Jamestown weekly alert. [volume] (Jamestown, Stutsman County, D.T. [N.D.]) 1882-1925, 1899-09-07
REASONS FOR VETO.
Mayor Steel Explains his Rea-
sons in a Communication
to City Council.

Mayor Steel has filed the following
communication with tho city clerk for
the consideration Of the council at it's
next meeting:
jamestown, N. D. Sept. ?, 1899.
Gentlemen of the City council:
At our last regular meeting you
passed ordinance No. 73 granting Ger
tain privileges and franchises to the
Jamestown Electric Llaht Company for
period of 20 years. ] hereby return
said ordinance to you without my ap-
proval.
It is with regret that I withhold my
approval of this ordinance and 1 desire
to acknowledge many courtesles to this
council, during the past year from the
present manager OF the jamestown
Electric Light company, and for that
reason and because I believe that this
council should do everything in reason
to encourage the investment of capital
and the building up Of Local enterprises
l would much prefer If could find my
self justified IN approving this ordi-
nance.
My reason for taking the above posi-
tion in this case is briefly this: The
jamestown Electro Light company sp
pears to now have franchise which
still has about eight years to run.
The voting Of the matter ls as follows:
In 1887 the then city council passed and
the then mayor approved ordinance No.
70 granting to the jamestown Electric
Light company, its successors and as
signs, license to use the streets and
alleys Of the CITY OF jamestown for q
period of 20 years; this ordinance among
other things provided that the company
should furnieh the city. for lighting the
streets, arc lights Of 1000 candle power
capacity, to be run according to the
Philadelphia all night schedule [so
called, at cost Of $95 per year for each
arc light. After the lapse of a few
years, the light company appears to
have refused to furnish the street arc
lights at above price, and for time the
CITY council paid an additional price;
but finally the dispute was apparently
thought to have ended by the passage
in 1892, by ordinance No. 1O4 which
cancelled and annulled ordinance No.
p.
have submitted the above facts to
the CITY attorney, and he advises me
that in his opinion when city council
grants franchise upon the strength OF
which money has been invested, that
body could not afterwards legally can
Gel the said franchise until the facts
wsrrsnting it in doing 60 had first been
judlclally determined; and as no such
proceedings appear to have been taken
IN this case, it would seem that said
ordinance No. 1O4 while it purported to
cancel ordinance No. 70 did not in
reality do 80, but that the latter is still
alive and in force.
1 am satisfied that when at our last
meeting you passed ordinance 73 you
we're under the impression that the
jamestown Electric Light company bad
present franchise but we're trespassers
on our streets, and that yon
were certainly right in taking the posi-
ton that the company should be gwen
some legal standing that would warrant
it in improving it's plant; but with the
fact. apparently established that this
company already has franchise that
has still years to run and in my opin-
ion fully as advantageous one for tho
city 40 that now proposed, think you
will agree with me that the time for
granting new franchise to this com.
psny should be at or about the time that
the present one expires, unless the CITY
could obtain some decided concessions
that would warrant an earlier action.
I hereby return ordinance No. 70
without my approval.
Respectfully submitted,
ALFRED STEEL,
Mayor.