The Mitchell capital. (Mitchell, Dakota [S.D.]) 1879-1918, 1899-01-06
TO RUN ITS COURSE
Electric Light Franchise
Will Stay Ten Years
Longer With Us.
City Attorney Advises the
Council Not to Fight
Against 1t.
BAPTlSTS ARE ENCOURAGED
BAPTlSTS ARE ENCOURAGED
Annual Meeting Revealed
a Healthy Condition
of the Church.
THE FRANCHISE STILL STANDS.

Withdrnws Fight Against Franchise.
There was present At the regular
meeting of the city council Tuesday
evening Aldermen Beckwith, Koch,
Potter, Indra, Grace and Mclaughlin,
Mayor Fullerton presiding over the
session. After the reading of the min
utes OF the previous meeting by Audi
tor Smith, and which stood approved,
the first matter taken up was the set
tlement of the electric light question.
Early in June the council adopted q
resolution declaring that if the electric
light plant. which was destroyed by
fire on May Is, was not rebuilt and the
lights in operation on the streets
within go days after the date of service
ON the company the franchise and con-
tract under which it operated should
be declared null and void and the
rights hereunder forfeited. On Aug.
10, the electric light plant was not in
operation, although it was under con-
struction, and the council reasoned it
had good opportunity to do away
with the twenty-year contract, and ac-
cordingly passed resolution declaring
the franchise null and void. The plant
was substantially rebuilt and on August
"a the light service was resumed, but
since that time the council has reject
ed all bills sent in by the company.
Two months ago the company instruct
ed it's attorney. J. l.. Hannett, to bring
suit against the city for the recovery of
the money, which would thus throw
the matter into the courts and would
determine the position of the city in
its action. Attorney Spangler was
asked for an opinion on the matter as
to the city's chances for winning in the
suit and at this meeting he went into
the question very thoroughly, citing
the circum stances under which the
franchise was granted in October, 1889.
One point he believed which would
have q strong bearing in the mind OF
the court or jury in determining tina,
the rights of the company are not for.
feited is the fact that during the time
the sixty days was running the city
was negotiating with the owner OF the
plant and franchise for the purchase ol
the same, and, besides, the plant was in
operation in fifteen days after the time
| limited by the council. He further
held that in his opinion the only ques
tion involved was whether the company
had been guilty OF negligence in re
building, and, if so, whether the coun
Gil had done anything that would cause
such negligence. The attorney coule
find nothing in the ordinance or it's con
dilions that would work a forfeiture
aud it would simply be q question for |
court of equity to decide from all th'
facts and circumstances surrounding
the transaction, and it was his belle
that court would declare the fran
chise not forfeited.
Attorney Hannett made some brie
remarks in behalf of the company cor
cerning the question at issue and tina
he had deferred bringing suit agains
the city because he felt sure that in
short time the council would come t
the conclusion that the franchise woul
be good in the courts. On motion {
Aid. Koch, seconded by Aid. Indra
was decided unanimously to allow tn
bill of 1881 which had accumulated du
ing the controversy and settles th
question of the franchise until its expi
atioa in 1909.
> Repoats of officers were then mad
l Weigher Nielsen showing he had r.
ceived $55.7O during December. Judg
Abbey had no police business to repo
b for l3.Q II which stanos as prett