Arizona republican., 1899-01-21

! tend the bond election. But Us to the l right of the city to vote bonds, there could be no legal doubt
 The power of city councils, MT. Chalmers said, to provide public works
 was extensive, but municipal bodies
 were prevented from doing two things creating monopolies and entering into unreasonable contracts. It was not necessary, the speaker said that the terms granting a monopoly should be explicit If the conditions were
 such as to exclude competition they
 were such as would constitu a mo-
 nopoly Here he req from the Gardi-
 ner franchise under which the ci5y
 was bound for a term of twenty-five years to pay the company rental to the exclusion Of any other company
 which should desire to enter the city
 on equal terms. MT. Chalmers then
 cited the case of the city of Brenham. Tex, vs the Brenham Water com panay, which was in all points similar
 to the one in hand. The clause in the
 Gardiner franchise on which the friends of the water company relied
 were word for word similar to the cor responding clause in the Brenham
 franchise That afranchise was, in
 fact, more advantageous to the munici-
 palfty in that the city was given the
 privilege of purchasing the water
 works at the end of ten years, whereas
 the city of Phoenix could not avail it.
 self of such q privilege until the ex
 piration of twenty-five years.
 The supreme court Of Texas held
 that the Brenham franchise was in- valid for the reasons above mentioned
 and for the further reason that the city council had not power to sur render it's authority to legislate on be- half of the municipality as it had done in thus binding itself to the water com- pany At this point MT. Chalmers pro- ceeded to remove the skin from Judge Baker, who at the anti-bond meeting had cited the case of the Fergus Falls Water company against the ely of Fergus Falls, in which the supreme court of Minnesota had sustained the franchise. MT. Chalmers showed that Judge Baker had net read the whole of the opinion of the court, but had omit ted the latter part iCf it which sup ported the theory that Mr Chalmers had advanced with reference to the Phoenix case and had been held by the Texas supreme court in the BreR ham case.
 In the Fergus Falls case the applica- tion to invalidate 1he contract had not been made until ten years had eX- pired, when the city had come into relief It could purchase the works if it desired and the monopoly no longer existed. Time had modified the contract. In that opinion MT Chal mers showed the court had stated that if the validity of the contract had been called into question while the city was without any other form of relief, it might have been declared invalid. MT. Chalmers concluded by touching Judge Baker up again. The judge had been for years expending his breath in infuriated howls against mouopOlies, yet he was now pleading the cause of Q monopoly of most exclusive character and enc which was without legal right to exist.
 MT. Chalmers address was extremely logical and was given force and direct ness by the disinterestedness of the speaker. It was more a judicial ut terance than lawyers argument.
 MT. Chalmers was succeeded by Mayor Adams who spoke of the neces- sity of the water works He prefaced his address by presentation Of the financial conditions which confronted the city council. The revenues Of the city were about S42,000, and the neces- | Sary expenditures for running expenses | were S36 ,000, leaving only $6,000 to be expended in improvements He made the astounding showing that 25 cents | Cl every dollar of the taxes paid went for water. He then referred to the Virulent attack made upon him by Judge Baker at the anti-bond meeting. i He would make no reply, he said, to 1 the statements made at that time, but | would content himself with leaving | the case with the people of Phoenix | whom he had served as agent for near | ly two years. MT. Adams then pre- | scented some figures regarding water. | He first furnished from an official rec ord the financial condition of the | Phoenix Water company which was such that those of it's friends who had | bsen apprehensive regarding it's pres | perity might moderate their fears. | MT. Adams then took half dozen sys- tems, including those of Minneapolis. | Springfield, H., Rockford, H., Detroit | and COldwater, Mich, all under nu- nicipal control. He made comparisons | between them and the Phoenix system | regarding the revenue from consumers | and other sources, the cost of opera tion and the cost to consumers. At | Minneapolis the cost of water for a | house of five rooms is $1.50 Q year. In | Phoenix the cost of water for a house | of the same size was $1.50 for a single | month.
 The cost of pumping water to con- sumers in Detroit, the mayor showed, | was l 14 cents per 900 gallons. Under | the Phoenix company's cor rtract it | was possible to charge consumers 40 i cents, and as a matter of fact they were l charged 15 cents. Then MT Adams took an average of the cost for various