The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1898-06-10
EIECTRIC I.IGIvr.
MIR. oliver Dtscusscs the Legality al
the ExtsttuG Contract.

fiouStou, lcNdS. June V.--lsetters to your
pager have called attention TO the contract
between the Electric Light company and
the city.
This contract has been held invalid as
matter Of law In late opinion OF the city
attorney. On the faith OF that contract
the Electric Light company established its
plant and placed the usual appliances for
complying with its obligations. Ia this
contract invalid as matter Of law, or
must the city comply with It? The opin-
ion of the city attorney which hclds the
contract invalid does so on the theory that
II creates a monopoly and relies on the
case of the city OF Brennan AGAINST the
Brenham Water Works ConpanM VI Tex.
~. 5i2.
TO what extent this case Is In point MIR.
l.. T.. Hamblen and the city attorney DO
not agree, as appears from the opposite
conclusions reached bv them MS TO the val
idaty OF tho contract. But oven II the
Brenhain case he in point. the Federal
cour,s do not agree with our State courts
In the views expressed in that case The
United States circuit court Of appeals for
the Fifth circuit In the case OF Barthoio-
NEW VS., The City of Austin tSS Fed. Rep,
p 359l reversed the Judgment Of the Unit
district of Texas, the reversed decision
having been based on the BRENNAN case
above referred to. In its opinion reverb
ing said case. the United States circuit
court of appeals reviews the case OF tho
City OF lirenhaIn against tho Brennan Wa
ter Works COMPANY AMI holds thar 'Nn
ordnance granting to u water company
the privilege. not In terms exclusive, Of
constructing and operating q system or
wafer works N the city for supplying The
corporation and its citizens with watcrs
on certain terms and conditions. FOR
period of twenty five years, is not a grant
Ut an ohpcNious exclusive privilege. or
the creation of monopoly prohibited by
public policy or the constitution OF Texas.
which provides that porpetuiues and mon
opolies are contrary to the genius ~ FREQ
government and should never be al
lowed"
The opinion Of the United States cir
cult court OF appeals expressly takes is
sue with our State court Oh the questions
decided In the Brenham water works case,
II the Electric Light company can invoke
the Federal Jurisdiction TO construe ats
contract with the city, the holding Of the
United States circuit court Of appeals be-
comes of importance. as that court will be
practically the court of last resort In the
case, That court In the Austin case above
referred to- SAYS. "A monopoly rs UNDER
Story as an exclusive right granted to q
few OF something which was before of
common right citing Blackstone Com,
1853 Bacon's Arrangement prerogotlve. II A..
and quoting Lord Cole, Pleas of the Grown.
Inst. ISL. OF course II the contract
under consideration Is not exclusive II can
in no sense be taken as a monopoly, and
even II il be an exclusive contract 1t
would seem that under the definition OF
Mr.. Justice Story II can not be considered
as granting monopoly In law. The case
OF the New Orleans Gas Light Cor pahy
VS.. The Louisiana Light and Heat Pro-
duoing Company, lis U. s.. $50, arose from
the comfiictlng interest OF two gas com
panies, the oider OF which han Detn grant
eu IN express terms an exclusive priylleke
o. supplying the Guy OF New orvnns ana
lhe people tnereof with gas. ana the suit
was 70 enloih the luhior company from
pu',"iie its Woihh I" conlpete Win 'oin-
~, ."' ousuNe i.ai'". speah'nb ioI
NV suP,u ipe 'o"' ~ the uh'teu ot"'es
~, .os iansuese 40 .v,."~s neN,s'a'ion VI
IT, tha, - j, NV Inoie ,o we opJe.-
TO- ,t;ae, 80 ~ u ~ i.o''po's' p.5nene
, ,.,,i, ~. 'nt"si"s III an oIuIn"ly
,i,h, "a 81, 49, .,n "s W. ,,.,t =.
he riebt "a d,n NJ y, Vn"",, a ,,.
nnblic wavs NJ Nan f,rIoans nd n,aca
there,, Mines and r,ain. ~ thc a,s,r IN
tion of pas for nuhjic a,a rri,,o,a 49,, a.
n franchise The nr,vi,eoe Of exorc sIs =.
which could only he aranted bv the stn,S
or Inv tho m,,nicin,I yoyernmcr, a, ,hat
city acting under legIsIntiye outhorItv To
the same effect is tbe deesion ~ IN, an,
prone court of louisiana in Crescsnt CIV
Gas Light Company Va New orleans G.s
Light COMPANY, ri Louisiana ~
The right TO operate gas works and Ia
illuminate city is not an ancient or usuaj
occuIattcn OF citizens generally. No onS
has the right TO dig ND streets. Law down
gas lipts, erect lanp posts and cnrry on
The business of lighting the streets anl
liz uses OF the cIty Of Nav Orl,ans withou,
sreciaI autbor.tv from Inc ,,oyereign. ii
is a franchise belonging 10 ,he state. and
In the exercise of the uolIcs mower tht
state could carry on tho business itself OF
select one of several agents 10 do so. In
Bridge Projectors VS., Uoboken COMPANY
/ Wall 1ls. II WAS decided that the statue
NJ New Jersey empowering certain com.
,,Issieners IN contract Ter ,ate building al
n brldgc over the u1ck,n,ack river. AM
nroviiing not only that said contract shoul,
he valid on The narties contracting as well
as en- Inc state OF New Jersey. but thai 4
shouId M, no Io,vfu, Tor any ,,oraon n,
,,,,.e,,, a,a,,,r g., .,ao, az, ..ha, l,a,,,