The sun., 1900-02-09
Friday, February 8, 1900.

grant of street franchises by the Street
and Sewer Directors, Every Evening
says:
This outrageous action should not
stand. Even if the city was to receive
reasonable compensation for the grant,
the propriety Of the transaction would |
be exceedingly doubtful. But to have
the franchise given away is an outrage |
ous imposition upon the public.
So say we all!
This agreement, however, does not
undo the wrong. How may that be
done?
The easy way-the common sense way
out Of this dilema would be for the
Street and Sewer Directors to revise their
interpretation OF the law creating their
department, recognize reasonable limita-
tions to their authority and reconsider
their action. We have no doubt Of their
right to do this, nor Of their power to do
it effectively. The present directors have
made precedent for adopting this
course; they adopted it in case of really
less importance than this one, and il
they are amenable at all to the popular
sentiment in such matters, there is no
good reason why they should not repeat
that action. Having done wrong they
have now chance to show what fibre
there is in them-to persist in the wrong,
or, in manly way, acknowledge their
error and repair the injury.
Another error in the administration of
this department, the correction of which
would help in this matter, is the en-
ployment of special counsel in it's Law
business, to the exclusion Of the city
solicitor. We know Of cases in which
large fees have been paid TO special coun-
eel, and of which the city'solicitor ad-
mitted that he was entirely ignorant.
They held the bag and paid the score,
but were not represented as they should
have been by the officer Of their choice,
and whom they, by vote, authorized to
attend to their law business. This
special counsel practice gives rise
to some sugeestively curious situ-
ations. Counsel occasionally get
on opposite sides of the question at issue
at the same time. There is a case in
point now. W. 5. Hilies is counsel for
the Street and Sewer Directors, opposing
the right Of the Oxy-Hydrogen Company
to use the streets OF this city in pursu-
ance Of It's charter. He is also counsel for
the Wilmington and Brandywine Springs
Railway Company in its effort TO secure
the use oi the streets in pursuance vi It's
char'ef. Both cases occur under charters
granted bv the State Assembly: both
cases have heen evolved from the deci-
sion- u Jh. Street and Sewer Directors,
appeals from The decisions of that depart
ment. To the lay mind, at lcas'. these
cases appear similar, and how Lhis
learned attorney can win one, without
losing The other, is-well, il a question
of law.
Assuming that the facts Of other cases
in which special counsel has been em-
ployed, apply to the 0xy- hydrogen case
we presume that the City Solicitor knows
nething about it; that he is in no practi-
cal way Interested in its decision. This
is clearly wrong. lie ought to know.
He ought to be actively engaged in Sc
curing the city'a interests, either by
pushing the case through the Court, or
by exercising his authority as the city's
law officer to end prolonged, costly and
fruitlese litigation by disseminating this
suit. There ie opportunity here for
valuable public service.
$50
The source Of the trouble evolved out
OF the Street and Sewer Directors sd-
ninistration, ID the erroneous interprets.
tion Of the law that has been prevalent
in the department. From the beginning
it has been held in this department. that
its authority over the streets is absolute.
That nothing existing previously, or en-
acted into law aiterward, impaired OF
limited their authority; that the direc.
tors are law unto themselves, doing
what, for whom and for what, they
pleased. We suggest that there ia nc
American law OF which that is reason.
able Interpretation, and no authority,
under the law, so limitless. If this be
true the authority Of the Street and
Sewer Directors over the streets is Limit.
ed, not absolute; and that the
limit q Chat authority il to pre-,
vent the misuse OF the streets.
In order that they might exer.
else that authority it was provided
that users Of the streets foI any purpose
other than the ordinary purposes OF
travel and traffic, should ask the depart.
ment for their consent to the proposed
use OF the street or streets; the intent and
meaning Of the Law being chat all reason.
able requests, particularly those granted
by legal enactlnent, should be granted
and all unreasonable, injurious and un.