The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1899-11-25
Council Has No Power to Improve
Waterworks.
FAMOUS CASE DECIDED
INJUNCTION OF NELDEN. WALK
Err AND DOOLY SUSTAINED.
Supreme Court Holds That a Later
Act of the Legislature Repealed
the Provision Giving Council
Power to Make Improvements
Work Must Be Done By Contract.

The supreme court yesterday affirmed
the decision of Judge Hiles, rendered
last summer, in granting an order
restraining the mayor and the city
council of Salt Lake City from pro-
ceeding with the work of improving the
waterworks system at a cost of about
$4,000 and of constructing a bridge
across the Jordan river on Ninth
North street at cost of 81, 5OO
The action was instituted last April
by w. a. Nelden. NJ H. Walker and
j. e. Dooly to restrain the city authori-
ties from having this work done by day
labor under the supervision of the city
engineer and the superintendent of
waterworkS, the contention of the petit
TONERS being that under the law only
the board of public works has author
lty to have such work done by lowest
bidders under contracts, subject, how
ever, to the councils approval. Judge
HileS. decided the issues in favor of the
three plaintiffs, who We're induced by
the city engineer and the board of
public works to commence the injunc-
ton proceedings.
An appeal was taken by the mayor
and the council, in the belief that the
decision was contrary to law. City At
torney Hall argued the issues on appeal
for the plaintiffs on the 1St instant
and City Attorney-elect Stephens
represented the respondents.
Points In Contention.
1t was contended by appellants that
a section in the city charter, in force
since 1888, gave full authority to the
council to provide by ordinance for the
construction and maintenance of water
works and bridge improvements, and
that an ordinance enacted Hereunder
slfar for
superintendent of waterworks the
powers under which is was proposed to
expend the 100000 for improving the
pipe distribution system
respondents set up that the legisla-
tive act of 1890. creating the board of
public works repealed the section in the
municipal charter relied upon by ap-
pellants. By law the duties and powers
of the board are defined to be to make
contracts on behalf of the city for the
performance of all such work and all
such improvements, except for public
buildings, as may be ordered by the
city council, subject, however, to the
councils approval. The law quoted
also gives authority to the board to
supervise the performance of all such
work.
New Law Repealed the Old.
While no express words of repeal are
embraced in this enactment of 1890. the
supreme court is of the opinion that it
was clearly the intention of the legis-
lature to take from the council the
powers and duties of performing public
work of the kinds mentioned and de-
volve them upon the board of public
works, created specially for the pur-
pose. In this the supreme court finds
the later enactment operated, and was
so intended, as a repeal of the former
10 no ole
city ordinance upon the subject is
necessarily in conflict with the state
law and therefore imperative, since the ,
powers of city councils are strictly |,
limited to those contained in the statu- |
tory grant and the council is restricted !
by law to the performance of any duty |
or execution of work to the mode |
specified in the statute.
Injunction Properly Granted.
The concluding portion of the opinion |
states: In refusing to permit the
board of public works to act in accord |
ance with law and in directing the |
superintendent of waterworks and city |
engineer to construct the improvements |
referred TO in the complaint indepen- |
dent of said board of public works the |
defendants were acting without author |
ity of law and the injunction must be
held to have been properly granted.
Inc H1ulnSS OF TACT as entered were /
justified by the facts and the law as
we find it. The judgment of the dis
trict court is affirmed, with COSTS
Judge Bartch's Reasoning.
The opinion was written by Justice
Miner and concurred in without quail
fication by Justice Baskn. Chief /
Justice Bartch concurred in the judg-
ment of his associates on the bench,
but not in that part of the opinion
which holds that some of the provisions,
without showing clearly which, of sec
ton 206, revised statutes, the city
charter act, are contradictory to and
repealed by chapter Is. the later en-
actment creating the board of public
works. Justice Bartch holds that the
power to make contracts for the cree
ton of improvements ordered by the
city council must be exercised in the
mode pointed out in chapter IS. Viewed
thus, the chief justice is of the opinion
that all the provisions of the statute
can be read together and each one
given effect agreeably to the elernen-
tary principle of statutory construc-
ton that the various provisions of Iegis-
lative enactment ought to be so con-
if possible, as to give effect to