The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1898-10-07

rung down on the engagement IN Wnlcn
he is playing the star part until his
return. Two weeks hence was fixed
as the time to which the postponement
reaches.
OPENING STATEMENT
Prosecutor Callister made the open
ing statement. He read the several
documents on file in the city recorders
office pertaining to the granting, in De-
cember. 1896, of the franchise by the
city council to the Utah Power COM
panv to erect and maintain in the
streets of this city pole line for the
transmission of electrical energy, and
also the actions of the council on the
subject since that time. One of the
conditions in the franchise was that
the Utah Power company should erect,
on four months notice from the city
council of its intention to light the
streets, buying a current from the COM
pany at the rate of $25 per annum per
and crossarms for the city's lighting
scheme. Councilman Callister then
showed that such notice was served on
the company in April, 1897. Continuing.
the aggressive councilman declared
that the failure of the company to fur
nish poles and crossarms within the
year 1897. as required, operated as a
IOTIelIuGG Oh luG ITdllCulSt. IOlW III
standing that before the expiration of
the four months the city had con-
tracted with the Pioneer Electric Pow
err company, now part of the Union
company, to light the streets on a basis
Of Sc per lamp Il month for 400 arc
lights. He denied that the franchise
had ever been modified. AS to the con-
tention that the mayor, city attorney
and members of the old council had
M ri
was financially unable to illuminate
the streets as a municipal undertaking.
he declared it was not binding act of
the council in so informing the COM
pany
According to Councilman Callister,
the purpose of securing poles and cross
arms from the Utah Power company
was to do away with the multiplicity
of poles in the streets. The councils
action in contracting with the Pioneer
company for street lights was not in
consistent. because the terms of the
condition as to the poles and crossarms
was binding on the Utah company, but
optional with the city. The city could
compel the company to erect poles and
crossarms. but the municipality was
not obliged to use them nor to buy
wires and lamps, nor to buy current.
Mr.. Callister announced his belief
that the company, in it's answer and
pleadings, had admitted enough to
make its franchise revokable. He
would not now vote to devoke it if the
company would give valuable conces-
sions to the city as compensation for
the privilege now desired of extending
the pole line through the business dis
trict and the fire limits.
PLEAD a RELEASE.
Attorney P. L. Williams on behalf
of the Utah company. said: "In our
answer we plead that the city released
us by it's acts in contracting with the
Pioneer company for street lighting
1t is a we'll established principle that
a party to a contract cannot adjudi-
cate a controversy growing out of that
contract 1 take it, however, that
whatever the councils decision in this
matter is. it will not settle the ques-
ton"
City Attorney Hall-We do not admit
the facts you plead. You must prove
them.
Attorney Wflliams-wen, then, Mr..
Callister, I'll prove them by YOU. You
ought not to object to answering my
questions.
Reluctantly Councilman Callister
consented to be the Utah Power com
pany's main witness, but he preferred
to wait until he could testify in re-
buttal.
By a series of questions Mr.. Will
Jams drew from Councilman Callister
the fact that he, as chairman of the
committee on improvements, conducted
the negotiations on behalf of the city
with the Utah and Pioneer companies
for street lighting. The witness re-
fused to admit that the city was so
financially embarrassed last year that
it could not utilize the poles and cross
arms. Then followed a series of cues
lions by Mr.. Williams to test the good
faith on the city's part in the negotia-
tions of last year. for street lighting,
but nothing of great Importance that
is not already we'll known by the pub
lie, was ELECTED.
ARGUMENTS BY MR. WILLIAMS.
Attorney Williams, in the course of
his argument. said: The negotiations
between the city and the Utah Power
company for street lighting had moth
ing to do with the franchise. because
after the council gave notice to the
company to erect poles and crossarms
the city's act in contracting with the
Pioneer company for light was notice
to the company that the municipality
had concluded not to avail itself of the
poles and crossarms as stipulated in the
franchise condition, which condition
held good only during the year 1897 1t
is absurd to think that the council
wanted the poles and crossarns erect