The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1898-06-01
THE CITY IS NOT BOUND
BY Its Present Contract with the
Electric Light Company.
THE OPINION OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
He Cites Authorities 10 show that
There IL No Obstacle 10 the City
Operating Its Light Plant.

NE, upon the city laDlnty upon Tue pits
ent contract with the Citizens Electri
Light company:
To the Honorable City Council OF tho
City OF Houston.
Houston, Texas. May 30.--Gontlemen:
In compliance with the request Of AL
derrnan Dickson I herewith submit my
opinion on the now much talked Of
question as to the right OF the city OF
Houston to build its own electric light
plant, aud Its right 10 refuse 10 com
ply with the terms Of the present con-
tract with the Citizens Electric Light
company to furnish lights TO the city
for Ieriod OF ten years, beginning
on June IL, 1891. This Is matter OF
serious financial importance. because
II the city would be compelled to carry
out It's contract with the electric light
company, amounting now 10 nearly
$4,000. and increasing to $4,000
year In all probability before the period
OF the contract wouii expire. the build
ing Of tho plant would be a useless eN-
penditure OF money. and one that The
city could III afford in Its present
financial condition.
However. do not think that there
can be any danger Of he city being
compelled TO comply with the terms OF
10 issue bonds was submitted to tho
taxpayers. gave my opinion hen
that the city OF Houston would not be
bound by the terms Of the contract
with the Citizens Electric Light COM
pany. At the time | so advised the
council i was well aware nf the gravity
OF the situation and the disastrous re-
suits which would follow II the city
would be forced TO comply with tho
terms OF the contract made with tho
electric Ugh, company ami did not
advise the council before / had inycs0-
gated the authorities aud convinced
myself that the city could no; be com
PEELED TO comply with the terms OF the
contract with tbs electric light com
psny. did not give fun written
opinion, because ] doubted The policy
OF rendering a public opinion showing
your legal position In u matter about
which In all probability there win be
a litigation
The contract reads as follows:
This contract, made this 1ih iay OF
June A. D., 1894 by and between the
city OF Houston Harris county. Tcxus,
hereinafter called tho CITY. and tho
Citizens Electric Light and Power
COMPANY NJ Houston. Texas. herein
after called the company. witneSs9th
sdtratlon hereinafter namcd hereby
contracts and agrees To furnish The city
or Houston such number 81 electric
arc lamps of 2000 standard candle
power each, as the said city may from
time TO time require, The Same to be ln-
Gated as tho city may direct, at the com
psny's expense. To be lighted on the
present lighting schedule. fifteen min
utes before dark until daylight the
following morning, each and every
night OF the year during the term OF
this contract.
In consideration OF the foregoing sah
city contracts and agrees 10 pay the
said Company the sum Of Si20 per light
per annum, payable in monthly INSTALL
mcnts Immediately following each
mouth Of service This contract 70 he
for the term OF ten wears from the
18th day OF June 4. D.. 1895
Witness our hands aud seals this
l1th lay OF June, 1894.
Signed by the mayor and city sec
rotary with seal attached, ana by the
Citizens Electric Light and Power
company with seal attached.
In regard to this contract persons.
even some members of the legal pro-
fession. have been led astray by con
STRUNG this contract just thej same as
WY hOAtu blt utlMNth HiANtAt III
dividuas. whereas. as this is a con
tract made with municipal corpor-
alton different rule governing the
same would hold.
In the first place, ! believe our State
authorities hold that our council has
not the authority to make q contract
Tor lighting the city for period OF
NUMBER OF years so as to hamper
succeeding councils In carrying -ouL
the expressed will OF the inhabitants
OF the municipality as to different and
TO them q better mode of supplying
lights 10 the city.
know that some authorities hold to
the contract, but 1 follow tho authori-
Ties laid down In our Texas reports
The leading authority on this subject
10 the case OF the City OF Brenham vs..
BRENNAN Water Company, g, Texas,
6i2. IN this case. alter reviewing many
authorities on the subject the court
makes use of the following very per-
tnent language: Municipal onitors
hold but for short terms and the very
purpose for which short terms OF Of
nee ana frequent elections are re-
CURED. Is to leave the control OF mu-
nicipai affairs as near as may be in the
hands OF the people: 10 make the mu-
nicipal administration reflect as near
az may be the win OF the public The
reasons but emphasize the necessity
Tor denying TO city council or other
governing body the power, by control
or otherwise. 10 disable or hinder from
time to time the full and free exer.
else OF any power, legislature in ia
character, which the legislature has
deemed proper to confer upon such
corporation"
THIS language Is clear. emphatic and
admits OF no doubt applying IL TO the
facts before us. and can any one saw
that the former council. by lis ten
years contract with the electric light
company. could hinder and thwart Inc
OF the people in its desire to maintain
ana operate it, own electric light
plant?
In the absve case the city OF Bren-
nam made Q contract with the Bren.
ham Water company for supplying tho
city OF Brennan with water for a
period Of twenty-five years, and our
supreme court held that the city conn
Gil Of the city Of Brcnham had no such
power and that the contract was void.
The facts in this case should apnly
with equal force TO the present contra q
with the electric light company,
That eminent and high authority ON
municipal law. Judge John r. Dillon
"a his work on Municipal Corpor-
ATOMS, page ~. says: Powers ara
eorIerred on municipal corporations
" Tor Dublfc ollrD0aea "A -. sk.t. ~, y