The San Francisco call., 1898-10-09
LIGHT CONTRACT VETOED.
The Mayor Says It Contains Evi-
 deucss of Fraud.

Mayor Phelan yesterday vetoed de- mands on the city treasury aggregattng S24 ,625, for lighting the streets in August. His reasons. are set forth in the follow ing communication, which will be present ed to the Supervisors next Monday:
 SAN FRANCISCO, Oct. :; 1898.
 To the Honorable, the Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San Franclsco-Gen- approval authorizations Nos. 219 and 220 (sec- ond series) and demands on the Treasury coY- E'rapcisco Gas and Electric Company for an aggregate sum of SPA 625 05, being the first pay n1ent under alleged contract made and en- tered into between the Board of Supervisors and the lighting company for two years from August l. 1898. The reason for my objection
 The contract itself was vetoed by me on August 5 of this year on the ground that there case pending in court to determine the which If determined in favor Of the company would give the city and the citizens the benefit of a competitor for public and private light ing; saving the city at least $40, GOO per year and the consumers $l0G, 600, and that case, sub The veto was overridden by the votes or nine members Of the Board of Supervisors, includ- ing Supervisor Rottanzi; whose vote was neo- which I protested at the time. There is a grave question to his right to vote a member of the Board of Supervisors because he has accepted and holds a lucrative cffice under the United States, as well office of profit under this city and State which is sttution. find this language in Destys Con stitution of California; page 250 The ap- pontment to a second incompatible office is not absolutely void, but the first office is ipso facto vacated" (Biencourt Ys Parker 27 Texas, 55S.)
 As a further objection I desire to point out that the contract is illegal, it should have been let under the provisions of the act of March 1895. That act requires ten day publi- cation and posting of notice inviting propo- sals and limits the power of the city to let a contract of this kind for more than one year. The Supervisors in this gave but five days notice and have undertaken to let the contract for two years.
 Furthermore. the specifications prepared by sire to suppress competition, which is con- trary to the very letter, purpose and intent of the law Santa Rosa Lighting Company vs. Woodward, 119 Cal, page 34.) The city was subdivIded into districts supplied exclusively by one company, and from which all other companies barred by the refusal of the board to grant equal privileges to competitors who made application in good season. as early as the 10th day of last April. Bidders were called upon to supply both gas and electric light whereas there was no possible compe- tition except in the matter of electric light.
 When in the case of San Francisco mu- nicipalties do not own their lighting plant the only protection of the city and the consumers Is in the fullest and freest competi- tion The act of 1895 and the consolidation act before 1t have amply provided for this but you have without legal authority and against what I believe to be the public interests Ignored them; and, if you have done with an err roneous idea of your powers and duties this veto if 1t is sustained, will give you an op- portunity to correct your mistake. Respectfully
 JAMES D. PHELAN, Mayor.