The times., 1899-07-12
FRANCHISES IN CUBA.
MIR. GriEgs' Decision on the Legal
Status of Spnnfsh Grnuts


The Attorney General rendered two opin-
ions yesterday on matters submitted by
the War Department regarding the status
of concessions granted by the Spanish
authorities in Cuba before Spain had re-
linquished sovereignty over the island.
The first of these was upon the contract
of Michael J. Dady & CO., of Brooklyn,
for the construction of sewers and pave
| ments in the city of Havana, aggregating
s13.Oo0,000 in value, and which was held
up by the military authorities there. The
Attorney General does not directly pass
upon the validity of the contract but rec
ommends the reference of the subject TO
the municipal authorities of Havana for
| investigation as to the status of the con-
tract and as to whether public policy de-
manded the completion of the projected
Improvement
The second opinion was regarding the
| concession granted by the Spanish authori-
ties in 1892 to one Ceballos, to construct
street railways in the city of Havana.
which was also suspended by the Military
Governor. The Attorney General is of
the opinion that the concessionalres are
not distrained by the act of Congress Fro
hibiting the granting of franchises during
the military occupation, and that they
can proceed with the work OF constructing
the system of railroads.
In his opinion on the Dady case the
Attorney General touches generally on the
rights of municipal franchises in Cuba, as
affected by the transfer of sovereignty.
These were brought about by the follow
ing questions submitted by the Military
Governor of Cuba, in connection with the
Dady contract:
/. Are the Spanish laws and regulations OF
municipalities in the dependencies of Spain- now
in force in Cuba as they existed at the time the
island relinqushed by Spain?
.. Are the provisions of said laws and regnia,
tions which required the assent and approval OIL
the officers OF the Crown OF Spain to the various
acts of the municipal authorities now IN force
in Cuba?
g. Did the authority and power OF said officers
OF the Crown OF Spain under said laws and resu'
latiOns pass to the officers OF the United states
now in charge OF the government Of civil Affairs
in said island ard may such authority now be
exercised by said officers OF the United statesY
4 What direction and control over the action
of the municipal authorities OF Havana in the
manner of engaging in the construction OF pub
lie works for said city by contract. may properly
be exercised by the officers of the United States
now discharging the functions OF civil govern
ment in Cuba2
). Has Michael J. Dady & Co. any rights under
lating to the matter of constructing said works
according to the plans and specifications prepared
by them and adopted by the municipality?
6. Ii any rights. what; and are they preserved
by the late Treaty with Spain?
As to the rights of Dady & Co.. under the
contract alleged TO have been adopted by
the municipality, the Attorney General
does not deem it proper, nor is he able. to
answer definitely. If at the time the
Treaty of Paris was signed the firm had
any rights under their alleged contract
which could properly be called vested
rights those rights ne holds, are un-
doubtedIy preserved by the terms of the
treaty. The practical question for the
military authorities in Havana, however
was whether it was advisable, as a public
matter. and having in mind solely the
public interests, to permit contract
which was concededly inchoate, which in
yolved the expenditure of some S13, ,000, 900,
and which involved the tearing up and dis
turhance of the streets of the city IN n
manner which might greatly endanger the
public health, to be carried on at the pres
ent time. II the authorities were con-
WINGED that the firm had vested right or
a complete contract it would be within
their lawful province to suspend its exc
cution if they thought the public health
or other interests required. Such an in
terference with the exercise of vested
contract right would of course involve the
payment OF damages, but the public good
would be the higher law and would justify
the interference. No one had right to
insist upon the specific performance OF a
contract for the Improvement of streets In
a municipality. A city might suspend or
entirely abandon a project, although COW
cred by valid contract. subject only TO
the rights of the contractor, if damaged,
! TO recover compensation.
The matter seemed to the Attorney Gen.
| eral one for administration by the War
| Department He recommends the refer
! ence of the subject to the civil authorities
/ of Havana for an investigation OF the
status Of the Dady contract, and as to
( whether it was for the best interests OF
I the city that the Improvements contem-
/ plated should be carried out in the imme-
] diate future or abandoned. If the latter
| course were taken, to also ascertain the
| value of the rights OF Dady & Co.
The Attorney General, on the same line
of reasoning. holds that the railway COM
1 pany under the Cabellos or Tore conces-
/ sion should be permitted to proceed with
the same construction of its projected rail-
| way lines. The prohibition OF Congress
| against granting concessions does not, he
! holds. affect previous concessions, although
| the latter might. on the ground of public
| policy, be suspended. This concession TO
! construct and operate railways in certain
! streets of Havana was granted by the
! Spanish authorities in 1892 to Juan Cebal-
! los. The right was subsequently trans
! ferred to Tore and was disputed by the
Ferro Carl Urbano Omnibus de la Ha-
| bana. on the ground that they held the ex-
| elusive right for such roads. The Attor-
ney General does not settle this contention.
| which, he says. should be adjudicated by
the courts. His opinion is summed up as
| follows:
Upon the whole, I am of the opinion
! that the rights disclosed by the owners of
| the Tore concession are such as entitle
them to be permitted, under the permis-
/ sion of the municipal authorities. to pro-
ceed with the beneficial work which they
| desire to construct without the injunction
| of the military authorities. This Will not
/ interfere with an adjudication in the
courts of the ultimate and final rights of
| the parties. The action of the military
I authorities in Withholding permission 20
/ proceed with the work is tantamount to q
| preliminary injunction in a court of law.
| Applying the same principles that would
| be applied in such case if it were in a
| court of equity | can see no reason why
the owners of the Tore concession should
not be permitted at their own risk, to pro-
| ceed with the work which they desi!Se to
| construct, and l so advise you
Child Labor.
(From the Houston Post)