Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1899-11-24
soorsms Court Decision in Case
Of Nelden vs., Mayor Car"
COUNCIL HADYo AUTHORITY
Held that Board OfPubl'c WORKS '''
Right to Let Contract for r"0'
lie Improvement"

,e-work. Care and city Engineer N'''
cav IN proceed with the construction
arrangements to The citys water
works system. and the building Of
bridge across the Jordan by Day i'0oI'
and not BY contract to the highest o'u-
5.r tbe supreme court IN an opinion
handed down today holds that Mayor
clars and the Ci,y Council acted WIN
ont authority OF law and thus aiiiins
the Judgment Of the Third district
court. ogden Hies Judge
Action in the case was brought last
Aprn py W. A. Nolden, J. E pooV
and NH. walker to prevent the
,layor and city Council from con-
siruetlng about $4,000 worth Of i'm
movements to the ci,ys watervorNs
system. and the building Of q bridge
across the Jordan river at cost OF
$500
Plaintiffs to the suit contcnded that
under the law the letting Of conlrac"
for such improvement belonged to the
board OF public works and not to the
Superintendent Of waterworks OF Guy
engineer 49,
The case was tried before Judge
Hiies, who found the issues In favor OF
the plaintiffs. granting the Injunction
prayed for, and holding that the con-
strucuon Of the work referred 20 be-
longed 10 the board 0t public Works
that the city council had no authority
under the law 10 instruct the city en-
Rineer 20 purchase materials or employ
day labor for the construction OF the
bridge, that the mayor and council had
no authority 10 direct the superlnten-
dent Of waterworks 10 purchase ma
terial and proceed with the improve
ment OF the waterwOrks system nor
10 employ labor by the day, instead OF
letting the work out by contract
Mayor Clark and council appealed
from the judgment, claiming that the
findings Of the court were contrary 10
law They relied on subdivisions 30
and SG OF section 206 revised statutes
OF 1898, which gives the city council GER
tain powers IN constructing and Keep
ing In repair bridges, Vaducts and tun-
nels; the purchasing, leasing, con-
structing renting, managing and main
tanning any system OF waterw0rks,
etc. etc. on this point the supreme
court says:
Prior to 1890 section and Of the
revised ordinances Of 1892. page i9i,
were adopted By the city council; pro-
viding that the waterwOrks shall be
under the control OF the city council.
who may direct the construction OF
reservoirs, Watermains, Watertanks.
service pipes and fire hydrants that
may be Necessary; that the supeHnten-
dent Of wateTwo'ks shall. under the d.
Tection Of TIE city council have charge
Of the reservoirs, wotertanks ana ma
rhinery appurtenant 10 the waterw0rks,
and shall have the direction OF the lay
Ing Of water mains and putting IN SER
Vice pipes, and the regulation OF the
water supply. etc"
The act creating o board Of public
works, which took effect May LIST, 1880.
since the approval Of Sec. 200. session
avs OF 1890, page g, being as amended
'ecflons 2sS, 2S6, chapter lS revised
1898, the court holds contain
10 express words Of repeal III Sec.
SS Is repugnant 10 Sec 206. or so con-
radictory or lrreconcilably IN conflict
with Il that the two sections can not be
Iafmonized IN order 10 effect the pur-
.oses Of the enactment. then, says the
plnion, the later act may reDeal or
efeat another n by reasonable con-
truction the two can not be harmonized
ma made 10 stand together. When "a
tatute enumerates the persons and
hinss TO be affected by SIS provisions.
here Is an implied exclusion Of others
WIN respect 90 the case at bar the
curt says the statutes should b. con-
itfucd and considered according 10
what appears TO have been the lnten-
hon Of the legislature"
Sections Do and Is, the court SAYS. are
general provisions giving the council
l9htfol OF bridges and water works
'hut 10 Is clear the opinion reads that
me legislature was not satisfied with
these prcyisions OF the statute as an.
piled 90 cities Of the first class and
lions -s5 ana 2SG."
~ WIZ b. seem the opinion reads
that this hoard d 90 be selected by
TIM Mayor with the consent of M. CIV
council and it is rat authorized In
maze contracts ON behalf or tho cIty
l.l Inc Performance 0f WORK ANA .r,c.
N'h ot improvements unless tha work
or Improvements are ordered Is fha
council The contract uhan m4js bv
iAe board Is subject 90 tho auprovai M
ielettlon Of the City Council Ths
b'ifG Us authorized Do make r1rfr1afs
ON u.hai W. the city. and sUp.r.rt.1d
.ne performance Of such Work Ir.I .r.r.
u1h oi improvements I'm AN c.s.s ev.
cert TIE supervision and gargf,,.,t.'',,
o ~, ans sly mans market houses. and
o'hsr public buildings
lh. Delegation OF power rs special. 10
Street.-The board and for the plrt.sll3r
PURPOSE named. By ths a.t Ia Ia c,sar
,hdl me power conferred ur.7 tB.
ooard. Of public works was witrh..1 ana
Intended 10 be- withheld ana t4t.r f,,r,
the CltN Council ard clrf.rr.I rr.a1
Ihe board OF public works an. 4e+
Oly'.,es as q repeal 0f sub-I.yi.I.- sf
49, Ol lne former uct and @ UItb-
eI'"ai OF iSe authority and r.e..r
l ION. The city Council. iu go f5- .l., MS
!. aa, may have been conferred by sa,tiS7
.96 go"
X necessarily follows thar e,rr,rs
ana o. the revised oriiHar..s nv s5It
IN, me City Of 1899. page lH sd f5r 9s
S Ie3 are Inconsistent With on c,r,-7.
e,c,ofy 70 chapter %. are lBopsrat,ys
and % no eject. .' ~''''
uo,i tns powers Of the CITY Council ar.
ii,"v n strictly % those c1rr.rai
NY 'ne statutory grant. ana wf.1 H.
p9"er contained in he grant b. r.r',,.
~ ' of Otherwise. becomes rur.,.l. ''' Wv
, iS,op,rali'e an munlclpgI rrlts
, 49, t cease, ana on orjfua91s.
=, ,' ,' lhereunder become ln.r.r'rIt.
s5o 'sl as NE same are affected bv IN.
uTi.se - sf repeal in the grant n rover
NY, w "hlch The ordinance Ma. frs,osl
as, AS general rule. uherc oqj1Sr. NJ
az t,Os.poialion or a cts courrI N, .-
,bo., ~ esee's OF their corpor..a am.
snS The corporation b noi '' iog @l'
c1,,,, waen the statute under Vb.S5 nv.
o2'Rgrauon acts. or shspij st .'sN 1l'
'itis restricts lis e..t.. "NH NnI..