referred to the board
OF public works.
NEW BUSINESS.
Under tho head of new business Alder
men Matthews and Aubcrtin introduced
an ordinance granting the Houston Gas
company the right 10 extend Its system,
replace and repair its pipes at any time
and granting the company an extension OF
its franchise for period Of thirty years,
provided ii iiX the price of SlS0 per thcus-
and aud furnish 1S-candle power gas.
The franchise, however. is not exclusive.
The ordinance also provides that in max
ing connection with consumers only the
actual cost of making such connection be
charged, with an addition of 10 per cent;
NO ka 10 for mot of
This ordinance was to be passed subject
to acceptance by the gas company.
Alderman Burke moved that 1t be re-
ferred to the ordinance committee TO re-
port forthwith
Alderman Street said there We're only
two members OF the ordinance committee
present. As no one had moved to adopt
the legal opinion secured and presented
by the special committee, he assumed that
ii was tho spirit Of the council to sit down
upon 1t hard, II this ordinance should
be referred to the ordinance committee
there would be divided report, as he was
known 10 oppose il.
Alderman Aubertin said he did not care
TO say anything about the Sl0"' opinion
as 1t appeared to him to be about as
| much In favor Of the gas company as
against 1t. He thought that II the or
| dinance committee could not report upon
the ordinance the council was perfectly
competent to do so.
Alderman Burke withdrew his motion for
| an imne1ia report
Alderman Street said that as he under
stocd the opinion OF the city attorney the
| city council could not make contract
| permitting the gas company to charge $3.50
per thousand for gas for the next thirty
years, which the ordinance seemed TO con-
| template.
| Attorney Stewart said that he had given
hat rntNt "a tc
| clusion.
Alderman Adair contended that this or
dinance had been agreed upon as u COM
! promise and he felt satisfied that 1t would
be acceptable to the people.
Alderman Matthews said the gas COM
rany had agreed 20 the terms of the ordi-
nance as well as the special committee ct
the council. From the legal opinion Just
read he inferred that the city had little to
| expect from law suit. One OF the law
years signing this opinion had told him
| that 1t would be better for the city to ac-
cept the terms OF compromise as proposed
| In the ordinance rather than so TO law. He
thought that the people would be salts
] fed.
Attorney Stewart said he had consulted
| with the other counsel signing the opinion
and that he had signed 1t with the under
standing that II stated very plainly that the
gas company had no right TO occupy thu
streets OF the city without the consent e
| the city council
| alderman Cro0an was not opposed to the
| ordinance but he saw no necessity for
passing IL SO precipitately. He moved as
substitute that II take Its regular course.
Alderman Auhert!n wanted II referred 10
The sity attorney to be approved as to its
| form. -
| uron such a contingency Attorney Stew
| art said that he would arst like to know
the sense OF the council as to whether or
not Il was their desire 10 give the gas con-
pany the right TO charge $3.50 for gas for
the next thirty years.
Alderman kchlhauf wanted to know
whether or not the attorneys approval ~
an ordnance as to form carried with 1t his
disqualified Endorsement and approval.
Attorney Stewart said that when he
signed an ordinance 1t carried with II hi.
approval Ia every particular.
Alderman Burke withdrew his mot,or
TO refer the ordinance to the crdinancs
committee TO report instanter.
Asyor Rice ruled that TIE council coule