The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1898-06-01

irac. for water supply, and u wes
hs.d that tie clsy had no power TO con-
uact for 20 long term.
in dIspcssny OF the case 1t was said.
'sTke officers Ut the oity--the mem
bers OF the uouncil-are trustees Of the
public. There can be no doubt that thu
RICH, 10 regulate the lighting OF tho
streets and to furnish means for tDe
came by taxation, Is, In It's nature.
legislative power. II concerns the
whole public OF the city. The effect VI
the contract in question, BY the city
authorities in October 1862 If valid.
was TO bind their successors for ten
years as 90 those matters OF iegisias
iion. II il be conceded that the power
existed, as claimed, then II pracii ally
follows that at the end Of the term In
1879, contract may be made by their
successors without limit and which
may bind the public indefinitely. ! am
unwilling to sanction prln-ple which,
in case like this, would lead 10 such
results. The safer rule IS 10 hold the
officers O; municipality 10 rigid ac-
oonntabllity In the discharge OF their
trust. In all cases of contract TO run
for years the authority 10 make then
should be clear. because they Involve
pecuniary liability and II Is tax
principles asserted in the case az Canal
Company VS.. St Louis. Dillon. 81.
lead to the same result.
Another fact, tho charter of The city
of Houston in effect at the time the
contract was made with the Citizens
Electric Light company contained this
provision. relating 10 the power OF the
city TO PROVIDE for lighting the streets.
to-wit: TO provide FOR lighting tho
streets by gas. electricity or other
means. and for this purpose may es-
tabl!sh gas works or electric works for
the manufacture of gas or electricity
for the nee Of the city AMI the inhab-
iiants thereof at cost price II VIII he
noticed from the above that AZ the time
tho contract was made the legislature
provided that the city could establish
IT, own electric light WORKS. Since then
b. net OF the last legislature the ely
Is given the power TO establish and
maintain IT'S own electric light plant,
ana manner OF establishing said plant
is provided for, II can hardly be said
that the former council could bind the
city aud prevent legislative c0utrol
tlAroof The authorities ARE lhat one
council has no such authority ORIG,
mord County Gaslight Company vs..
MiddlGown 80 New York 33i Waco
Water Company vs.. CITY Of Waco. -
s. ". Rep. Gijj
In the case OF the City Of Austin vs.
Male. - Tr&aa $50 the question was
raised whether or not the city of Aus
tin could provide other means for on
feiiiug water other than that made by
the city with the water works com
peny. and our supreme court says
Tho argument comes down to luis.
that whenever clty has made a con-
tract with A col-Qany able and willing
20 supply IL with the necessary water
and lights teriniunhlc IL may be ~ tho
cilys option and burdansomo IN ~
terms. lE power Is exhausted and any
attempt to procure water and light b.
other means is ultra wires and void.
Such an asgumcnt can not be main
tanned -
secondly, tho contract Ia not hindirs
On tn city because II Ia exclusive I'm IL
rature aud Ia the light OF our DECISIONS
monopoly acI void. In the above
dted case Of the City Of Bivunam Vi
Water Company Il was held that a con
tract to furnish the city with water
Tor twenty five years was in the ua-
ture 81 q monopoly and void. that
contract need not continue Indefinitely
a. 20 amount 20 perpetuty; h ia
enough that II b. exclusive for n period
of time Tho nppr.ee ~ ,ha co,trac,
bptweon The city ana ia. clec,r,c l,eht
comnanv Ia "Th.t mo mia cn.,,r.,,,.
for tho consideration hnr,,nafter nam
hrrohv contracts and aproes 10 gmr,,ish
Tho ciy Of Ilousinn ei,ch ,,,r,hnr az
electric arc Iamn. ~ 1000 c,nr,t1 ,,,,,,.o,
as tbn said CIV may frnn i'm, ~ t,,,,
reoulro
II MOI only onao,,ors "a ,,,d .to 49,.
for an lights maj arc ncolnd -, IA
time nj mo mnktnp ~ ~. ccrt,.,", ,''t
for ali futt,rc lime ,,ntu tho ..,,,tr,,,tr
Of the contraei
II the contract ,v,. ,,,,r,,, a. r,,,t,,
a given number NJ Ii,,b,s c,,S ,.'a. ~
Tho civ "A nav h, s,td ~ "
tract was no, cxcl,s, n'' ~ WI
ptpv,nt thc c,tv - Nv, as i. u'u u's
lfcm any Other .ourco w,
Works COMPANY vs. CIV ., Vac ~
S, w. Rem. 675O nut IN hi. ,nnt,,a =
tia, CITY obligated 70 t,ite an ~ ,i''n,,
that II may from ,,uo :, tt,,a n,.,is4
from tho sald elcctrIr W,h, o,,, $3.50 y
and unter Inc a,ri., ,cr,,,, any,, '1 ,a,.n
ms conirnrt thn r,,y -, a." "" 49, ~ !,
not nroyide Iipht ,ro,r az, s,,,ar euu.u
than that furni.hca hv "a c,,, nu,.
Electric IIrht ro,nnary Nh ~ Ii.'NVu'
,lr.iI,n ~ 10 contr,r, :,
oorrorat,on IN ,bis sta,o ~, ~,
ho,'n1 Nv, .,,oh ','S 80 '"h hot or
~ Nntrr con,ra ~ ~ e"u',n
C!iv Of Austin rs %,IIs &, r "a 90
AIrcIt rs 10 ri,, N"', ''',
TEXAS. 4seS !, Inc .hova ',m.o',u -
,irn ~ ~, .,,,,,,,,,. ~ W wa.