The sun., 1900-02-08
Thursday, February s, 1900.

LOCAL editorial opinion agrees in ad.
verse criticism of the course OF the Street
and Sewer Directors in giving away the
valuable street franchises OF this city.
We conclude therefore that this agree
ment ia indicative of public opinion in
this relation, and that the people gener-
ally are opposed to what their servants
have done in this matter; that they
would undo it now if they could and
vii! undo it when opportunity offers,
We think, too, that this is, particularly,
the opinion of the Street and Sewer Di-
Tectors who gave away these franchises,
and OF the officers of the Universal Light,
Heat and Power Company who accepted
the gift. Their great haste to consum-
mate the bargain is proof OF this. These
gentlemen doubtless remembered that on
a recent occasion public opinion forced
the Street and Sewer Directors to reverse
their action in somewhat similar case.
The directors on one side and the officers
of the recipient company are the other.
agreed that there should be no such slip
up, in this case. They were all present
when the decision was arrived at, al d
the lawyer of the company was
within call, for the immediate signing of
the gift deed, and the preventing, 30
far as legal distractions could prevent
1T, the undoinE of what had been done.
We say, without any doubt about it,
nat this hasty action, this unseemly
hasty action. is proof that the parties to
1t knew that it was wrong, and that the
people would not approve of it. The
argument of Mr.. Webster, in answer to
che. objections OF Mr.. Carter, that the
matter had been pending before the de.
partment since May last, and that ample
opportunity for discussion had been al
lowed does not suffice. 1t does not ex-
onerate the Street and Sewer Directors
from wrong doing. So far as the public are
aware, they, the directors, have not dis
cussed this matter at all; on the contrary.
5ne evidence is that the matter was al
lowed to lay over until the technical re-
qulrements of the law could be met and
1t was then railroaded through the de-
partment and concluded in haste, in
order to avoid discussion and anticipate
popular disapproval. The convincing
proof OF this is Mr.. Carers objection. If
opportunity had been given him his op-
position would have been manifest and
sustained by popular approval. As it
was, even he was gagged by the haste to
get bad job done.
This way of doing things is not in ac-
cord with good public service. 1t savors
of jobbery.
1t is not enough to say in this case
that the action taken is legal. There is
a doubt of even that. The question as 10
whether the Street and Sewer Directors
have unlimited authority over the
streets of the city is pending in the
courts, and has never been settled. That
Is the question in point as it now stands
before the chancellor in the Oxy. Hydro
gen case. The validity of the charter of
that company has been decided, and the
present litigation is to settle whether
this company has not the right to pro-
ceed in its use OF the bed OF the streets
without the consent of tie Street and
Sewer Directors, that body having re-
fused it permission to do so. This we
hold is challenge of the departments
authority-a challenge appealed to the
courts. 1t is reasonable, and we
hold, good law, to say that the
Street and Sewer Directors should
have in no way anticipated the
decision of the Court. In the railway
case recently appealed to the same court,
she Wilmington City Railway Company
was eDioined in just such an attempt.
Chief Justice Lore, in granting restrain
sng order, commanded the railway com
pany to stop its work of placing tracks
on the bed of streets, it's right to which
had been challenged, until the case in
chancery was settled. 1t is charged now
that the grant made to the Universal
Light, Heat and Power Company is in.
tended to, and does, shut the Oxy-
Company out of the streets of
this city. If either of these propositions
is true, applying the rule made by Chief
Justice Lore in the railway case, the
Street and Sewer Directors have exceed
ed their authority. II they have done
they have abrogated an act OF
the General Assembly granting the Oxy-
Hydrogen Company the right to lay its
mains in the streets, and seU aside the
decision of the chancellor that this com
pany had such legal right; and if they
have not done that, they have not sue
ceeded in giving the Light, Heat and
Power Company the absolute control tf
III streets of this city for the purpose
Of its charter.
What the Street and Sewer Directors
have done is evident. They have not
4 ,ted the part of good public servants
,hey have not sought the approval of the