The herald., 1898-06-05


15,0OO-in the state of Kansas, ir
1879, when this grant was made, that 1t was
not the intention of the legislature of the
state to limit the terms of these contracts
to the single year during which the terms
of office of the members OF the city coun.
ellis continued. The cities were young and
poor, but they were ambitious and sangune
They did not have the ready money to con.
struct the waterworks which the health
and comfort of their Inhabitants required
It Is hardly possible that any individual OF
corporation could have been induced to
eXpend the thousands of dollars required
to construct such works as have been built
In this city in consi deratton OF the right ;o
use the streets Of the city for that purpose
and of the promise of rento' Tor It's hydrants
Tor the limited term of a single year. These
facts the members of the legislature must
have known, and they undoubtedly grant
ed this plenary power to contract for the
very purpose of enabling the cities &c
procure supply of water for their inhabl-
tants by grants of privileges to private par
ties to use their streets for that purpose for
a reasonable term OF years, and by COW
enants to pay rentals for hydrants for A like
term. In any event. the legislature made
this grant. and it thereby vested In the
mayor and council of the city the right to
make such contracts for such terms as. in
their discretion they thought proper" OH.
nois Trust and Savings Bank VS.. CITY Of
Arkansas City. 7s Fed. Rep, 2S3)
In arnther case It has been held that
"Where city with a population of 5000
and as assessed valuation Of Property of
two and quarter millions Of dollars con-
tracts with person giving him the exclu-
sive privilege of laying water mains in the
city for 30 years, and providing that he
shall furnish the city with SO fire MIGRANTS
for each of which 1t shall pay him rent
of $50 per year for the thirty years. with
a stipula ton that at the end of ten years
It may, at its option, buy the water works
at a price commensurate with the pro-
ductive value thereof, the contract VIII
not, after the city has enjoyed the ben
eft of It for over ten years. be held SO
unreasonably oppressive or contrary to
public policy as to be void" Fergus Falls
aEater Co. VS.. City of Fergus Falls. o.
Fed. Rep, 5S6)
1t Is noticeable that. in the case last
cited, the city of Fergus Falls was paying
$50 per year for each hydr:.nts while III the
case at bar the city of Los Angeles gets
the use of the hydrants, now 500 in num-
Der, free of charge.
In Davenport VS.. Kleinschmidt, supra,
where the court held that twenty years
was an unreasonable period for the con
tinuance OF the contract. the reasons Tor
the ruling are thus stated:
'Is twenty years a reasonable time? The
city charter provides for the election OF the
mayor and half the aldermen in April of
each year. Getty charter. Art 4. Sec. H.
The complains. alleges the taxable prop
erty of the city Of Helena to be not more
than IS, 600 900; that the bonded indebted.
ress OF the city amounts to sl9,50d,9oO;
that the floating debt, in out
standing warrants. amounts o SIS 900. Four
per cent of the taxable property of the city
would amount to soO0. 600, The charter per-
mlts the levy of taxes to the extent of
mills on the dollar for general pur-
poses. and the same for fire department
purposes (Citv charter.p. %; amend.
1851 On the present valuation these
lev,es might amount to $4,000 ca CHI. II the
taxing power was exerted to the limit
1.-THE city OF Helena was chartered in
1851. Twenty years ago It was a mining
camp on the banks OF Last Chance gulch,
containing a few hundred people. The last
otiicla! census of the city. taken in 1850,
shows a population of not more than 1000
Reliable data place the present population
at ab3n. 10000. The ordinance provides
that Wools:on shall receive for the water
running through each of the frs! $50 ny
drants provided for, 500 per year out OF the
general fund. and $50 per year cut OF the
fire department fund. being 800 fer each
hydrant altogether. ard amounting in the
aggregate, for the $50 hydrants, to $15, 900
per annum. Then, as the mains are ex-
tended, additional hydrants are required to
be erected, and for these Woolston is to
receive $l3 per year out of the genera!
,flsnd and $52 per year out of the fire de-
partment fund. making In the aggregate
$65 per year for each additional hydrant. II
ten miles more of pipe should be laid. at
least 100 additional hydrants must be paid
for. at an annual cost OF $650o II the wnoie
cost of the $50 hydrants were to be paid out
of the fire department fund, 1t would take
every dollar which could be placed into
that fund. at the present valuation. This
ordinance is designed to be irrepealable
and interchangeable for the period of twenty
years We have, right to conside. all
these things IN determining whether OF not
twenty years Is a reasonable time for such
a contract to rum. Under all the circum-
stances indicated, we cannot consider that
the city council has the right to bind such
q city as Helena by such a contract for so
long 4 period. We are not called upon to
indicate what would be a reasonable time
for which the city might make such a con-
tract. If at ali. 1t is sufficient for US to say
In thIs ca that fWontv YEA q or ron
sonabe time. TT is. useless to- argue that
IL the council has power to bind the city
for twenty years, 1t has the power to bind
It for 100 or 1000 years; or, on the other
hand, to say that, If the council cannot
bind the city for twenty years, 1t cannot
do so for one year. or one month. Such as
sertions of extreme cases may answer for
Illustrations: but as arguments they are
fallacies. which cannot bear the strong
light of reason" Davenport VS.. Klein
schmidt. 10 Pac. Rep. 25e.)
Thus, 1t will be seen. that the twentyyeaY
limit in the contract was held unreasonable
mainly, II not wholly. because of the ex-
penditures, which the city was annually
mourning for MIGRANTS. Here there is nc
such expenditure. If the city ofsLos An
seles. however. was paying for its hydrants
At the lowest rate above mentioned, Sc,
per year for each hydrant, the expendi-
lures on this account, there being 500 hy.
drants. would amount in the aggregate tC
s32.50O per annum. The case last cited
therefore. does not support, but is against
defendants contention, for, according tc
the theory of that case. the large benefits
which the city of Los Angeles has enjoyed